Datasets:

timaeus
/

pile-arxiv

Dataset card Data Studio Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · 100k rows

text stringlengths 4 2.78M	meta dict
--- abstract: 'We generalize W$^$-superrigidity results about Bernoulli actions of rigid groups to general mixing Gaussian actions. We thus obtain the following: If $\Gamma$ is any ICC group which is w-rigid (i.e. it contains an infinite normal subgroup with the relative property (T)) then any mixing Gaussian action $\Gamma \curvearrowright X$ is W$^$-superrigid. More precisely, if $\Lambda \curvearrowright Y$ is another free ergodic action such that the crossed-product von Neumann algebras are isomorphic $L^\infty(X) \rtimes \Gamma \simeq L^\infty(Y) \rtimes \Lambda$, then the actions are conjugate. We prove a similar statement whenever $\Gamma$ is a non-amenable ICC product of two infinite groups.' address: \| ENS Lyon\ UMPA UMR 5669\ 69364 Lyon cedex 7\ France author: - Rémi Boutonnet title: 'W$^$-superrigidity of mixing Gaussian actions of rigid groups' --- Introduction ============ Most known examples of finite von Neumann algebras are constructed from discrete groups or equivalence relations. Thus the question of understanding which data of the initial group or equivalence relation is remembered in the construction of the associated von Neumann algebra is fundamental if one wants to classify finite von Neumann algebras. This problem is usually very hard, but a dramatic progress has been made possible in the last decade thanks to Sorin Popa’s deformation/rigidity theory (see [@Po07b; @Ga10; @Va10a] for surveys). The first W$^$-rigidity result in the framework of group-measure space constructions is Popa’s strong rigidity theorem [@Po06a; @Po06b]. Assume that $\Gamma \curvearrowright X = X_0^\Gamma$ is a Bernoulli action and that $\Lambda \curvearrowright Y$ is a probability measure preserving (pmp) free ergodic action of an ICC w-rigid group (i.e. which contains an infinite normal subgroup with the relative property (T), [@Po06a]). Popa shows in [@Po06b] that if the crossed-product von Neumann algebras of these actions are isomorphic, then the actions are conjugate. This is the first result that deduces conjugacy of two actions out of an isomorphism of their crossed product von Neumann algebra. Later on, Ioana managed to prove the following very general W$^$-superrigidity result about Bernoulli shifts, which is a natural continuation to Popa’s strong rigidity result. For more historical information and results on $W^$-superrigidity, see for instance [@Pe09; @PV09; @HPV10; @Io11; @IPV11] and the introductions therein. Let $\Gamma$ be an ICC w-rigid group. Then the Bernoulli action $\Gamma \curvearrowright^\sigma [0,1]^\Gamma$ is W$^$-superrigid: Let $\rho$ be any free ergodic measure-preserving action of any group $\Lambda$. Denote by $M$ and $N$ the crossed-product von Neumann algebras associated with $\sigma$ and $\rho$ respectively, and assume that $M \simeq N$. Then $\Lambda$ is isomorphic to $\Gamma$, and the actions $\sigma$ and $\rho$ are conjugate. The rigidity of the von Neumann algebra in the theorem above comes from a tension between the property (T) of the group $\Gamma$ and the deformability of Bernoulli actions. This tension is exploited via Popa’s deformation/rigidity strategy. Using a similar strategy of proof, Ioana, Popa and Vaes later proved the W$^$-superrigidity of Bernoulli actions for other groups, relying this time on the spectral gap type rigidity discovered by Popa in [@Po08]. Let $\Gamma$ be a non-amenable ICC group which is the product of two infinite groups $\Gamma = \Gamma_1 \times \Gamma_2$. Then the Bernoulli action $\Gamma \curvearrowright^\sigma [0,1]^\Gamma$ of $\Gamma$ is W$^$-superrigid. Both of the proofs of Ioana’s theorem and Ioana-Popa-Vaes’ theorem seemed to deeply rely on the very particular structure of Bernoulli actions. We will show that this is not the case, and generalize these results to [Gaussian actions]{}. Let $\Gamma$ be a countable group and $\pi: \Gamma \rightarrow \mathcal{O}(H)$ an orthogonal representation of $\Gamma$ on a real Hilbert space $H$. Recall that there exist (see [@PS10] for instance) a standard probability space $(X,\mu)$ and a pmp action of $\Gamma$ on $X$, such that $H \subset L^2(X)$, as representations of $\Gamma$. This action is called the [Gaussian action]{} induced by the orthogonal representation $\pi$. We generalize Ioana’s result as follows. Let $\Gamma$ be an ICC w-rigid group and $\pi: \Gamma \rightarrow \mathcal{O}(H)$ any mixing orthogonal representation of $\Gamma$. Then the Gaussian action $\sigma_\pi$ associated with $\pi$ is W$^$-superrigid. However, in order to apply Popa’s spectral gap argument, one has to make an extra assumption on the initial representation $\pi$. Ioana-Popa-Vaes’ theorem then becomes a particular case of the following result. Let $\Gamma$ be a non-amenable ICC group which is the product of two infinite groups, and consider a mixing orthogonal representation $\pi: \Gamma \rightarrow \mathcal{O}(H)$ of $\Gamma$. Assume that some tensor power of $\pi$ is weakly contained in the regular representation. Then the Gaussian action $\sigma_\pi$ associated with $\pi$ is W$^$-superrigid. To prove Theorem A and Theorem B, we will adapt the proof used by Ioana and Ioana-Popa-Vaes to the context of Gaussian action. Let us recall the general strategy of their proof. Steps of the proof in the Bernoulli case. {#steps-of-the-proof-in-the-bernoulli-case. .unnumbered} ----------------------------------------- Let $\Gamma$ be a group as in theorem A or B and $\Gamma \curvearrowright X = [0,1]^\Gamma$ the corresponding Bernoulli action. Assume that $\Lambda \curvearrowright (Y,\nu)$ is another pmp, free ergodic action such that $$L^\infty(X)\rtimes \Gamma = L^\infty(Y) \rtimes \Lambda.$$ Put $A = L^\infty(X)$, $B = L^\infty(Y)$ and $M = A \rtimes \Gamma$. Thanks to Popa’s orbit equivalence superrigidity theorems [@IPV11 5.2 and 5.6] and [@Po08 Theorem 1.3], one only has to show that the two actions are orbit equivalent. More concretely it is enough to prove, by a result of Feldman and Moore [@FM77], that $B$ is unitaly conjugate to $A$ inside $M$. The main idea of the proof, due to Ioana, is to exploit the information given by the isomorphism $M = B \rtimes \Lambda$ via the dual co-action $$\begin{aligned} \Delta: M & \rightarrow & M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M \\ bv_s & \mapsto & bv_s \otimes v_s,\end{aligned}$$ $b \in B$, $s \in \Lambda$ ($v_s$, $s \in \Lambda$, denote the canonical unitaries corresponding to the action of $\Lambda$). This $$-homomorphism $\Delta$ allows us to play against each other two data of the single action $\Gamma \curvearrowright X$: the rigidity of $\Delta(L\Gamma)$, and the malleability of the algebra $M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M = (A {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}A) \rtimes (\Gamma \times \Gamma)$. Assume that $B$ is not unitarily conjugate to $A$, or equivalently that $B \nprec_M A$ by [@Po06c Theorem A.1]. We refer to Section 2.1 for the definition of Popa’s intertwining symbol “$\prec$". The rest of the proof can be divided into four steps, which lead to a contradiction. 1. One shows that there exists a unitary $u \in M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M$ such that $$u \Delta(L\Gamma) u^* \subset L\Gamma {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}L\Gamma.$$ 2. One further proves that the algebra $C := \Delta(A)' \cap (M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M)$ satisfies $$C \prec_{M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M} A {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}A.$$ 3. The previous steps, and an enhanced version of Popa’s conjugacy criterion [@Po06b Theorem 5.2] imply that roughly there exist a unitary $v \in M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M$, a group homomorphism $\delta : \Gamma \rightarrow \Gamma \times \Gamma$, and a character $\omega:\Gamma \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$ such that $$v\Delta(C)v^* = A {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}A \text{ and } v\Delta(u_g)v^* = \omega(g) u_{\delta(g)}, \, \forall g \in \Gamma.$$ 4. Using Step (3), one can now show that if a sequence $(x_n)$ in $M$ has Fourrier coefficient (with respect to the decomposition $M = A \rtimes \Gamma$) which tend to zero pointwise in norm $\Vert \cdot \Vert_2$, then this is also the case of the sequence $\Delta(x_n)$, with respect to the decomposition $M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M = (M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}A) \rtimes \Gamma$. This easily contradicts the fact that $B \nprec_M A$. What has to be adapted {#what-has-to-be-adapted .unnumbered} ---------------------- First note that Popa’s orbit equivalence superrigidity results ([@IPV11 5.2 and 5.6] and [@Po08 Theorem 1.3]) are still valid for Gaussian actions as in Theorem A or Theorem B. Thus we only have to prove Steps (1)-(4) for such Gaussian actions. Steps (3) and (4) are very general, and will work for any mixing action satisfying the conclusions of steps (1) and (2). Step (1) is the result of Popa’s deformation/rigidity strategy so it should not be specific to Bernoulli shifts. In [@IPV11], it was a direct consequence of [@IPV11 Corollary 4.3]. Using the results in [@Bo12], one can easily get the Gaussian counterpart of [@IPV11 Corollary 4.3], namely Corollary \[corIPV\]. Finally, Step (2) relies on a beautiful localization theorem due to Ioana, [@Io11 Theorem 6.1]. That theorem states that if $D$ is an abelian subalgebra of $M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M$ which is normalized by “enough" unitaries in $L(\Gamma \times \Gamma)$, then either $D' \cap (M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M) \prec A {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}A$, or $D \prec M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}L\Gamma$, or $D \prec L\Gamma {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M$. This theorem is applied to $D = \Delta(A)$. Using mixing properties, and the fact that $B \nprec A$, the last two cases cannot hold and Step (2) follows. [So the point of the whole proof of theorems A and B is to generalize Ioana’s localization theorem [@Io11 Theorem 6.1]]{}. It will be done in Section 3, Theorem \[keythm\]. We explain below the main difficulties to obtain such a generalization. Main difficulties in the generalization {#main-difficulties-in-the-generalization .unnumbered} --------------------------------------- Unlike Bernoulli shifts, general mixing Gaussian actions do not satisfy the following properties, which were crucial in Ioana’s argument. - [Cylinder structure]{}: If $\Gamma \curvearrowright [0,1]^\Gamma$ is a Bernoulli action, we call [finite cylinder subalgebra]{} a subalgebra of $A = L^\infty([0,1]^\Gamma)$ of the form $A_F = L^\infty([0,1]^F)$, for some finite subset $F \subset \Gamma$. Then the union of all finite cylinder subalgebras is a strongly dense $$-subalgebra $A_0$ of $A$, which is stable under the action of $\Gamma$. In fact, $A_0$ is a graded ${\mathbb{C}}\Gamma$-module; - [“strong compactness" property]{}: If $\Gamma \curvearrowright [0,1]^\Gamma$ is a Bernoulli action, there exist a strongly dense $$-subalgebra $A_0$ of $L^\infty([0,1]^\Gamma)$ such that for any $a,b \in A_0 \ominus {\mathbb{C}}$, $\langle \sigma_g(a),b \rangle = 0$ if $g \in \Gamma$ large enough. The use of the strong compactness property can be avoided using $\varepsilon$-orthogonality and a trick involving convex combinations. To avoid using the cylinder structure, the idea is to replace cylinders by general finite dimensional subsets of $L^\infty(X)$, and use a multiple mixing property automatically enjoyed by mixing Gaussian actions. A trace-preserving action $\Gamma \curvearrowright^\sigma A$ of a countable group on an abelian von Neumann algebra is [$2$-mixing]{} if for any $a, b, c \in A$, the quantity $\tau(a\sigma_{g}(b)\sigma_{h}(c))$ tends to $\tau(a)\tau(b)\tau(c)$ as $g, h, g^{-1}h$ tend to infinity. In fact, each step of the proof still holds for general $s$-malleable actions (in the sense of Popa [@Po08]) which are $2$-mixing: Let $\Gamma$ be an ICC group and $\Gamma \curvearrowright^\sigma (X,\mu)$ be a free ergodic action of $\Gamma$. Assume that $\sigma$ is $2$-mixing and $s$-malleable in the sense of Popa [@Po08] and that one of the following two conditions holds. - $\Gamma$ is w-rigid or - $\Gamma$ is non-amenable and is isomorphic to the product of two infinite groups, and some tensor power of the Koopman representation $\sigma_{\vert L^2(X) \ominus {\mathbb{C}}}$ is weakly contained in the regular representation of $\Gamma$. Then $\sigma$ is W$^$-superrigid. Organization of the article {#organization-of-the-article .unnumbered} --------------------------- Apart from the introduction, this article contains three other sections. Section 2 is the preliminary section, in which we recall Popa’s intertwining techniques, and several facts on Gaussian actions that we proved in [@Bo12]. Section 3 is devoted to proving Theorem \[keythm\], which generalizes [@Io11 Theorem 6.1]. Finally, an extra-section is devoted to constructing a large class of II$_1$-factors which are not isomorphic to group von Neumann algebras. This will be a direct application of Theorem \[keythm\] and the work of Ioana-Popa-Vaes. Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered} --------------- We warmly thank Cyril Houdayer and Adrian Ioana for their valuable advice and comments about this work. Preliminaries ============= Intertwining by bimodules ------------------------- We recall here an essential tool introduced by Popa, the so-called intertwining by bimodules’ theorem. \[intertwining\] Let $P,Q \subset M$ be finite von Neumann algebras (with possibly non-unital inclusions). Then the following are equivalent. - There exist projections $p \in P$, $q \in Q$, a normal $$-homomorphism $\psi: pPp \rightarrow qQq$, and a non-zero partial isometry $v \in pMq$ such that $xv = v\psi(x)$, for all $x \in pPp$; - There exists a $P$-$Q$ subbimodule $H$ of $L^2(1_PM1_Q)$ which has finite index when regarded as a right $Q$-module; - There is no net of unitaries $(u_i) \in \mathcal U(P)$ such that for all $x,y \in M$, $$\Vert E_Q(1_Qx^u_iy1_Q) \Vert_2 \rightarrow 0.$$ Following [@Po06a], if $P,Q \subset M$ satisfy these conditions, we say that [a corner of $P$ embeds into $Q$ inside $M$]{}, and we write $P \prec_M Q$. Assume that we are in the concrete situation where $M$ is of the form $M = B \rtimes \Gamma$ for some trace preserving action of $\Gamma$ on a finite von Neumann algebra and $Q = B$. Denote by $u_g, g \in \Gamma$ the canonical unitaries in $M$ implementing the action of $\Gamma$. Then it is easy to check that a subalgebra $P \subset M$ satisfies $P \nprec B$ if and only if there exists a net of unitaries $v_i \in \mathcal U(P)$ such that $$\Vert E_B(v_iu_g^) \Vert_2 \rightarrow 0, \, \forall g \in \Gamma.$$ This result can be improved as follows. \[ioanascriterion\] Let $\Gamma \curvearrowright B$ be a trace preserving action on a finite von Neumann algebra $(B,\tau)$. Put $M = B \rtimes \Gamma$, and let $P \subset M$ be a von Neumann subalgebra. Then $P \nprec B$ if and only if there exists a net of unitaries $v_i \in \mathcal U(P)$ such that $$\lim_n \left( \sup_{g \in \Gamma} \Vert E_B(v_iu_g^) \Vert_2 \right) = 0.$$ Another natural question one may wonder: What does it mean to embed into the group algebra $L\Gamma$ inside a crossed-product algebra $M = A \rtimes \Gamma$? In some specific circumstances, this implies the unitary conjugacy into $L\Gamma$, as the following standard result shows. We denote by $\mathcal{N}_M(Q) = \lbrace u \in \mathcal{U}(M), \, uQu^ = Q \rbrace$ the [normalizer]{} of a subalgebra $Q$ of a von Neumann algebra $M$. The [quasi-normalizer]{} $\mathcal{QN}_M(Q)$ of $Q$ in $M$ is the \-subalgebra of $M$ formed by $Q$-$Q$ finite elements. We recall that an element $x \in M$ is $Q$-$Q$ finite if there exist $x_1, \cdots, x_k \in M$ such that $$xQ \subset \sum_{i=1}^k Qx_i \text{ and } Qx \subset \sum_{i=1}^k x_iQ.$$ \[embedgroup\] Let $\Gamma \curvearrowright A$ be a free mixing action of an ICC group $\Gamma$ on an abelian von Neumann algebra, and let $N$ be a type II$_1$ factor. Put $M = (A \rtimes \Gamma) {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$, and assume that $Q \subset pMp$ is a von Neumann subalgebra such that $Q \nprec_M 1 \otimes N$. Put $P = \mathcal{QN}_{pMp}(Q)''$. 1. If $Q \prec_M L\Gamma {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$ then there exists a non-zero partial isometry $v \in pM$ such that $vv^ \in \mathcal Z(P)$ and $v^Pv \subset L\Gamma {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$. 2. If $rQ \prec_M L\Gamma {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$ for all $r \in Q' \cap pMp$ then there exists a unitary $u \in \mathcal U(M)$ such that $uPu^ \subset L\Gamma {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$. \(1) By assumption, there exist projections $p_0 \in Q$, $q \in L\Gamma {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$, a non-zero partial isometry $v \in p_0Mq$ and a \-homomorphism $\varphi : p_0Qp_0 \rightarrow q(L\Gamma {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N)q$ such that for all $x \in p_0Qp_0$, one has $xv = v\varphi(x)$. By [@Va08 Remark 3.8], one can assume that $\varphi(p_0Qp_0) \nprec_M 1 \otimes N$. Hence [@Po06a Theorem 3.1] implies that $\mathcal{QN}_{qMq}(\varphi(p_0Qp_0))'' \subset L\Gamma {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$. But we see that $v^Pv \subset \mathcal{QN}_{qMq}(\varphi(p_0Qp_0))''$. Moreover $vv^* \in p_0(Q' \cap M) \subset P$. However $vv^$ is not necessarily in $\mathcal Z(P)$ but one can modify $v$ as follows to obtain such a condition. Take partial isometries $v_1,\cdots,v_k \in P$ such that $v_i^v_i \leq vv^$, $i = 1,\cdots,k$ and $\sum_{i=1}^k v_iv_i^$ is a central projection in $P$. Since $L\Gamma {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$ is a factor, there exist partial isometries $w_1,\cdots,w_k \in L\Gamma {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$ such that $w_iw_i^* = v^v_i^v_iv$ and $w_iw_j^* = 0$, for all $1 \leq i\neq j \leq k$. Define a non-zero partial isometry by $w = \sum_i v_ivw_i \in pM$. We get - $ww^* = \sum_i v_ivw_iw_i^v^v_i^* = \sum_i v_iv_i^* \in \mathcal{Z}(P)$; - $w^Pw \subset \sum_i w_i^v^Pvw_i \subset L\Gamma {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$. \(2) Consider a maximal projection $r_0 \in Q' \cap pMp$ for which there exists a unitary $u \in \mathcal U(M)$ such that $u(r_0Pr_0)u^ \subset L\Gamma {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$. One has to show that $r_0 = p$. Otherwise we can cut by $r = p - r_0$, and we obtain an algebra $rQ \subset rMr$ such that $rQ \prec_M L\Gamma {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$ and $rQ \nprec_M 1 \otimes N$. Remark that $rPr \subset \mathcal{QN}_{rMr}(rQ)''$. Applying (1), we get that there exists a non-zero partial isometry $v \in rM$, such that $vv^* \in (rPr)' \cap rMr \subset (rQ)' \cap rMr$ and $v^(rPr)v \subset L\Gamma {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$. Since $L\Gamma {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$ is a factor, modifying $v$ if necessary, one can assume that $v^v \perp ur_0u^$. Now the following “cutting and pasting” argument contradicts the maximality of $r_0$. The partial isometry $w_0 = ur_0 + v^$ satisfies $w_0^w_0 = r_0 + vv^ \in Q' \cap pMp$ and $w_0(r_0 + vv^)Qw_0^ \subset L\Gamma$. Extending $w_0$ into a unitary, we obtain a $w \in \mathcal U(M)$ satisfying $w(r_0 + vv^)Qw^ \subset L\Gamma$. Gaussian actions {#gaussianactions} ---------------- To any orthogonal representation $\pi: \Gamma \rightarrow \mathcal O(H)$ of a discrete countable group, one can associate a trace preserving action $\sigma_\pi: \Gamma \curvearrowright A$ on an abelian von Neumann algebra, called the Gaussian action associated with $\pi$. This Gaussian action can be constructed as follows. For more explicit constructions, see [@BHV08 Appendix A.7] or [@PS10]. Consider the unique abelian finite von Neumann algebra $(A,\tau)$ generated by unitaries $(w(\xi))_{\xi \in H}$ such that: - $w(0) = 1$ and $w(\xi + \eta) = w(\xi)w(\eta)$, $w(\xi)^* = w(-\xi)$, for all $\xi,\eta \in H$; - $\tau(w(\xi)) = \exp(-\Vert \xi \Vert^2)$, for all $\xi \in H$. It is easy to check that these conditions imply that the vectors $(w(\xi))_{\xi \in H_{\mathbb{R}}}$ are linearly independent and span a weakly dense $^$-subalgebra of $A$. Then the Gaussian action $\sigma_\pi$ is defined by $(\sigma_\pi)_g(w(\xi)) = w(\pi(g)\xi)$, for all $g \in \Gamma, \xi \in H$. As explained in [@Fu07] or [@PS10], Gausssian actions are $s$-malleable in the sense of Popa [@Po08]: the rotation operators $\theta_t$, $t \in {\mathbb{R}}$ on $H \oplus H$ and the symmetry $\rho$ defined by $$\theta_t = \begin{pmatrix} \cos(\pi t/2) & -\sin(\pi t /2) \\ \sin(\pi t /2) & \cos(\pi t/2) \end{pmatrix} \text{ and } \rho = \begin{pmatrix} 1&0\\0&-1 \end{pmatrix}$$ give rise to a one-parameter group of automorphisms $\alpha_t$ and an automorphism $\beta$ of $A {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}A$, which commute with the diagonal action of $\Gamma$, and satisfy $\beta \circ \alpha_t = \alpha_{-t} \circ \beta$. Now consider the von Neumann algebras $M = A \rtimes \Gamma$ and $\tilde{M} = (A {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}A) \rtimes_{\sigma \otimes \sigma} \Gamma$. View $M$ as a subalgebra of $\tilde{M}$ using the identification $M \simeq (A {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}1)\rtimes \Gamma$. The automorphisms defined above then extend to automorphisms of $\tilde{M}$ still denoted $(\alpha_t)$ and $\beta$, in such a way that $\alpha_t(u_g) = \beta(u_g) = u_g$, for all $g \in \Gamma$. $(\alpha_t)$ is then easily seen to be an $s$-malleable deformation of the action, so it satisfies the so-called transversality property. \[transversality\] For any $x \in M$ and $t \in {\mathbb{R}}$ one has $$\Vert x - \alpha_{2t}(x) \Vert_2 \leq 2\Vert \alpha_t(x) - E_M \circ \alpha_t(x)\Vert_2.$$ With more conditions on the representation $\pi$, we also get the spectral gap property. \[spectralgap\] Assume that the representation $\pi$ is such that $\pi^{\otimes l}$ is weakly contained in the regular representation for some $l \geq 1$. Let $\omega \in \beta {\mathbb{N}}\setminus {\mathbb{N}}$ be a free ultrafilter on ${\mathbb{N}}$. Then for every subalgebra $Q \subset M$ with no amenable direct summand, one has $Q' \cap \tilde{M}^\omega \subset M^\omega$ In fact this lemma admits a relative version. Recall from [@OP07] that if $(M,\tau)$ is a finite von Neumann algebra, $p \in M$ a projection, and $Q \subset M$ and $P \subset pMp$ are subalgebras, one says that $P$ is [amenable relative to]{} $Q$ inside $M$ if there exists a $P$-central state $\varphi$ on $p\langle M,e_Q \rangle p$ such that $\varphi(pxp) = \tau(pxp)/\tau(p)$ for any $x \in M$. Here $\langle M,e_Q \rangle$ denotes Jones’ basic construction associated with the inclusion $Q \subset M$. Following [@IPV11 Section 2.4], $P$ is said to be [strongly non-amenable relative to]{} $Q$ if for all non-zero projection $p_1 \in P' \cap pMp$, $Pp_1$ is not amenable relative to $Q$. \[gspectralgap\] Assume that the representation $\pi$ is such that $\pi^{\otimes l}$ is weakly contained in the regular representation for some $l \geq 1$. Let $\omega \in \beta {\mathbb{N}}\setminus {\mathbb{N}}$ be a free ultrafilter on ${\mathbb{N}}$. Then for any subalgebra $Q \subset M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$ which is strongly non-amenable relative to $1 \otimes N$, one has $Q' \cap (\tilde{M} {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N)^\omega \subset Q' \cap (M{\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N)^\omega$. Deformation/rigidity results for Gaussian actions ------------------------------------------------- We mention here different versions of statements that we proved in [@Bo12] using deformation/rigidity arguments. The following result is a variation of [@Bo12 Theorem 3.4], with a formulation closer to [@IPV11 Theorem 4.2]. \[adapted IPV\] Assume that $\Gamma \curvearrowright A$ is the Gaussian action associated with a mixing representation of an ICC group $\Gamma$. Let $N$ be a II$_1$ factor. Put $M = A \rtimes \Gamma$ and define $(\alpha_t)$ as in section \[gaussianactions\]. Let $p \in M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$ and $Q \subset p(M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N)p$ be a subalgebra such that there exist $t_0 = 1/2^n$, $z \in M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$ and $c > 0$ satisfying $$\vert \tau((\alpha_{t_0} \otimes {\operatorname{id}})(u^)zu)\vert \geq c, \; \text{for all } u \in \mathcal U(Q).$$ Put $P = \mathcal{QN}_{p(M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N)p}(Q)''$. Then at least one of the following assertions holds. 1. $Q \prec 1 \otimes N$; 2. $P \prec A {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$; 3. There exists a non-zero partial isometry $v \in pM$ such that $vv^* \in \mathcal Z(P)$ and $v^Pv \subset L\Gamma {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$. Assume that (2) is not satisfied. Using the fact that $\pi$ is mixing, the same proof that the one of [@Bo12 Theorem 3.4] gives that $Q \prec L\Gamma {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$. Now if $Q \nprec 1 \otimes N$, Proposition \[embedgroup\](1) implies that (3) holds true. Now one can deduce the Gaussian version of [@IPV11 Corollary 4.3], which implies Step (1) of the proof of Theorems A and B. \[corIPV\] Assume that $\Gamma$ is ICC and let $\Gamma \curvearrowright A$ be a mixing Gaussian action. Put $M = A \rtimes \Gamma$. Let $N$ be a II$_1$ factor and $Q \subset p(M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N)p$ a subalgebra, for some $p \in M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$. Assume that we are in one of the following situations: - $Q \subset p(M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N)p$ has the relative property (T); - $Q' \cap p(M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N)p$ is strongly non-amenable relative to $1 \otimes N$ (see end of Section 2.2), and some tensor power of $\pi$ is weakly contained in the regular representation of $\Gamma$. Denote by $P = \mathcal{QN}_{p(M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N)p}(Q)''$. Then one of the following assertions is true. 1. $Q \prec 1 \otimes N$; 2. $P \prec A {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$; 3. There exists a unitary $v \in M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$ such that $v^Pv \subset L\Gamma {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$. The assumptions imply that the deformation $\alpha_t \otimes id$ converges to the identity uniformly on $(Q)_1 = \lbrace x \in Q, \Vert x \Vert \leq 1 \rbrace$ in $\Vert \cdot \Vert_2$. Indeed, if $Q \subset p(M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N)p$ has relative property (T), this is almost by definition. If $Q' \cap p(M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N)p$ is strongly non-amenable relative to $1 \otimes N$, then this is a consequence of spectral gap lemma \[gspectralgap\], and transversality property \[transversality\] (see the proof of [@Po08 Lemma 5.2]). Hence, for all $r \in Q' \cap pMp$, the subalgebra $rQ \subset rMr$ satisfies the assumpions of Theorem \[adapted IPV\]. Then if $Q \nprec 1 \otimes N$ and $P \nprec A {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$, Theorem \[adapted IPV\] applied to all such $rQ$’s implies in particular that for all $r \in Q' \cap pMp$, $rQ \prec L\Gamma {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$. Now (3) follows from Lemma \[embedgroup\](2). In [@Bo12], we also obtained a localization result (Theorem 3.8) for subalgebras of $M$ that commute inside $M^\omega$ with rigid subalgebras of $M^\omega$, for some free ultrafilter $\omega$ on ${\mathbb{N}}$. In fact, the same proof leads to the following improvement. We include a sketch of the proof for convenience. \[ultraproduct\] Let $\Gamma \curvearrowright A$ be a mixing Gaussian action. Put $M = A \rtimes \Gamma$ and consider a II$_1$ factor $N$. Assume that $(v_n)$ is a bounded sequence of elements in $M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$ such that $\alpha_t \otimes {\operatorname{id}}$ converges to the identity uniformly on the set $\lbrace v_n, n \in {\mathbb{N}}\rbrace$. Choose a free ultrafilter $\omega$ on ${\mathbb{N}}$, and denote by $D \subset M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N \subset (M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N)^\omega$ the subalgebra of elements that commute with the element $(v_n)_n \in (M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N)^\omega$. Put $P = \mathcal{QN}_{M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N}(D)''$. Then one of the following is true. 1. $(v_n)_n \in (A {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N)^\omega \rtimes \Gamma$; 2. $D \prec L\Gamma {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$; 3. $P \prec_M A {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N$. Assume that $(v_n)_n \notin (A {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N)^\omega \rtimes \Gamma$. We will show that the $D$ satisfies the assumptions of Theorem \[adapted IPV\]. Define $x = (x_n) = (v_n) - E_{(A {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N)^\omega \rtimes \Gamma}((v_n)) \neq 0$. Dividing $x$ if necessary by $\Vert x \Vert_2$, one can assume that $\Vert x \Vert_2 \leq 1$. For $F \subset \Gamma$ finite, denote by $P_F: L^2(M) \rightarrow L^2(M)$ the projection onto the closed linear span of elements of the form $xu_g$, $x \in A$ $g \in F$. One checks that: - $\alpha_t \otimes id$ converges to identity uniformly on $\lbrace x_n, n \in {\mathbb{N}}\rbrace$; - $\lim_n \Vert [x_n,u] \Vert_2 \rightarrow 0$, for any $u \in \mathcal U(D)$; - $\lim_n \Vert (P_F \otimes id)(x_n)\Vert_2 \rightarrow 0$, for any finite subset $F \subset \Gamma$. Using [@Va10b Lemma 3.8], one can show that this last condition implies that $$\lim_n \langle x_n \xi x_n^,\eta \rangle = 0, \forall \xi,\eta \in (L^2(\tilde{M}) \ominus L^2(M)) \otimes L^2(N).$$ Fix $\varepsilon > 0$. Then there exists a $t = 1/2^k$ such that $\Vert (\alpha_t \otimes id)(x_n) - x_n\Vert_2 < \varepsilon$, $\forall n$. Fix $u \in \mathcal U(D)$ and put $\delta_t(u) = (\alpha_t\otimes id)(u) - E_{M \otimes N}((\alpha_t \otimes id)(u))$. Then $\delta_t(u) \in (L^2(\tilde{M}) \ominus L^2(M)) \otimes L^2(N)$, and we get $$\begin{aligned} \lim_n \Vert \delta_t(u)x_n \Vert_2^2 & \approx_{2\varepsilon} \lim_n \langle \delta_t(ux_n),\delta_t(u)x_n \rangle\\ & \approx_{2\varepsilon} \lim_n \langle \delta_t(x_nu),\delta_t(u)x_n \rangle\\ & \approx_{4\varepsilon} \lim_n \langle x_n\delta_t(u)x_n^,\delta_t(u) \rangle = 0.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $\lim_n \Vert \delta_t(u)x_n \Vert_2^2 \leq 4\varepsilon$. But exactly as in the proof of Popa’s transversality lemma, one shows that for all $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $$\begin{aligned} \Vert (\alpha_{2t} \otimes id)(u)x_n - ux_n \Vert_2 & \leq \Vert (\alpha_t \otimes id)(u) x_n - (\alpha_{-t} \otimes id)(u)x_n\Vert_2 + 2\varepsilon\\ & \leq 2 \Vert \delta_t(u)x_n\Vert_2 + 2\varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, if $\varepsilon < 1$, we get that $\lim_n \Vert (\alpha_{2t} \otimes id)(u)x_n - ux_n \Vert_2 < 6\sqrt{\varepsilon}$. Put $z = E_{M {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}N}((x_nx_n^)_n)$. We have $$2\lim_n \Vert x_n \Vert_2^2 - 2\Re(\tau((\alpha_{2t} \otimes id)(u^)zu)) = \lim_n \Vert (\alpha_{2t} \otimes id)(u)x_n - ux_n \Vert_2^2 < 36\varepsilon.$$ If $\varepsilon$ was chosen to be small enough, this implies the result. \[adaptedioana\] For $i = 1,2$, consider mixing Gaussian actions $\Gamma_i \curvearrowright A_i$ and put $M_i = A_i \rtimes \Gamma_i$, $A = A_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}A_2$, $\Gamma = \Gamma_1 \times \Gamma_2$ and $M = M_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2 = A \rtimes \Gamma$. For $i = 1,2$, define $\tilde M_i$ and $(\alpha_t^i)$, as in section \[gaussianactions\], and denote by $\tilde M = \tilde{M}_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}\tilde{M}_2$ equipped with the deformation $(\alpha_t) = (\alpha^1_t \otimes \alpha^2_t)$. Assume that $(v_n)$ is a bounded sequence of elements in $M$ such that $\alpha_t$ converges uniformly to the identity on the set $\lbrace v_n, n \in {\mathbb{N}}\rbrace$. Choose a free ultrafilter $\omega$ on ${\mathbb{N}}$, and denote $D \subset M \subset M^\omega$ the subalgebra of elements that commute with the element $(v_n)_n \in M^\omega$. Put $P = \mathcal{QN}_M(D)''$. Then one of the following is true. 1. $(v_n)_n \in A^\omega \rtimes \Gamma$; 2. $D \prec_M L\Gamma_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2$ or $D \prec_M M_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}L\Gamma_2$; 3. $P \prec_M A_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2$ or $P \prec_M M_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}A_2$. Exactly as in the proof of [@Io11 Theorem 3.2] Claim 2, we get that if $\alpha_t$ converges uniformly on $\lbrace v_n, n \in {\mathbb{N}}\rbrace$, then so do $\alpha_t^1 \otimes id$ and ${\operatorname{id}}\otimes \alpha_t^2$. Thus if (2) and (3) are not satisfied, Theorem \[ultraproduct\] implies that $(v_n) \in \left( (A_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2)^\omega \rtimes \Gamma_1 \right) \cap \left( (M_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}A_2)^\omega \rtimes \Gamma_2 \right) = A^\omega \rtimes \Gamma$. $2$-mixing property ------------------- A trace-preserving action $\Gamma \curvearrowright^\sigma A$ of a countable group on an abelian von Neumann algebra is said to be [$2$-mixing]{} if for any $a, b, c \in A$, the quantity $\tau(a\sigma_{g}(b)\sigma_{h}(c))$ tends to $\tau(a)\tau(b)\tau(c)$ as $g, h, g^{-1}h$ tend to infinity. An action $\Gamma \curvearrowright^\sigma A$ is $2$-mixing if and only if for all $a, b, c \in A$, one has $$\vert \tau(a\sigma_g(b)\sigma_h(c)) - \tau(a)\tau(\sigma_g(b)\sigma_h(c)) \vert \rightarrow 0,$$ when $g \rightarrow \infty$, $h \rightarrow \infty$. The [if]{} part is straightforward. For the converse, assume that $\sigma$ is $2$-mixing. It is sufficient to show that if $a,b,c \in A$, with $\tau(a) = 0$, then $\tau(a\sigma_g(b)\sigma_h(c)) \rightarrow 0$, as $g,h \rightarrow \infty$. Assume by contradiction that there exist sequences $g_n, h_n \in \Gamma$ going to infinity, and $\delta > 0$ such that $\vert \tau(a\sigma_{g_n}(b)\sigma_{h_n}(c)) \vert \geq \delta$, for all $n$. Then two cases are possible: [Case 1.]{} The sequence $g_n^{-1}h_n$ is contained in a finite set. Then taking a subsequence if necessary, one can assume that $g_n^{-1}h_n = k$ is constant. Then for all $n$, we get $$\tau(a\sigma_{g_n}(b)\sigma_{h_n}(c)) = \tau(a\sigma_{g_n}(b\sigma_k(c)).$$ But since $\sigma$ is mixing this quantity tends to $0$ as $n$ tends to infinity. [Case 2.]{} The sequence $g_n^{-1}h_n$ is not contained in a finite set. Then taking a subsequence if necessary, one can assume that $g_n^{-1}h_n \rightarrow \infty$ when $n \rightarrow \infty$. Then the $2$-mixing implies that $\tau(a\sigma_{g_n}(b)\sigma_{h_n}(c)) \rightarrow 0$. In both cases, we get a contradiction. Of course any $2$-mixing action is mixing. The converse holds for Gaussian actions. If $\Gamma \curvearrowright^\sigma A$ is the Gaussian action associated with a mixing representation $\pi$ on $H$, then $\sigma$ is $2$-mixing. By a linearity/density argument, it is enough to prove that for all $\xi,\eta,\delta \in H$, and all sequences $g_n,h_n \in \Gamma$ tending to infinity, one has $$\lim_n \left[ \tau(\omega(\xi) \sigma_{g_n}(\omega(\eta))\sigma_{h_n}(\omega(\delta)))- \tau(\omega(\xi))\tau(\sigma_{g_n}(\omega(\eta))\sigma_{h_n}(\omega(\delta))) \right] = 0.$$ But one checks that: - $\tau(\omega(\xi) \sigma_{g_n}(\omega(\delta))\sigma_{h_n}(\omega(\delta))) = \exp(-\Vert \xi + \pi(g_n)\eta + \pi(h_n)\delta \Vert^2)$; - $\tau(\omega(\xi))\tau(\sigma_{g_n}(\omega(\eta))\sigma_{h_n}(\omega(\delta))) = \exp(-\Vert \xi \Vert^2 - \Vert \pi(g_n)\eta + \pi(h_n)\delta \Vert^2)$. The difference is easily seen to tend to $0$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$. The key step ============ We now state the key theorem from which Theorems A and B follow as explained in the introduction. \[keythm\] For $i = 1,2$, consider mixing Gaussian actions $\Gamma_i \curvearrowright A_i$ of discrete countable groups $\Gamma_i$, and put $M_i = A_i \rtimes \Gamma_i$, $A = A_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}A_2$, $\Gamma = \Gamma_1 \times \Gamma_2$ and $$M = M_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2 = A \rtimes \Gamma.$$ Let $t > 0$. Realize $(L\Gamma)^t \subset M^t$ by fixing an integer $n \geq t$ and $p \in L\Gamma \otimes M_n({\mathbb{C}})$ with trace $t/n$. Let $D \subset M^t$ be an abelian subalgebra, and denote by $\Lambda = \mathcal{N}_{M^t}(D) \cap \mathcal U((L\Gamma)^t)$ and make the following assumptions: (i) $\Lambda'' \nprec_M L\Gamma_1 \otimes 1$ and $\Lambda'' \nprec_M 1 \otimes L\Gamma_2$; (ii) $D \nprec L\Gamma_1 \otimes M_2$ and $D \nprec_M M_1 \otimes L\Gamma_2$. Denote by $C = D' \cap M^t$. Then for all projections $q \in \mathcal Z(C)$, $Cq \prec_M A$. Exactly as in the proof of [@IPV11 Theorem 5.1], we first show that it is sufficient to prove that $C \prec_M A$. Indeed, assume that we have shown that the assumptions of the theorem imply that $C \prec_M A$. Consider the set of projections $$\mathcal P = \lbrace q_1 \in \mathcal Z(C)\, \vert \, Cq \prec_M A, \text{ for all non-zero subprojections } q \in \mathcal{Z}(C)q_1 \rbrace.$$ Then $\mathcal P$ admits a unique maximal element $p_1 \in \mathcal Z(C)$. By uniqueness, $p_1$ commutes with the normalizer of $C$, and in particular with $\Lambda''$. Using [@Va10b Lemma 3.8] and assumption (i), we get that $p_1 \in (L\Gamma)^t$. We want to show that $p_1 = p (= 1_C)$. Otherwise, we can cut by $p-p_1$ and we see that $(p-p_1)D \subset (p-p_1)(M \otimes M_n({\mathbb{C}}))(p-p_1)$ satisfies the assumptions of the theorem. Thus $(p-p_1)C \prec_M A$. This contradicts the maximality of $p_1$. So the rest of the proof is devoted to showing that $C \prec_M A$. As in the proof of [@IPV11 Theorem 5.1], we assume that $t \leq 1$, so that $n$ can be chosen to be equal to $1$. This assumption largely simplifies notations, and does not hide any essential part of the proof. Note that the assumption (i) implies that there exists a sequence of unitary elements $v_n \in \mathcal U(pL\Gamma p)$ that normalize $D$ and such that $$\label{eq1} \Vert E_{L\Gamma_1 \otimes 1}(av_nb)\Vert_2 \rightarrow 0 \text{ and } \Vert E_{1 \otimes L\Gamma_2}(av_nb)\Vert_2 \rightarrow 0, \, \forall a,b \in M.$$ We will proceed in two steps to prove that $C \prec_M A$. In a first step we collect properties regarding the sequence $(v_n)$ or sequences of the form $(v_nav_n^)$, $a \in D$. In the second step we show the result, reasoning by contradiction. Before moving on to these two steps, we introduce some notations: - We denote by $u_g, g \in \Gamma$ the canonical unitaries in $M$ implementing the action of $\Gamma$; - For any element $x \in M$, we denote by $x = \sum_{g \in \Gamma} x_gu_g$ ($x_g \in A$ for all $g \in \Gamma$) its Fourier decomposition. - If $S \subset \Gamma$ is any subset, denote by $P_S: L^2(M) \rightarrow L^2(M)$ the projection onto the linear span of the vectors $au_g$, $a \in A$, $g \in S$. - If $K \subset A$ is a closed subspace, we denote by $Q_K: L^2(M) \rightarrow L^2(M)$ the projection onto the linear span of the vectors $au_g$, $a \in K$, $g \in \Gamma$. Warning for the sequel: “$g,h \in \Gamma$" means that $g$ and $h$ are two elements $(g_1,g_2)$ and $(h_1,h_2)$ of the product group $\Gamma = \Gamma_1 \times \Gamma_2$. It is different from “$(g,h) \in \Gamma$"! Step 1: Properties of the sequences $(v_nav_n^)$, $a \in D$ {#step-1-properties-of-the-sequences-v_nav_n-a-in-d .unnumbered} ------------------------------------------------------------ \[lem1\] For any free ultrafilter $\omega$ on ${\mathbb{N}}$, and any $a \in D$, the element $(v_nav_n^)_n \in M^\omega$ belongs to $A^\omega \rtimes \Gamma$. We will apply Corollary \[adaptedioana\]. Fix $a \in D$. Since the $v_n$’s are in $L\Gamma$, the deformation $\alpha_t$ introduced in the statement of Corollary \[adaptedioana\] converges uniformly on the set $\lbrace v_nav_n^, n \in {\mathbb{N}}\rbrace$. Thus Corollary \[adaptedioana\] implies that one of the following holds true: - $(v_nav_n^)_n \in A^\omega \rtimes \Gamma$; - $D \prec_M L\Gamma_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2$ or $D \prec_M M_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}L\Gamma_2$; - $P \prec_M A_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2$ or $P \prec_M M_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}A_2$, where $P = \mathcal N_{pMp}(D)''$. The second case is excluded by assumption, so we are left to showing that the third case is not possible. By symmetry, it is sufficient to show that $P \nprec_M A_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2$. But we claim that for all $x, y \in M$, $\Vert E_{A_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2}(xv_ny)\Vert_2 \rightarrow 0$. Since $v_n \in \mathcal{U}(P)$, this claim implies the result. By Kaplansky’s density theorem, and by linearity it is sufficient to prove the claim for $x$ and $y$ of the form $u_g \otimes 1$, $g \in \Gamma_1$. In particular $xv_ny$ lies in $L\Gamma$. So using the fact that $$\begin{matrix} A_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2 & \subset & M\\ \cup && \cup\\ 1 \otimes L\Gamma_2 & \subset & L\Gamma \end{matrix}$$ is a commuting square, \[eq1\] directly implies that $\Vert E_{A_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2}(xv_ny)\Vert_2 \rightarrow 0$. For an element $x \in M = L\Gamma$, denote by $h(x)$ the height of $x$: $h(x) = \sup_{g \in \Gamma} \vert x_g \vert$, where $x = \sum x_gu_g$ is the Fourier decomposition of $x$. \[lem2\] There exists $\delta > 0$ such that $h(v_n) > \delta$ for all $n$. Assume that the result is false. Taking a subsequence if necessary, we get that $h(v_n) \rightarrow 0$. Then we claim that for all finite subset $S \subset \Gamma$, and all $a \in (M \ominus (L\Gamma_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2)) \cap (M \ominus (M_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}L\Gamma_2))$, $$\lim_n \Vert P_S(v_nav_n^)\Vert_2 = 0.$$ Note that $(M \ominus (L\Gamma_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2)) \cap (M \ominus (M_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}L\Gamma_2))$ is the subset of elements in $M$ whose Fourier coefficients lie in the weak closure of $(A_1 \ominus {\mathbb{C}}1) \otimes (A_2 \ominus {\mathbb{C}}1)$. By a linearity/density argument, to prove this claim it is sufficient to show that for any sequence of unitaries $w_n \in \mathcal U(p L\Gamma p)$ and $a \otimes b \in (A_1 \ominus {\mathbb{C}}1) \otimes (A_2 \ominus {\mathbb{C}}1)$, $$\Vert E_A(v_n (a\otimes b) w_n) \Vert_2 \rightarrow 0.$$ Write $v_n = \sum_{g \in \Gamma} v_{n,g}u_g$ and $w_n = \sum_{g \in \Gamma} w_{n,g}u_g$. We have $$E_A(v_n (a \otimes b) w_n) = \sum_{g \in \Gamma} v_{n,g}w_{n,g^{-1}}\sigma_g(a \otimes b),$$ which leads to the formula: $$\label{eq2} \Vert E_A(v_n (a \otimes b) w_n) \Vert_2^2 = \sum_{g,g' \in \Gamma} v_{n,g}w_{n,g^{-1}}\overline{v_{n,g'}w_{n,g'^{-1}}} \tau(\sigma_g(a \otimes b)\sigma_{g'}(a^* \otimes b^)).$$ Fix $\varepsilon > 0$. Since the action $\Gamma_i \curvearrowright A_i$ is mixing for $i = 1,2$, there exist finite sets $F_i \subset \Gamma_i$ such that $\vert \tau((a \otimes b)\sigma_{(s,t)}(a^ \otimes b^))\vert = \vert \tau(a\sigma_s(a^))\tau(b\sigma_t(b^))\vert < \varepsilon$, if $(s,t) \notin F = F_1 \times F_2$. Now \[eq2\] and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality imply $$\begin{aligned} \Vert E_A(v_n (a \otimes b) w_n) \Vert_2^2 & \leq \sum_{g \in \Gamma} \sum_{g' \in gF} \vert v_{n,g}w_{n,g^{-1}}\overline{v_{n,g'}w_{n,g'^{-1}}} \tau(\sigma_g(a \otimes b)\sigma_{g'}(a^ \otimes b^))\vert + \varepsilon.\\ &\leq \Vert a \Vert_2^2 \Vert b \Vert_2^2 h(v_n) \vert F \vert \sum_{g \in \Gamma} \vert v_{n,g}w_{n,g^{-1}}\vert + \varepsilon\\ & \leq \Vert a \Vert_2^2 \Vert b \Vert_2^2 h(v_n) \vert F \vert + \varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $\limsup_n \Vert E_{A {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}A}(v_n (a \otimes b) w_n) \Vert_2^2 \leq \varepsilon$. Since $\varepsilon$ was arbitrary, we get the claim. Now take $\varepsilon' < \Vert p \Vert_2/4$. By assumption, $D \nprec_M L\Gamma_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2$ and $D \nprec_M M_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}L\Gamma_2$, so there exists $a \in \mathcal{U}(D)$ such that $$\Vert E_{L\Gamma_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2}(a)\Vert_2 < \varepsilon' \text{ and } \Vert E_{M_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}L\Gamma_2}(a)\Vert_2 < \varepsilon'.$$ By Lemma \[lem1\], the sequence $(v_nav_n^)_n$ belongs to $A^\omega \rtimes \Gamma$, so that there exists a finite subset $F \subset \Gamma$ such that $\Vert P_F(v_nav_n^) \Vert_2 \geq \Vert p \Vert_2 - \varepsilon'$. Thus if we Define $a_0 = a - E_{L\Gamma_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2}(a) - E_{M_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}L\Gamma_2}(a - E_{L\Gamma_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2}(a))$, we get $$\begin{aligned} \Vert p \Vert_2 - \varepsilon' & \leq \Vert P_F(v_nav_n^) \Vert_2 \\ &\leq \Vert P_F(v_n(a - E_{L\Gamma_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2}(a))v_n^) \Vert_2 + \varepsilon'\\ & \leq \Vert P_F(v_n a_0 v_n^) \Vert_2 + 3\varepsilon'.\end{aligned}$$ But $a_0$ is orthogonal to $L\Gamma_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2$ and $M_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}L\Gamma_2$, because the conditional expectations $E_{L\Gamma_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2}$ and $E_{M_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}L\Gamma_2}$ commute. Therefore, when $n$ goes to infinity, the claim implies that $\Vert P_F(v_na_0v_n^) \Vert_2 \rightarrow 0$ which leads to the absurd statement that $\Vert p \Vert_2 \leq 4\varepsilon' < \Vert p \Vert_2$. We end this paragraph by a lemma that localizes the Fourier coefficients of elements $v_nav_n^$ inside $A$, for a particular (fixed) $a \in D$. In fact, this lemma will be the starting point of our reasoning by contradiction in Step 2 below, being the initialization of an induction process. \[lem3\] For a well chosen $a \in \mathcal U(D)$, there exists a $\delta_0 > 0$, a finite dimensional subspace $K \subset (A_1 \ominus {\mathbb{C}}1) \otimes (A_2 \ominus {\mathbb{C}}1)$, and a sequence $(g_n,h_n) \in \Gamma$ such that: - $g_n,h_n \rightarrow \infty$, as $n \rightarrow \infty$; - $\liminf \Vert Q_{\sigma_{(g_n,h_n)}(K)}(v_nav_n^) \Vert_2 > \delta_0.$ Put $\delta_1 = \liminf h(v_n) > 0$ and consider a sequence $(g_n,h_n) \in \Gamma$ such that $\vert v_{n,(g_n,h_n)} \vert = h(v_n)$ for all $n$. Now \[eq1\] implies that the sequences $(g_n)$ and $(h_n)$ go to infinity with $n$. Moreover, we have $$\limsup_n \Vert v_n - v_{n,(g_n,h_n)}u_{(g_n,h_n)} \Vert_2 = \sqrt{\Vert p \Vert_2^2 - \delta_1^2}.$$ Take $\varepsilon > 0$ such that $\sqrt{\Vert p \Vert_2^2 - \delta_1^2} + 4\varepsilon < \Vert p \Vert_2$. By assumption (ii), there exists $a \in \mathcal{U}(D)$ such that $\Vert E_{L\Gamma_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2}(a) \Vert_2 < \varepsilon$ and $\Vert E_{M_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}L\Gamma_2}(a) \Vert_2 < \varepsilon$. Thus the element $a_1 = a - E_{L\Gamma_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2}(a) - E_{M_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}L\Gamma_2}(a - E_{L\Gamma_1 {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}M_2}(a))$ satisfies $\Vert a - a_1 \Vert_2 < 3\varepsilon$, and its Fourier coefficients are in $(A_1 \ominus {\mathbb{C}}1) {\, \overline{\otimes} \,}(A_2 \ominus {\mathbb{C}}1)$. We conclude that there exists a finite dimensional $K \subset (A_1 \ominus {\mathbb{C}}1) \otimes (A_2 \ominus {\mathbb{C}}1)$ such that, $\Vert a - Q_K(a) \Vert_2 < 4\varepsilon$. Finally, we get that $$\Vert v_nav_n^ - v_{n,(g_n,h_n)}u_{(g_n,h_n)}Q_K(a)v_n^* \Vert_2 < \sqrt{\Vert p\Vert_2^2 - \delta_1^2} + 4\varepsilon.$$ Since $v_{n,(g_n,h_n)}u_{(g_n,h_n)}Q_K(a)v_n^$ belongs to the image of the projection $Q_{\sigma_{(g_n,h_n)}(K)}$, we get the result with $\delta_0 > 0$ defined by $\Vert p \Vert_2^2 - \delta_0^2 = (\sqrt{\Vert p \Vert_2^2 - \delta_1^2} + 4\varepsilon)^2$. Step 2: We show that $C \prec_M A$ {#step-2-we-show-that-c-prec_m-a .unnumbered} ---------------------------------- For a finite subset $G \subset \Gamma$, finite dimensional subspaces $K_1,K_2 \subset A$ and $\lambda > 0$, define $$[K_1 \times \sigma_G(K_2)]^\lambda = {\operatorname{conv}}\lbrace \lambda a \sigma_g(b) \, \vert \, a \in K_1, b \in K_2, g \in G, \Vert a \Vert_2 \leq 1, \Vert b \Vert_2 \leq 1 \rbrace.$$ We have that $[K_1 \times \sigma_G(K_2)]^\lambda$ is a closed convex subset $\mathcal C$ of $A$ (being the convex hull of a compact subset in a finite dimensional vector space). Then the set $$\tilde{\mathcal C} = \lbrace \sum_{g \in \Gamma} \xi_g \otimes \delta_g \in L^2(M) \vert \, \forall g \in \Gamma, \xi_g \in \mathcal C \rbrace$$ is a closed convex subset of $L^2(M)$. Hence one can define the “orthogonal projection onto this set" $Q_{\mathcal C}: L^2(M) \rightarrow L^2(M)$ as follows. For $x \in L^2(M)$, $Q_{\mathcal C}(x)$ is the unique point of $\tilde{\mathcal{C}}$ such that $$\Vert x - Q_{\mathcal C}(x)\Vert = \inf_{y \in \tilde{\mathcal C}} \Vert x-y \Vert.$$ This notation is consistent with the previous notation $Q_K$: If $K \subset A$ is a finite dimensional subspace, then $Q_K(a) = Q_{\mathcal C}(a)$, where $\mathcal C = [{\mathbb{C}}1 \times \sigma_{\lbrace e \rbrace}(K)]^\lambda$ as soon as $\lambda \geq \Vert a \Vert_2$. Before getting into the heart of the proof, we check some easy properties of these convex sets. \[lem4\] Fix $\lambda > 0$ and finite dimensional subspaces $K_1,K_2 \subset A$. Then there exists a constant $\kappa > 0$ such that for all finite $G \subset \Gamma$, and all $x \in [K_1 \times \sigma_G(K_2)]^\lambda$, $$\Vert x \Vert_\infty \leq \kappa.$$ Since $K_1$ and $K_2$ are finite dimensional, there exists a constant $c > 0$ such that $\Vert a \Vert_\infty \leq c\Vert a \Vert_2$ for all $a \in K_1$ or $a \in K_2$. One sees that $\kappa = \lambda c^2$ satisfies the conclusion of the lemma. \[lem5\] For finite subsets $F, G \subset \Gamma$, and finite dimensional subspaces $K_1, K_2, K_1', K_2' \subset A$ and $\lambda,\lambda' > 0$, we have $$[K_1 \times \sigma_F(K_2)]^{\lambda} + [K_1' \times \sigma_G(K_2')]^{\lambda'} \subset [(K_1+K_1') \times \sigma_{G \cup F}(K_2+K_2')]^{\lambda + \lambda'}.$$ This is straightforward. [From now on, we assume by contradiction that $C \nprec_M A$.]{} The contradiction we are looking for is then a direct consequence of the following implication. Indeed, using Lemma \[lem3\], and iterating the implication enough times, we get the absurd statement that there exist unitaries $a_n = v_nav_n^$ and elements $b_n$ of the form $Q_{\mathcal C_n}(a_n)$ such that $\liminf_n \Vert a_n - b_n \Vert_2^2$ is negative. Fix $a \in \mathcal U(D)$ and put $a_n = v_nav_n^$ for all $n$. Assume that there exists a sequence of finite subsets $F_n\times G_n \subset \Gamma = \Gamma_1 \times \Gamma_2$, finite dimensional subspaces $K_1 \subset A$, $K_2 \subset (A_1 \ominus {\mathbb{C}}1) \otimes (A_2 \ominus {\mathbb{C}}1)$, $\lambda > 0$ and $\delta > 0$ such that: - $\sup_n \vert F_n \vert \vert G_n \vert < \infty$; - $F_n \rightarrow \infty$, $G_n \rightarrow \infty$; - $\limsup_n \Vert a_n - Q_{\mathcal C_n}(a_n)\Vert_2^2 < \Vert p \Vert_2^2 - \delta^2$, where $\mathcal C_n = [K_1 \times \sigma_{F_n\times G_n}(K_2)]^\lambda$. Then there exists a sequence of finite subsets $F_n'\times G_n' \subset \Gamma$, finite dimensional subspaces $K_1' \subset A$, $K_2' \subset (A_1 \ominus {\mathbb{C}}1) \otimes (A_2 \ominus {\mathbb{C}}1)$, and $\lambda' > 0$ such that: - $\sup_n \vert F_n' \vert \vert G_n' \vert < \infty$; - $F_n' \rightarrow \infty$, $G_n' \rightarrow \infty$; - $\limsup_n \Vert a_n - Q_{\mathcal C_n'}(a_n)\Vert_2^2 < \Vert p \Vert_2^2 - 3\delta^2/2$, where $\mathcal C_n' = [K_1' \times \sigma_{F_n' \times G_n'}(K_2')]^{\lambda'}$. The multiple mixing property will be used in the proof of this implication through the following lemma. \[lem6\] Let $x,y,z \in A_1 \otimes A_2$. For any sequences $g_n = (g_n^1,g_n^2)\in \Gamma$ and $h_n = (h_n^1,h_n^2) \in \Gamma$ such that $g_n^1,g_n^2,h_n^1,h_n^2 \rightarrow \infty$, we have $$\vert \tau(x\sigma_{g_n}(y)\sigma_{h_n}(z))- \tau(x)\tau(\sigma_{g_n}(y)\sigma_{h_n}(z)) \vert \rightarrow 0.$$ Without loss of generality, one can assume that $x = x_1 \otimes x_2$, $y = y_1 \otimes y_2$, $z = z_1 \otimes z_2$. We have - $\tau(x\sigma_{g_n}(y)\sigma_{h_n}(z)) = \tau(x_1\sigma_{g_n^1}(y_1)\sigma_{h_n^1}(z_1))\tau(x_2\sigma_{g_n^2}(y_2)\sigma_{h_n^2}(z_2))$; - $\tau(x)\tau(\sigma_{g_n}(y)\sigma_{h_n}(z)) = \tau(x_1)\tau(\sigma_{g_n^1}(y_1)\sigma_{h_n^1}(z_1))\tau(x_2)\tau(\sigma_{g_n^2}(y_2)\sigma_{h_n^2}(z_2))$. So the result follows directly from the multiple mixing property of the Gaussian actions $\Gamma_i \curvearrowright A_i$, $i=1,2$. Let $a$, $F_n$, $G_n$, $K_1$, $K_2$, $\lambda$, $\delta$ and $\mathcal C_n$ be as in the implication. Fix $\varepsilon > 0$, with $\varepsilon \ll \delta$. By Lemma \[lem1\] one can find $S \subset \Gamma$ finite such that $\Vert a_n - P_S(a_n)\Vert_2 \leq \varepsilon$, for all $n$. Hence we get that $\limsup_n \Vert a_n - P_S \circ Q_{\mathcal C_n}(a_n)\Vert_2 < \sqrt{\Vert p \Vert_2^2-\delta^2}+\varepsilon$. Now following Ioana’s idea, we will consider an element $d \in \mathcal U(C)$ with sufficiently spread out Fourier coefficients so that for $n$ large enough, $dP_S \circ Q_{\mathcal C_n}(a_n)d^$ is almost orthogonal to $P_S \circ Q_{\mathcal C_n}(a_n)$, while it is still close to $a_n$. Then the sum $dP_S \circ Q_{\mathcal C_n}(a_n)d^* + P_S \circ Q_{\mathcal C_n}(a_n)$ should be even closer to $a_n$. Let $\alpha > 0$ be a (finite) constant such that $\Vert x \Vert_\infty \leq \alpha \Vert x \Vert_2$, for all $x \in K_1$. Since $K_2 \subset (A_1 \ominus {\mathbb{C}}1) \otimes (A_2 \ominus {\mathbb{C}}1)$ is finite dimensional, the set $$L = \lbrace g \in \Gamma \, , \, \exists a,b \in K_2, \Vert a\Vert_2 \leq 1, \Vert b \Vert_2 \leq 1: \vert\langle \sigma_g(a),b\rangle \vert \geq \varepsilon/\vert S\vert^2\lambda^2\alpha^2 \rbrace$$ is finite. Hence for all $n$, $L_n = \cup_{g,h \in F_n\times G_n} gLh^{-1}$ is finite, with cardinal smaller or equal to $\vert F_n \vert^2 \vert G_n \vert^2 \vert L \vert$, which is itself majorized by some $N$, not depending on $n$. Since $C \nprec A$, Ioana’s intertwining criterion (Lemma \[ioanascriterion\]) implies that there exists $d \in \mathcal{U}(C)$ such that $\Vert P_F(d) \Vert_2 \leq \varepsilon/\kappa\vert S \vert$, whenever $\vert F \vert \leq N$, where $\kappa$ is given by Lemma \[lem4\] applied to $K_1$, $K_2$ and $\lambda$. By Kaplansky’s density theorem, one can find $d_0, d_1 \in M$, and $T = T_1 \times T_2 \subset \Gamma$ finite such that: - $d_i = P_T(d_i)$, $i = 0,1$; - $\Vert d_0 - d \Vert_2 \leq \min(\varepsilon,\varepsilon/\kappa\vert S \vert)$, $\Vert d_1 - d^* \Vert_2 \leq \varepsilon$; - $\Vert d_i \Vert_\infty \leq 1$, $i = 0,1$. Since $a_n \in D$ for all $n$ and $d \in C = D' \cap M$, we have $da_nd^* = a_n$. Thus for all $n$, $\Vert a_n - d_0a_nd_1 \Vert_2 \leq 2\varepsilon$, and so $$\limsup_n \Vert a_n - d_0P_S \circ Q_{\mathcal C_n}(a_n)d_1 \Vert_2 \leq \sqrt{\Vert p \Vert_2^2-\delta^2}+3\varepsilon.$$ Now, for all $n$, put $T_n = T \setminus L_n$. By definition of $d$, $\Vert P_T(d) - P_{T_n}(d) \Vert_2 \leq \varepsilon/\kappa\vert S \vert$, hence $\Vert d_0 - P_{T_n}(d_0) \Vert_2 \leq 3\varepsilon/\kappa\vert S \vert$. Notice that $\Vert P_S \circ Q_{\mathcal C_n}(a_n)\Vert_\infty \leq \kappa\vert S \vert$, which implies that $$\limsup_n \Vert a_n - P_{T_n}(d_0)P_S \circ Q_{\mathcal C_n}(a_n)d_1 \Vert_2 \leq \sqrt{\Vert p \Vert_2^2-\delta^2}+6\varepsilon.$$ Denote by $x_n = P_S \circ Q_{\mathcal C_n}(a_n)$ and $y_n = P_{T_n}(d_0)P_S \circ Q_{\mathcal C_n}(a_n)d_1$. We want to show that $\limsup_n \vert \langle x_n,y_n \rangle \vert$ is small. Write $d_0 = \sum_{g \in T}d_{0,g}u_g$, $a_n = \sum_h a_{n,h}u_h$, and $d_1 = \sum_{k \in T} d_{1,k}u_k$. We get $$\begin{aligned} \langle y_n , x_n \rangle & = \sum_{\substack{g \in T_n, h \in S, k \in T\\ ghk \in S}} \tau(d_{0,g}\sigma_{gh}(d_{1,k})\sigma_g(Q_{\mathcal C_n}(a_{n,h}))Q_{\mathcal C_n}(a_{n,ghk})^)\\ & = \sum_{\substack{g \in T, h \in S, k \in T\\ ghk \in S}} \mathbf{1}_{\lbrace g \in T_n \rbrace}\tau(d_{0,g}\sigma_{gh}(d_{1,k})\sigma_g(Q_{\mathcal C_n}(a_{n,h}))Q_{\mathcal C_n}(a_{n,ghk})^).\end{aligned}$$ [Claim.]{} For all fixed $x,y \in A$, and $g \in T$, there exists $n_0$ such that for all $n \geq n_0$, and all $a,b \in \mathcal C_n$, $$\vert \mathbf{1}_{\lbrace g \in T_n \rbrace}\tau(xy\sigma_g(a)b^) \rangle \vert \leq 2\varepsilon \Vert x \Vert_2 \Vert y \Vert_2/\vert S \vert^2.$$ To prove this claim, first recall that for all $n$, $\mathcal C_n = [K_1 \times \sigma_{F_n \times G_n}(K_2)]^\lambda$. Denote by $\tilde K_1 = {\operatorname{span}}\lbrace xy\sigma_g(a)b^, a,b \in K_1 \rbrace$. Since $\tilde K_1$ and $K_2$ have finite dimension and since $F_n,G_n \rightarrow \infty$, Lemma \[lem6\] implies that there exists $n_0$ such that for $n\geq n_0$, and for all $s,t \in F_n\times G_n$ one has $$\label{eq3} \sup_{\substack{a \in \tilde{K}_1, \Vert a \Vert_2 \leq 1\\ b,c \in K_2, \Vert b \Vert_2 \leq 1, \Vert c \Vert_2 \leq 1}} \vert \tau(a\sigma_{gs}(b)\sigma_t(c^)) - \tau(a)\tau(\sigma_{gs}(b)\sigma_t(c^))\vert \leq \varepsilon \Vert x \Vert_2 \Vert y \Vert_2/\vert S \vert^2\lambda^2.$$ Thus take $n \geq n_0$. By definition of $\mathcal C_n$, it is sufficient to prove that for all $a,b \in K_1$, $c,d \in K_2$, with $\Vert a \Vert_2, \Vert b \Vert_2, \Vert c \Vert_2, \Vert d \Vert_2 \leq 1$, and all $s,t \in F_n\times G_n$, $$\vert \mathbf{1}_{\lbrace g \in T_n \rbrace}\tau(xy\sigma_g(\lambda a\sigma_s(c))\lambda b^\sigma_t(d^)) \vert \leq 2\varepsilon\Vert x \Vert_2 \Vert y \Vert_2/\vert S \vert^2.$$ We can assume that $g \in T_n$. An easy calculation gives $$\begin{aligned} \vert \tau(xy\sigma_g(\lambda a\sigma_s(c))\lambda b^\sigma_t(d^)) \vert & \leq \varepsilon\Vert x \Vert_2 \Vert y \Vert_2/\vert S \vert^2 + \lambda^2\vert \tau(xy\sigma_g(a)b^)\tau(\sigma_{gs}(c)\sigma_t(d^))\vert\\ & \leq \varepsilon\Vert x \Vert_2 \Vert y \Vert_2/\vert S \vert^2 + \lambda^2\Vert x \Vert_2\Vert y \Vert_2 \Vert a \Vert_\infty \Vert b \Vert_\infty \varepsilon/\vert S \vert^2\lambda^2\alpha^2\\ & \leq 2\varepsilon\Vert x \Vert_2 \Vert y \Vert_2/\vert S \vert^2,\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality is deduced from \[eq3\], while the second is because $g \notin L_n$. So the claim is proven. Now we can estimate $\vert \langle x_n,y_n \rangle \vert$, for $n$ large enough. $$\begin{aligned} \vert \langle x_n,y_n \rangle \vert & \leq \sum_{g \in T, h \in S, k' \in S} \vert \mathbf{1}_{\lbrace g \in T_n \rbrace}\tau(d_{0,g}\sigma_{gh}(d_{1,h^{-1}g^{-1}k'})\sigma_g(Q_{C_n}(a_{n,h}))Q_{C_n}(a_{n,k'})^)\vert\\ & \leq \sum_{g \in T, h \in S, k' \in S} 2\varepsilon \Vert d_{0,g} \Vert_2 \Vert d_{1,h^{-1}g^{-1}k'} \Vert_2/\vert S \vert^2\\ & \leq 2\varepsilon \Vert d_0 \Vert_2 \Vert d_1 \Vert_2 \leq 2 \varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we obtain: - $\limsup_n \Vert a_n - x_n \Vert_2 < \sqrt{\Vert p \Vert_2^2 - \delta^2} + \varepsilon$; - $\limsup_n \Vert a_n - y_n \Vert_2 < \sqrt{\Vert p \Vert_2^2 - \delta^2} + 6\varepsilon$; - $\limsup_n \vert \langle x_n , y_n \rangle \vert \leq 2\varepsilon$. Thus using the formula $$\Vert x - (y+z) \Vert_2^2 = \Vert x-y \Vert_2^2 + \Vert x - z \Vert_2^2 - \Vert x \Vert_2^2 + 2\Re \langle y,z \rangle,$$ one checks that $\limsup_n \Vert a_n - (x_n + y_n) \Vert_2^2 \leq \Vert p \Vert_2^2 - 3\delta^2/2$, if $\varepsilon$ is small enough. Now observe that $$y_n = \sum_{g \in T_n,h \in S, k \in T} d_{0,g}\sigma_{gh}(d_{1,k})\sigma_g(Q_{\mathcal C_n}(a_{n,h}))u_{ghk}.$$ So let us check that $y_n$ has its Fourier coefficients in $[K_0 \times \sigma_{(T_1F_n)\times (T_2G_n)}(K_2)]^{\lambda\vert S \vert \vert T \vert}$, where $K_0 = {\operatorname{span}}\lbrace d_{0,g}\sigma_{gh}(d_{1,k})\sigma_g(c), c \in K_1, g,k \in T, h \in S \rbrace$. Fix $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, and $s \in \Gamma$. Denote by $y_{n,s} = E_A(y_nu_s^)$. We have $$y_{n,s} = \sum_{\substack{g \in T_n,h \in S, k \in T\\ ghk=s}} d_{0,g}\sigma_{gh}(d_{1,k})\sigma_g(Q_{\mathcal C_n}(a_{n,h})).$$ Thus it is a convex combination of terms of the form $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal T & = \sum_{\substack{g \in T,h \in S, k \in T\\ ghk=s}} d_{0,g}\sigma_{gh}(d_{1,k})\sigma_g(\lambda a_h\sigma_{t_h}(b_h))\\ & = \frac{1}{\vert S \vert \vert T \vert}\sum_{\substack{g \in T,h \in S, k \in T\\ ghk=s}} \vert S \vert \vert T \vert d_{0,g}\sigma_{gh}(d_{1,k})\sigma_g(\lambda a_h\sigma_{t_h}(b_h)) ,\end{aligned}$$ for elements $a_h \in K_1$, $b_h \in K_2$, with $\Vert a_h \Vert_2,\Vert b_h \Vert_2 \leq 1$ and $t_h \in F_n\times G_n$, for all $h \in S$. But such terms $\mathcal T$ are themselves convex combinations of elements of the form $\lambda \vert S \vert \vert T \vert x\sigma_{gt}(y)$, with $x \in K_0, y \in K_2$, $\Vert x \Vert_2, \Vert y \Vert_2 \leq 1$ and $gt \in T(F_n\times G_n) = (T_1F_n) \times (T_2G_n)$. Therefore, as pointed out in Lemma \[lem5\], $x_n + y_n$ has Fourier coefficients in $\mathcal C_n' = [K_1' \times \sigma_{F_n' \times G_n'}(K_2')]^{\lambda'}$, with $K_1' = K_1 + K_0$, $K_2' = K_2$, $\lambda' = \lambda + \lambda\vert S \vert \vert T \vert$, and $F_n' = F_n \cup T_1F_n$, $G_n' = G_n \cup T_2G_n$. We conclude that: $$\Vert a_n - Q_{C_n'}(a_n)\Vert_2^2 \leq \Vert p \Vert_2^2 - 3\delta^2/2,$$ which proves the implication. The proof of Theorem \[keythm\] is complete. Taking $\Gamma_2 = \lbrace e \rbrace$ and $A_2 = {\mathbb{C}}$ we obtain a similar statement for a single mixing action $\Gamma \curvearrowright A$. \[corkey\] Assume that $\Gamma \curvearrowright A$ is a mixing Gaussian action. Denote by $M = A \rtimes \Gamma$. Consider an abelian subalgebra $D \subset pMp$, $p \in L\Gamma$, which is normalized by a sequence of unitaries $(v_n) \in \mathcal U(pL\Gamma p)$ with $v_n \rightarrow 0$ weakly. Put $C = D' \cap pMp$. Then one of the following is true: - $D \prec_M L\Gamma$ - For all $q \in \mathcal Z(C)$, $qC \prec_M A$. In fact, S. Vaes asked during his series of lectures at the IHP in Paris (spring 2011) whether such a corollary could hold for any mixing action. A. Ioana showed that this is true for Bernoulli shifts [@Io11 Theorem 6.2], and as we just showed, the proof can be adapted to Gaussian actions. In our proof, we only used the following properties of Gaussian actions: - The 2-mixing property; - The malleability property. Moreover, the malleability of Gaussian actions is only used to prove Lemma \[lem1\] (i.e. to show that the sequences $(v_nav_n^)$, $a \in D$ lie in $A^\omega \rtimes \Gamma$). We suspect that this lemma might be shown only using multiple mixing properties, but we were not able to reach this conclusion. We end this section by mentioning a generalization of Theorems A and B that considers [some]{} amplifications. The proof is the same, and still works because Popa’s orbit equivalence superrigidity theorems ([@IPV11 Theorem 5.2 and Theorem 5.6] and [@Po08 Theorem 1.3]) handle such amplifications. \[mainthm\] Let $\Gamma$ be an ICC countable discrete group, and $\pi : \Gamma \rightarrow \mathcal O(H_{\mathbb{R}})$ an orthogonal representation of $\Gamma$. Make one of the following two assumptions: - $\Gamma$ is w-rigid and ICC, and $\pi$ is mixing; - $\Gamma$ is an ICC non-amenable product of two infinite groups and $\pi$ is mixing and admits a tensor power which is weakly contained in the regular representation. Let $\Gamma \curvearrowright A$ be the Gaussian action associated with $\pi$ and put $M = A \rtimes \Gamma$. Let $\Lambda \curvearrowright B$ be another free ergodic action on an abelian von Neumann algebra, and put $N = B \rtimes \Lambda$. If for some $t \geq 1$, $M \simeq N^t$, then $t = 1$, $\Gamma \simeq \Lambda$ and the actions $\Gamma \curvearrowright A$ and $\lambda \curvearrowright B$ are conjugate. An application to group von Neumann algebras ============================================ As another application of Theorem \[keythm\], we construct a large class of II$_1$ factors which are not stably isomorphic to group von Neumann algebras. These factors are the crossed-product von Neumann algebras of Gaussian actions associated with representations $\pi$ as in Theorem A or Theorem B, with the extra-assumption that $\pi$ is not weakly contained in the regular representation. In [@Bo12 Proposition 2.8], such Gaussian actions were shown not to be conjugate to generalized Bernoulli shifts. Using Theorems A and B, we get that the associated factors are not isomorphic to crossed-product factors of Bernoulli actions, and in particular, to von Neumann algebras of certain wreath-product groups. However, showing that such factors are not isomorphic to algebras $L\Lambda$, with no assumptions on the group $\Lambda$ is much harder, and will require the work of Ioana, Popa and Vaes [@IPV11]. Let $\Gamma$ be an ICC group and $\pi: \Gamma \rightarrow \mathcal O(H)$ a mixing orthogonal representation of $\Gamma$ such that one of the following two conditions holds. - $\Gamma$ is w-rigid or - $\Gamma$ is non-amenable and is isomorphic to the product of two infinite groups, and some tensor power of $\pi$ is weakly contained in the regular representation of $\Gamma$. Assume moreover that $\pi$ itself is not weakly contained in the regular representation. Let $\Gamma \curvearrowright^\sigma A$ be the Gaussian action associated with $\pi$ and put $M = A \rtimes \Gamma$. Then $M$ is not stably isomorphic to a group von Neumann algebra. Let $\pi$ be an orthogonal representation as in the statement of the theorem. Assume by contradiction that there exists a countable group $\Lambda$ such that $M \simeq (L\Lambda)^t$ for some $t > 0$. Then adapting the proof of [@IPV11 Theorem 8.2], we get that $t = 1$, and $\Lambda \simeq \Sigma \rtimes \Gamma$, for some infinite abelian group $\Sigma$ and some action $\Gamma \curvearrowright \Sigma$ by automorphisms. Moreover, the initial Gaussian action $\sigma$ is conjugate to the action of $\Gamma$ on $L\Sigma$. Now, since $\sigma$ is mixing, the action $\Gamma \curvearrowright \Sigma \setminus \lbrace e \rbrace$ has finite stabilizers. But then the Koopmann representation $\Gamma \rightarrow \mathcal U(\ell^2(\Sigma \setminus \lbrace e \rbrace))$ is weakly contained in the left regular representation. Thus, Proposition 1.7 in [@PS10] implies that $\pi$ is weakly contained in the regular representation, which contradicts our assumptions on $\pi$. By [@Bo12 Proposition 2.9], we know that for each $n \geq 3$, ${\operatorname{PSL}}(n,{\mathbb{Z}})$ admits a representation as in Theorem C. Thus we obtain the existence of a II$_1$ factor $M_n$, which is not stably isomorphic to a group von Neumann algebra. But using Theorem \[mainthm\], we get that the $M_n$’s are pairwise non-stably isomorphic : $ M_n \ncong (M_m)^t, \, \forall t > 0, \, \forall n \neq m$. [AA]{} , [Kazhdan’s property (T).]{} New Mathematical Monographs, 11. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008. , [On solid ergodicity for Gaussian actions.]{} J. Funct. Anal., [263]{} (2012) 1040–-1063. , [Ergodic equivalence relations, cohomology, and von Neumann algebras, II.]{} Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [234]{} (1977), 325–-359. , [On Popa’s Cocycle Superrigidity Theorem.]{} Inter. Math. Res. Notices IMRN, 2007 (2007), 1–46, Art. ID rnm073. , [Orbit Equivalence and Measured Group Theory.]{} Proceedings of the ICM (Hyderabad, India, 2010), Vol. [III]{}, Hindustan Book Agency (2010), 1501–1527. , [A class of groups for which every action is W$^$-superrigid]{}, Groups Geom. Dyn., to appear. arXiv:1010.5077. , [W$^$-superrigidity for Bernoulli actions of property (T) groups.]{} J. Amer. Math. Soc., [24]{} (2011), 1175–1226. , [A class of superrigid group von Neumann algebras]{}, Ann. of Math., to appear. , [On a class of $\rm{II}_1$ factors with at most one Cartan subalgebra.]{} Ann. of Math. (2), [172]{} (2010), 713–749. , [Examples of groups which are virtually W$^$-superrigid.]{} preprint (2009). arXiv:1002.1745 , [On cocycle superrigidity for Gaussian actions.]{} Erg. Th. & Dyn. Sys. [32]{} (2012), 249–272. , [Strong rigidity of ${\rm II_1}$ factors arising from malleable actions of w-rigid groups ${\rm I}$.]{} Invent. Math. [165]{} (2006), 369–408. , [Strong rigidity of ${\rm II_1}$ factors arising from malleable actions of w-rigid groups ${\rm II}$.]{} Invent. Math. [165]{} (2006), 409–453. , [On a class of type ${\rm II_1}$ factors with Betti numbers invariants.]{} Ann. of Math. [163]{} (2006), 809–899. , [Some rigidity results for non-commutative Bernoulli Shifts.]{} J. Funct. Anal. [230]{} (2006), 273–328. , [Cocycle and orbit equivalence superrigidity for malleable actions of w-rigid groups.]{} Invent. Math. [170]{} (2007), 243–295. , [Deformation and rigidity for group actions and von Neumann algebras.]{} Pro- ceedings of the ICM (Madrid, 2006), Vol. I, European Mathematical Society Publishing House (2007), 445–477. , [On the superrigidity of malleable actions with spectral gap.]{} J. Amer. Math. Soc. [21]{} (2008), 981–1000. , [Group measure space decomposition of ${\rm II_1}$ factors and W$^$-superrigidity]{} Invent. Math. [182]{} (2010), 371–417. , [Explicit computations of all finite index bimodules for a family of ${\rm II_1}$ factors.]{} Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. [41]{} (2008), 743–788. , [Rigidity for von Neumann algebras and their invariants.]{} Proceedings of the ICM (Hyderabad, 2010), Vol. III, Hindustan Book Agency (2010), 1624–1650. , [One-cohomology and the uniqueness of the group measure space of a II$_1$ factor.*]{} Math. Ann., to appear. arXiv:1012.5377.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'One can view contraction operators given by a canonical model of Sz.-Nagy and Foias as being defined by a quotient module where the basic building blocks are Hardy spaces. In this note we generalize this framework to allow the Bergman and weighted Bergman spaces as building blocks, but restricting attention to the case in which the operator obtained is in the Cowen-Douglas class and requiring the multiplicity to be one. We view the classification of such operators in the context of complex geometry and obtain a complete classification up to unitary equivalence of them in terms of their associated vector bundles and their curvatures.' address: - \| Department of Mathematics\ Texas A&M University\ College Station\ TX 77843\ USA - \| Department of Mathematics\ The University of Toledo\ Toledo, OH 43606\ USA\ - \| Department of Mathematical Sciences\ Seoul National University\ Seoul, 151-747\ Republic of Korea - \| Indian Statistical Institute\ Statistic and Mathematics Unit\ 8th Mile, Mysore Road\ Bangalore 560059\ India author: - 'Ronald G. Douglas' - 'Yun-Su Kim' - 'Hyun-Kyoung Kwon' - Jaydeb Sarkar title: 'Curvature invariant and generalized canonical Operator models - I' --- [^1] Introduction ============ One goal of operator theory is to obtain unitary invariants, ideally, in the context of a concrete model for the operators being studied. For a multiplication operator on a space of holomorphic functions on the unit disk $\mathbb{D}$, which happens to be contractive, there are two distinct approaches to models and their associated invariants, one due to Sz.-Nagy and Foias [@NF] and the other due to M. Cowen and the first author [@CD]. The starting point for this work was an attempt to compare the two sets of invariants and models obtained in these approaches. We will work at the simplest level of generality for which these questions make sense. Extensions of these results to more general situations are pursued later in [@DKKS]. For the Sz.-Nagy-Foias canonical model theory, the Hardy space $H^2=H^2(\mathbb{D})$, of holomorphic functions on the unit disk $\mathbb{D}$ is central if one allows the functions to take values in some separable Hilbert space ${\mathcal{E}}$. In this case, we will now denote the space by $H^2 \otimes {\mathcal{E}}$. One can view the canonical model Hilbert space (in the case of a $C_{\cdot 0}$ contraction $T$) as given by the quotient of $H^2 \otimes {\mathcal{E}}_$, for some Hilbert space ${\mathcal{E}}_$, by the range of a map $M_{\Theta}$ defined to be multiplication by a contractive holomorphic function, $\Theta(z) \in {\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{E}}, {\mathcal{E}}_)$, from $H^2 \otimes {\mathcal{E}}$ to $H^2 \otimes {\mathcal{E}}_$. If one assumes that the multiplication operator associated with $\Theta(z)$ defines an isometry (or is inner) and $\Theta(z)$ is purely contractive, that is, $\\|\Theta(0) \eta\\| < \\|\eta\\|$ for all $\eta (\neq 0)$ in ${\mathcal{E}}$, then $\Theta(z)$ is the characteristic operator function for the operator $T$. Hence, $\Theta(z)$ provides a complete unitary invariant for the compression of multiplication by $z$ to the quotient Hilbert space of $H^2 \otimes {\mathcal{E}}_$ by the range of $\Theta(z)$. In general, neither the operator $T$ nor its adjoint $T^$ is in the $B_n(\mathbb{D})$ class of [@CD] but we are interested in the case in which the adjoint $T^$ is in $B_n(\mathbb{D})$ and we study the relation between its complex geometric invariants (see [@CD]) and $\Theta(z)$. We use the language of Hilbert modules [@DP] which we believe to be natural in this context. The Cowen-Douglas theory can also be recast in the language of Hilbert modules [@CD1]. With this approach, the problem of the unitary equivalence of operators becomes identical to that of the isomorphism of the corresponding Hilbert modules. Furthermore, we consider “models" obtained as quotient Hilbert modules in which the Hardy module is replaced by other Hilbert modules of holomorphic functions on $\mathbb{D}$ such as the Bergman module $A^2=A^2(\mathbb{D})$ or the weighted Bergman modules $A_{\alpha}^2=A_{\alpha}^2(\mathbb{D})$ with weight parameter $\alpha > -1$. We require in these cases that some analogue of the corona condition holds for the multiplier $\Theta(z)$. As previously mentioned, we concentrate on a particularly simple case of the problem. We focus on the case of $\Theta \in H ^{\infty} _{{\mathcal{L}}(\mathbb{C}, \mathbb{C}^2)}$, where $H ^{\infty} _{{\mathcal{L}}(\mathbb{C}, \mathbb{C}^2)} = H ^{\infty} _{{\mathcal{L}}(\mathbb{C}, \mathbb{C}^2)}(\mathbb{D})$ is the space of bounded, holomorphic ${\mathcal{L}}(\mathbb{C}, \mathbb{C}^2)$-valued functions on $\mathbb{D}$, so that $\Theta(z)=\theta_1(z)\otimes e_1+ \theta_2(z)\otimes e_2$ for an orthonormal basis $\{e_1,e_2\}$ for $\mathbb{C}^2$ and $\theta_i(z) \in {\mathcal{L}}(\mathbb{C})$, $i=1,2,$ and $z \in \mathbb{D}$. We shall adopt the notation $\Theta=\{\theta_1, \theta_2 \}$. Recall that $\Theta$ is said to satisfy the [corona condition]{} if there exists an $\epsilon > 0$ such that $$\|\theta_1(z)\|^2 + \|\theta_2(z)\|^2 \geq \epsilon,$$ for all $z \in \mathbb{D}$. Moreover, we will use the notation ${\mathcal{H}}_\Theta$ to denote the quotient Hilbert module $({\mathcal{H}}\otimes \mathbb{C}^2) / \Theta {\mathcal{H}}$, where ${\mathcal{H}}$ is the Hardy, the Bergman, or a weighted Bergman module. Now we state the main results in this note which we will prove in Section 4. Let $\Theta=\{\theta_1, \theta_2\}$ and $\Phi=\{{\varphi}_1, {\varphi}_2\}$ both satisfy the corona condition and denote by $\bigtriangledown^2$ the Laplacian $\bigtriangledown^2=4\partial \bar{\partial}=4\bar{\partial}{\partial}$.\ The quotient Hilbert modules ${\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta}$ and ${\mathcal{H}}_{\Phi}$ are isomorphic if and only if $$\bigtriangledown^2 \mbox{log}\,\frac{\|\theta_1(z)\|^2 + \|\theta_2(z)\|^2}{\|{\varphi}_1(z)\|^2 + \|{\varphi}_2(z)\|^2}=0,$$ for all $z \in \mathbb{D}$, where ${\mathcal{H}}$ is the Hardy module $H^2$, the Bergman module $A^2$, or a weighted Bergman module $A^2_{\alpha}$.\ The quotient Hilbert modules $(A^2_{\alpha})_{\Theta}$ and $(A^2_{\beta})_{\Phi}$ are isomorphic if and only if $\alpha=\beta$ and $$\bigtriangledown^2 \mbox{log}\,\frac{\|\theta_1(z)\|^2 + \|\theta_2(z)\|^2}{\|{\varphi}_1(z)\|^2 + \|{\varphi}_2(z)\|^2}=0,$$ for all $z \in \mathbb{D}$.\ Under no circumstances can $(H^2)_{\Theta}$ be isomorphic to $(A^2_{\alpha})_{\Phi}$.\ Hilbert Modules =============== In the present section and the next, we take care of some preliminaries. We begin with the following definition. Let $T$ be a linear operator on a Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$. We say that ${\mathcal{H}}$ is a contractive Hilbert module over $\mathbb{C}[z]$ relative to $T$ if the module action from $\mathbb{C}[z] \times {\mathcal{H}}$ to ${\mathcal{H}}$ given by $$p \cdot f \mapsto p(T) f,$$ for $p \in \mathbb{C}[z]$ defines bounded operators such that $$\\|p \cdot f\\|_{{\mathcal{H}}} = \\|p(T) f\\|_{{\mathcal{H}}} \leq \\|p\\|_{\infty} \\|f\\|_{{\mathcal{H}}},$$ for all $f \in {\mathcal{H}}$, where $\\|p\\|_{\infty}$ is the supremum norm of $p$ on $\mathbb{D}$. The module multiplication by the coordinate function will be denoted by $M_z$, that is, $$M_z f = z \cdot f = T f,$$for all $f \in {\mathcal{H}}$. Given two Hilbert modules ${\mathcal{H}}$ and $\tilde{{\mathcal{H}}}$ over $\mathbb{C}[z]$, we say that $X: {\mathcal{H}}{\rightarrow}\tilde{{\mathcal{H}}}$ is a module map if it is a bounded, linear map satisfying $X(p \cdot f)=p \cdot (Xf)$ for all $p \in \mathbb{C}[z]$ and $f \in {\mathcal{H}}$. Two Hilbert modules are said to be isomorphic if there exists a unitary module map between them. Since one can extend the module action of a contractive Hilbert module ${\mathcal{H}}$ over $\mathbb{C}[z]$ from $\mathbb{C}[z]$ to the disk algebra $A(\mathbb{D})$ using the von Neumann inequality, a contraction operator gives rise to a contractive Hilbert module over $A(\mathbb{D})$. Recall that $A(\mathbb{D})$ denotes the disk algebra, the algebra of holomorphic functions on $\mathbb{D}$ that are continuous on the closure of $\mathbb{D}$. Thus, the unitary equivalence of contraction operators is the same as the isomorphism of the associated contractive Hilbert modules over $A(\mathbb{D})$. Next, let us recall that the Hardy space $H^2$ consists of the holomorphic functions $f$ on $\mathbb{D}$ such that $$\\|f\\|^2_2 = \sup_{0 <r <1} \frac{1}{2\pi} \int^{2\pi}_0 \|f(re^{i\theta})\|^2d\theta < \infty.$$ Similarly, the weighted Bergman spaces $A^2_{\alpha}$, $-1 < \alpha < \infty$, consist of the holomorphic functions $f$ on $\mathbb{D}$ for which $$\\|f\\|^2_{2, \alpha} = \frac{1}{ \pi} \int_{\mathbb{D}} \|f(z)\|^2 dA_{\alpha}(z) < \infty,$$ where $dA_{\alpha}(z) = (\alpha +1) (1 - \|z\|^2)^{\alpha} dA(z)$ and $dA(z)$ denote the weighted area measure and the area measure on $\mathbb{D}$, respectively. Note that $\alpha=0$ gives the $($unweighted$)$ Bergman space $A^2$. We mention [@Z] for a comprehensive treatment of the theory of Bergman spaces. The Hardy space, the Bergman space and the weighted Bergman spaces are contractive modules under the multiplication by the coordinate function. The Hardy, the Bergman, and the weighted Bergman modules serve as examples of [contractive reproducing kernel Hilbert modules]{}. A reproducing kernel Hilbert module is a Hilbert module with a function called a [positive definite kernel]{} whose definition we now review. We say that a function $K : \mathbb{D} \times \mathbb{D} {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{E}})$ for a Hilbert space ${\mathcal{E}}$, is a positive definite kernel if $\langle \sum_{i, j = 1}^{p} K(z_i, z_j) \eta_i, \eta_j \rangle \geq 0$ for all $z_i \in \mathbb{D}, \, \eta_i \in {\mathcal{E}}$, and $p \in \mathbb{N}$. Given a positive definite kernel $K$, we can construct a Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}_K$ of ${\mathcal{E}}$-valued functions defined to be $$\vee_{z \in \mathbb{D}} \vee_{ \eta \in {\mathcal{E}}} K(\cdot, z) \eta ,$$ with inner product $$\langle K(\cdot, w) \eta, \,K(\cdot, z) \zeta\rangle_{{\mathcal{H}}_K} = \langle K(z, w) \eta, \zeta\rangle_{{\mathcal{E}}},$$ for all $z, w \in \mathbb{D}$ and $\eta, \zeta \in {\mathcal{E}}$. The evaluation of $f \in {\mathcal{H}}_K$ at a point $z \in \mathbb{D}$ is given by the reproducing property so that $$\langle f(z), \eta \rangle_{{\mathcal{E}}} = \langle f, K(\cdot, z) \eta\rangle_{{\mathcal{H}}_K},$$ for all $f \in {\mathcal{H}}_K, z \in \mathbb{D}$ and $\eta \in {\mathcal{E}}$. In particular, the evaluation operator $\bm{ev}_z : {\mathcal{H}}_K {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{E}}$, $\bm{ev}_z (f) := f(z)$ is bounded for all $z \in \mathbb{D}$. Conversely, given a Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$ of holomorphic ${\mathcal{E}}$-valued functions on $\mathbb{D}$ with bounded evaluation operator $\bm{ev}_z \in {\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{H}}, {\mathcal{E}})$ for each $z \in \mathbb{D}$, we can construct a reproducing kernel $$\bm{ev}_z \circ \bm{ev}_w^ : \mathbb{D} \times \mathbb{D} {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{E}}),$$ for all $z, w \in \mathbb{D}$. To ensure that $\bm{ev}_z \circ \bm{ev}_w^$ is injective, we must assume for every $z \in \mathbb{D}$ that $\overline{\{f(z): f \in {\mathcal{H}}\}}={\mathcal{E}}$. A reproducing kernel Hilbert module is said to be a [contractive reproducing kernel Hilbert module]{} over $A(\mathbb{D})$ if the operator $M_z$ is contractive. The kernel function for $H^2$ is $K(z, w) = (1 - \bar{w} z)^{-1}$. For $A^2_{\alpha}$, it is $$K(z, w) = (1 - \bar{w} z)^{-2 - \alpha} = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{\Gamma(k+2+\alpha)}{k! \Gamma(2+ \alpha)}(\bar{w} z)^k,$$ where $\Gamma$ is the gamma function. It is well known that the multiplier algebra of ${\mathcal{H}}$ is $H^{\infty}$, that is, $M_{\varphi} {\mathcal{H}}\subseteq {\mathcal{H}}$, for $M_{{\varphi}}$ the operator of multiplication by $\varphi \in H^{\infty}$, where $H^{\infty}=H^{\infty}(\mathbb{D})$ is the algebra of bounded, analytic functions on $\mathbb{D}$ and ${\mathcal{H}}$ is $H^2$, $A^2$ or $A^2_{\alpha}$. Moreover, for all $w \in \mathbb{D}$ and $\varphi \in H^{\infty}$, $$M^_{\varphi} K(\cdot, w) = \overline{\varphi(w)} K(\cdot, w).$$ The class $B_n(\mathbb{D})$ =========================== In [@CD], M. Cowen and the first author introduced a class of operators $B_n(\mathbb{D})$, which includes $M_z^$ for the operator $M_z$ defined on contractive reproducing kernel Hilbert modules of interest in this note. We now recall the notion of $B_n(\mathbb{D})$. Let ${\mathcal{H}}$ be a Hilbert space and $n$ a positive integer. \[20\] An operator $T \in {\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{H}})$ is in the class $B_n(\mathbb{D})$ if \(i) $\mbox{dim} \, \mbox{ker } (T - w) = n$ for all $w \in \mathbb{D}$, \(ii) $\vee_{w \in \mathbb{D}} \mbox{ker}\, (T - w) = {\mathcal{H}}$, and \(iii) $\mbox{ran}\, (T - w) = {\mathcal{H}}$ for all $w \in \mathbb{D}$. Since it follows from (iii) that $T-w$ is semi-Fredholm for all $w \in \mathbb{D}$, (iii) actually implies (i) if we assume that $\mbox{dim\, ker} (T - w) < \infty$ for some $w \in \mathbb{D}$. It is a result of Shubin [@S] that for $T \in B_n(\mathbb{D})$, there exists a hermitian holomorphic rank $n$ vector bundle $E_T$ over $\mathbb{D}$ defined as the pull-back of the holomorphic map $w \mapsto \mbox{ker}\, (T - w)$ from $\mathbb{D}$ to the Grassmannian $Gr(n, {\mathcal{H}})$ of the $n$-dimensional subspaces of ${\mathcal{H}}$. As mentioned earlier in the Introduction, in this note we consider contraction operators $T$ such that $T^ \in B_n(\mathbb{D})$. In other words, we investigate contractive Hilbert modules ${\mathcal{H}}$ with $M_z^* \in B_n(\mathbb{D})$. For simplicity of notation, we will write ${\mathcal{H}}\in B_n(\mathbb{D})$. Thus, we have an anti-holomorphic map $w \mapsto \mbox{ker}\, (M_z - w)^$ instead of a holomorphic one and therefore obtain a frame $\{\psi_i\}_{i=1}^n$ of anti-holomorphic ${\mathcal{H}}$-valued functions on $\mathbb{D}$ such that $$\vee_{i=1}^n \psi_i(w) = \mbox{ker}\, (M_z - w)^ \subseteq {\mathcal{H}},$$ for every $w \in \mathbb{D}$. We will use the notation $E_{{\mathcal{H}}}^$ for this anti-holomorphic vector bundle since it is the dual of the natural hermitian holomorphic vector bundle $E_{{\mathcal{H}}}$ defined by localization. One can show for an operator belonging to a “weaker" class than $B_n(\mathbb{D})$ that there still exists an anti-holomorphic frame. Since having such a frame is sufficient for many purposes, one can consider operators in this “weaker" class, which will be introduced after the following proposition: \[frame\] Let $T \in {\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{H}})$ and $\tilde{T} \in {\mathcal{L}}(\tilde{{\mathcal{H}}})$. Suppose that there exist anti-holomorphic functions $\{\psi_i\}_{i=1}^n$ and $\{\tilde{\psi_i}\}_{i=1}^n$ from $\mathbb{D}$ to ${\mathcal{H}}$ and $\tilde{{\mathcal{H}}}$, respectively, satisfying \(1) $T \psi_i(w) = \bar{w} \psi_i(w)$ and $\tilde{T} \tilde{\psi}_i(w) = \bar{w} \tilde{\psi}_i(w),$ for all $1 \leq i \leq n$, $w \in \mathbb{D}$, and \(2) $\vee_{w \in \mathbb{D}} \vee_{i=1}^n \psi_i(w) = {\mathcal{H}}$ and $\vee_{w \in \mathbb{D}} \vee_{i=1}^n \tilde{\psi}_i(w) = \tilde{{\mathcal{H}}}$. Then there is an anti-holomorphic partial isometry-valued function $V(w) : {\mathcal{H}}{\rightarrow}\tilde{{\mathcal{H}}}$ such that $\mbox{ker}\, V(w) = [ \vee_{i=1}^n \psi_i(w)]^{\perp}$ and $\mbox{ran}\, V(w) = \vee _{i=1}^n \tilde{\psi}_i(w) $ if and only if there exists a unitary operator $V : {\mathcal{H}}{\rightarrow}\tilde{{\mathcal{H}}}$ such that $(V \psi_i) (w) = V(w) \psi_i(w)$ for every $1 \leq i \leq n$ and $w \in \mathbb{D}$. We refer the reader to the proof of the rigidity theorem in [@CD], where the language of bundles is used. It was pointed out by N. K. Nikolski to the first author that the basic calculation used to prove the rigidity theorem [@CD] appeared earlier in [@P]. Suppose $T \in {\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{H}})$ is such that $\mbox{dim}\, \mbox{ker}\, (T - w) \geqslant n$ for all $w \in \mathbb{D}$. We say that $T$ is in the class $B_n^w(\mathbb{D})$ or weak-$B_n(\mathbb{D})$ if there exist anti-holomorphic functions $\{\psi_i\}_{i=1}^n$ from $\mathbb{D}$ to ${\mathcal{H}}$ such that \(i) $\{\psi_i(w)\}_{i=1}^n$ is linearly independent for all $w \in \mathbb{D}$, \(ii) $\vee_{i=1}^n \psi_i(w) \subseteq \mbox{ker}\, (T -w)$ for all $w \in \mathbb{D}$, and \(iii) $\vee_{w \in \mathbb{D}} \vee_{i=1}^n \psi_i (w) = {\mathcal{H}}$. The class $B_n^w(\mathbb{D})$ is closely related to the one considered by Uchiyama in [@U]. Since the $\{\psi_i\}_{i=1}^n$ in Definition 3.4 frame a rank $n$ hermitian anti-holomorphic bundle, it suffices for our purpose to consider contractive Hilbert modules ${\mathcal{H}}$ with $M_z^ \in B_n^w(\mathbb{D})$ instead of those with $M^_z \in B_n(\mathbb{D})$. We will write ${\mathcal{H}}\in B_n^w(\mathbb{D})$ to represent this case. We continue this section with a brief discussion of some complex geometric notions. Since the anti-holomorphic vector bundle $E_{{\mathcal{H}}}^$ also has hermitian structure, one can define the canonical Chern connection ${\mathcal{D}}_{E^_{{\mathcal{H}}}}$ on $E_{{\mathcal{H}}}^$ along with its associated curvature two-form ${\mathcal{K}}_{E^_{{\mathcal{H}}}}$. For the case $n =1$, $E_{{\mathcal{H}}}^$ is a line bundle and $$\label{curvE} \mathcal K_{E^_{{\mathcal{H}}}}(z) = - \frac{1}{4} \bigtriangledown^2 \log \\|\gamma_z\\|^2 \,dz \wedge d\bar{z},$$ for $z \in \mathbb{D}$, where $\gamma_z$ is an anti-holomorphic cross section of the bundle. For instance, by taking $\gamma_z$ to be the kernel functions for $H^2$ and $A^2_{\alpha}$, we see that $${\mathcal{K}}_{E^_{H^2}}(z) = - \frac{1}{(1 - \|z\|^2)^{2}},$$ and $${\mathcal{K}}_{E^_{A^2_{\alpha}}}(z) = - \frac{2+\alpha}{(1 - \|z\|^2)^{2}}.$$ In [@CD], M. Cowen and the first author proved that the curvature is a complete unitary invariant, that is, two Hilbert modules ${\mathcal{H}}$ and $\tilde{{\mathcal{H}}}$ in $B_1(\mathbb{D})$ are isomorphic if and only if for every $z \in \mathbb{D}$, $${\mathcal{K}}_{E^_{{\mathcal{H}}}}(z) = {\mathcal{K}}_{E^_{\tilde{{\mathcal{H}}}}}(z).$$ Now that we have Proposition \[frame\] available, the result can be extended to Hilbert modules in $B_1^w(\mathbb{D})$. Note that two weighted Bergman modules cannot be isomorphic to each another, that is, $A^2_{\alpha}$ is isomorphic to $A^2_{\beta}$ if and only if $\alpha = \beta$. We also conclude that the Hardy module $H^2$ cannot be isomorphic to the weighted Bergman modules $A^2_{\alpha}$. Proof of the main results ========================= Let $\Theta= \{ \theta_1, \theta_2 \} \in H^{\infty}_{{\mathcal{L}}(\mathbb{C}, \mathbb{C}^2)}$ satisfy the corona condition. Now denote by ${\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta}$ the quotient Hilbert module $({\mathcal{H}}\otimes \mathbb{C}^2) / \Theta {\mathcal{H}}$, where ${\mathcal{H}}$ is $H^2$, $A^2$, or $A^2_{\alpha}$. This means that we have the following short exact sequence $$0 \longrightarrow {\mathcal{H}}\otimes \mathbb{C} \stackrel{M_{\Theta}}\longrightarrow {\mathcal{H}}\otimes \mathbb{C}^2 \stackrel{\pi_{\Theta}}\longrightarrow {\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta} \longrightarrow 0,$$ where the first map $M_{\Theta}$ is $M_{\Theta} f = \theta_1 f \otimes e_1 +\theta_2 f \otimes e_2$ and the second map $\pi_{\Theta}$ is the quotient Hilbert module map. The fact that $\Theta$ satisfies the corona condition implies that $\mbox{ran } M_{\Theta}$ is closed. We denote the module multiplication $P_{{\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta}} (M_z \otimes I_{\mathbb{C}^2})\|_{{\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta}}$ of the quotient Hilbert module ${\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta}$ by $N_z$. We will see later that ${\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta} \in B_1(\mathbb{D})$, but for the time being, we first show that ${\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta} \in B_1^w(\mathbb{D})$. \[hardy-section\] For $\Theta=\{\theta_1, \theta_2 \}$ satisfying the corona condition, ${\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta} \in B_1^w(\mathbb{D})$. We first prove that $\mbox{dim}\,\mbox{ker}\, (N_z-w)^ = 1$ for all $w \in \mathbb{D}$. To this end, let $I_w := \{ p(z) \in \mathbb{C}[z] : p(w) = 0\}$, a maximal ideal in $\mathbb{C}[z]$. One considers the localization of the sequence $$0 {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{H}}\otimes \mathbb{C} \stackrel{M_\Theta} {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{H}}\otimes \mathbb{C}^2 \stackrel{\pi_{\Theta}} {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta} {\rightarrow}0,$$ to $w \in \mathbb{D}$ to obtain $${\mathcal{H}}/ I_w \cdot {\mathcal{H}}\longrightarrow ({\mathcal{H}}\otimes \mathbb{C}^2) / I_w \cdot ({\mathcal{H}}\otimes \mathbb{C}^2) \longrightarrow {\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta}/ I_w \cdot {\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta} \longrightarrow 0,$$ or equivalently, $$\mathbb{C}_w \otimes \mathbb{C} \stackrel{I_{\mathbb{C}_w} \otimes \Theta(w)} \longrightarrow \mathbb{C}_w \otimes \mathbb{C}^2 \stackrel{\pi_{\Theta}(w)} \longrightarrow {\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta}/ I_w \cdot {\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta} \longrightarrow 0.$$ Since this sequence is exact and $\mbox{dim } \mbox{ran } \Theta(w)=1$ for all $w \in \mathbb{D}$, we have $\mbox{dim } \mbox{ker } \pi_{\Theta}(w) = 1$ (see [@DP]). Thus, $\mbox{dim}\, {\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta}/ I_w \cdot {\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta} = 1$, and so $\mbox{dim }\mbox{ker }(N_z-w)^=1$ for all $w \in \mathbb{D}$. Now denote by $k_w$ a kernel function $k(\cdot, w)$ for ${\mathcal{H}}$, and by $\{e_1, e_2\}$ an orthonormal basis for $\mathbb{C}^2$. We prove that $$\gamma_w := k_w \otimes (\overline{\theta_2(w)} e_1 - \overline{\theta_1(w)} e_2)$$ is a non-vanishing anti-holomorphic function from $\mathbb{D}$ to ${\mathcal{H}}\otimes \mathbb{C}^2$ such that \(1) $\gamma_w \in \mbox{ker}\, (N_z-w)^$ for all $w \in \mathbb{D}$, and \(2) $\vee_{w \in \mathbb{D}} \gamma_w = {\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta}$. Since the $\theta_i$ are holomorphic and $k_w$ is anti-holomorphic, the fact that $w \mapsto \gamma_w$ is anti-holomorphic follows. Furthermore, since $\Theta$ satisfies the corona condition, the $\theta_i$ have no common zero and hence $\gamma_w \neq \bm{0}$ for all $w \in \mathbb{D}$. Now, for $f \in {\mathcal{H}}$, $M_{\Theta} f = \theta_1 f \otimes e_1 + \theta_2 f \otimes e_2$ and therefore for all $w \in \mathbb{D}$, $$\begin{split} \langle M_{\Theta} f, \gamma_w \rangle & = \langle \theta_1 f, k_w \rangle \langle e_1, \overline{\theta_2(w)} e_1 \rangle - \langle \theta_2 f, k_w \rangle \langle e_2, \overline{\theta_1(w)} e_2 \rangle \\& = \theta_1(w)f(w)\theta_2(w)-\theta_2(w)f(w)\theta_1(w)=0. \end{split}$$ Hence, $\gamma_w \in (\mbox{ran} M_{\Theta})^{\perp} = {\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta}$. Moreover, since $M_z^k_w=\bar{w}k_w$ for all $w \in \mathbb{D}$, $$\begin{split} N_z^ \gamma_w & = (M_z \otimes I_{\mathbb{C}^2})^* \gamma_w = M_z^* (\overline{\theta_2(w)} k_w) \otimes e_1 - M^_z (\overline{\theta_1(w)} k_w) \otimes e_2 \\& = \overline{\theta_2(w)} \bar{w} k_w \otimes e_1 - \overline{\theta_1(w)} \bar{w} k_w \otimes e_2\\& = \bar{w} \gamma_w. \end{split}$$ Next, in order to show that (2) holds, it suffices to prove that for $h = h_1 \otimes e_1 + h_2 \otimes e_2 \in {\mathcal{H}}\otimes \mathbb{C}^2$ such that $h \perp \vee_{w \in \mathbb{D}} \gamma_w$, we have $h \in \mbox{ran}\ M_\Theta$. We first claim that there exists a function $\eta$ defined on $\mathbb{D}$ such that for all $w \in \mathbb{D}$ and $i=1,2$, $$h_i(w) = \theta_{i}(w) \eta(w).$$ Since $h \perp \gamma_w$ for every $w \in \mathbb{D}$, we have $$\begin{split} \langle h, \gamma_w \rangle & = \langle h_1, k_w \rangle \langle e_1, \overline{\theta_2(w)} e_1 \rangle - \langle h_2, k_w \rangle \langle e_2, \overline{\theta_1(w)} e_2 \rangle \\& = h_1(w)\theta_2(w)-h_2(w)\theta_1(w)=0, \end{split}$$ or equivalently, $$\mbox{det~}\ \begin{bmatrix} h_1(w) & \theta_1(w) \\ h_2(w) & \theta_2(w) \end{bmatrix}=0,$$ for all $w \in \mathbb{D}$. Thus using the fact that $\mbox{rank }\begin{bmatrix} \theta_1(w) \\ \theta_2(w) \end{bmatrix}=1$ for all $w \in \mathbb{D}$, we obtain a unique nonzero function $\eta(w)$ satisfying $h_i(w)=\theta_i(w) \eta(w)$ for $i=1,2$. The proof is completed once we show that $\eta \in {\mathcal{H}}$. Note that by the corona theorem, we get $\psi_1, \psi_2 \in H^{\infty}$ such that $\psi_1(w) \theta_1(w)+\psi_2(w) \theta_2(w)=1$ for every $w \in \mathbb{D}$. Since $\eta=(\psi_1 \theta_1 + \psi_2 \theta_2)\eta=\psi_1 h_1 + \psi_2 h_2$, and $H^{\infty}$ is the multiplier algebra for ${\mathcal{H}}$, the result follows. [Observe that the above proof shows that the hermitian anti-holomorphic line bundle corresponding to the quotient Hilbert module ${\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta}$ is the twisted vector bundle obtained as the bundle tensor product of the hermitian anti-holomorphic line bundle for ${\mathcal{H}}$ with the anti-holomorphic dual of the line bundle $\coprod_{w \in \mathbb{D}} \mathbb{C}^2/ \Theta(w) \mathbb{C}$. This phenomenon holds in general; suppose that for Hilbert spaces ${\mathcal{E}}$ and ${\mathcal{E}}_$, $\Theta \in H^{\infty}_{{\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{E}}, {\mathcal{E}}_)}$ and $M_{\Theta}$ has closed range. If the quotient Hilbert module ${\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta}$, $$0 {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{H}}\otimes {\mathcal{E}}\stackrel{M_\Theta} {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{H}}\otimes {\mathcal{E}}_ {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta} {\rightarrow}0,$$ is in $B_n(\mathbb{D})$, then the rank $n$ hermitian anti-holomorphic vector bundle $E^_{{\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta}}$ for ${\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta}$ is the bundle tensor product of $E^_{{\mathcal{H}}}$ with the anti-holomorphic dual of the rank $n$ bundle $\coprod_{w \in \mathbb{D}} {\mathcal{E}}_/{\Theta(w) {\mathcal{E}}}$ (see [@DKKS]).]{.nodecor} In order to have ${\mathcal{H}}_{\Theta} \in B_1(\mathbb{D})$, it now remains to check only one condition. We do this in the following Proposition. $\mbox{ran }(N_z-w)^={\mathcal{H}}_\Theta$ for all $w \in \mathbb{D}$. We write $$M_z \otimes I_{\mathbb{C}^2}\backsim \begin{bmatrix} * & \\0 & N_z\end{bmatrix}$$ relative to the decomposition ${\mathcal{H}}\otimes \mathbb{C}^2 = \mbox{ran } M_{\Theta} \oplus (\mbox{ran}\, M_{\Theta})^{\perp}$. It suffices to note that ${\mathcal{H}}\in B_1(\mathbb{D})$ implies that $\mbox{ran }(M_z-w)^={\mathcal{H}}$. Let us now consider the curvature ${\mathcal{K}}_{E^_{{{\mathcal{H}}}_{\Theta}}}$. By (3.1), one needs only to compute the norm of the section $$\gamma_w = k_w \otimes (\overline{\theta_2(w)}e_1-\overline{\theta_1(w)}e_2)$$ given in Theorem 4.1. Since $$\\|\gamma_w\\|^2 = \\|k_w\\|^2 (\|\theta_1(w)\|^2 + \|\theta_2(w)\|^2),$$ we get the identity $${\mathcal{K}}_{E^_{{{\mathcal{H}}}_{\Theta}}}(w)={\mathcal{K}}_{E^_{{\mathcal{H}}}}(w)-\frac{1}{4} \bigtriangledown^2 \mbox{log}\,(\|\theta_1(w)\|^2 + \|\theta_2(w)\|^2),$$ for all $w \in \mathbb{D}$. We are now ready to prove Theorem 4.4. For the sake of convenience, we restate it here. Let $\Theta=\{\theta_1, \theta_2\}$ and $\Phi=\{{\varphi}_1, {\varphi}_2\}$ satisfy the corona condition. The quotient Hilbert modules ${{\mathcal{H}}}_{\Theta}$ and ${{\mathcal{H}}}_{\Phi}$ are isomorphic if and only if $$\bigtriangledown^2 \mbox{log}\,\frac{\|\theta_1(z)\|^2 + \|\theta_2(z)\|^2}{\|{\varphi}_1(z)\|^2 + \|{\varphi}_2(z)\|^2}=0,$$ for all $z \in \mathbb{D}$, where ${\mathcal{H}}$ is the Hardy, the Bergman, or a weighted Bergman module. Since ${{\mathcal{H}}}_{\Theta}, {{\mathcal{H}}}_{\Phi} \in B_1^w(\mathbb{D})$, (we have seen that they actually belong to $B_1(\mathbb{D})$), they are isomorphic if and only if ${\mathcal{K}}_{E^_{{{\mathcal{H}}}_{\Theta}}}(w)={\mathcal{K}}_{E^_{{{\mathcal{H}}}_{\Phi}}}(w)$ for all $w \in \mathbb{D}$. But note that (4.2) and an analogous identity for $\Phi$ hold, where the $\theta_i$ are replaced with the ${\varphi}_i$. Since both $\Theta$ and $\Phi$ satisfy the corona condition, the result then follows.\ We once again state Theorem 4.5. Suppose that $\Theta=\{\theta_1, \theta_2\}$ and $\Phi=\{{\varphi}_1, {\varphi}_2\}$ satisfy the corona condition. The quotient Hilbert modules $(A^2_{\alpha})_{\Theta}$ and $(A^2_{\beta})_{\Phi}$ are isomorphic if and only if $\alpha=\beta$ and $$\bigtriangledown^2 \mbox{log}\,\frac{\|\theta_1(z)\|^2 + \|\theta_2(z)\|^2}{\|{\varphi}_1(z)\|^2 + \|{\varphi}_2(z)\|^2}=0,$$ for all $z \in \mathbb{D}$. Since we have by (4.2), $${\mathcal{K}}_{E^_{(A^2_\alpha)_\Theta}}(w) = - \frac{2+\alpha}{(1 - \|w\|^2)^{2}} - \frac{1}{4} \bigtriangledown^2 \mbox{log}\,(\|\theta_1(w)\|^2 + \|\theta_2(w)\|^2),$$ and $${\mathcal{K}}_{E^_{(A^2_\beta)_\Phi}} (w) = - \frac{2+\beta}{(1 - \|w\|^2)^{2}} - \frac{1}{4} \bigtriangledown^2 \mbox{log}\,(\|{\varphi}_1(w)\|^2 + \|{\varphi}_2(w)\|^2),$$ one implication is obvious. For the other one, suppose that $(A^2_ \alpha)_{\Theta}$ is isomorphic to $(A^2_\beta)_{\Phi}$ so that the curvatures coincide. Observe next that $$\frac{4(\beta - \alpha)}{(1 - \|w\|^2)^{2}} = \bigtriangledown^2 \mbox{log}\,\frac{\|\theta_1(w)\|^2 + \|\theta_2(w)\|^2}{\|{\varphi}_1(w)\|^2 + \|{\varphi}_2(w)\|^2}.$$ Since a function $f$ with $\bigtriangledown^2 f(z) = \frac{1}{(1 - \|z\|^2)^2}$ for all $z \in \mathbb{D}$ is necessarily unbounded, we have a contradiction unless $\alpha=\beta$ (see Lemma 4.6 below) and (4.3) holds. This is due to the assumption that the bounded functions $\Theta$ and $\Phi$ satisfy the corona condition. There is no bounded function $f$ defined on the unit disk $\mathbb{D}$ that satisfies $\bigtriangledown^2 f(z) =\frac{1}{(1 - \|z\|^2)^2}$ for all $z \in \mathbb{D}$. Suppose that such $f$ exists. Since $\frac{1}{4} \bigtriangledown^2 [(\|z\|^2)^{m}] = \partial \bar{\partial} [(\|z\|^2)^{m}] = m^2 (\|z\|^2)^{m-1}$ for all $m \in \mathbb{N}$, we see that for $$g(z) := \frac{1}{4} \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{\|z\|^{2m}}{m} = - \frac{1}{4} \mbox{log}\, (1 - \|z\|^2),$$ $ \bigtriangledown^2 g(z) = \frac{1}{(1-\|z\|^2)^2}$ for all $z \in \mathbb{D}$. Consequently, $f(z)=g(z)+h(z)$ for some harmonic function $h$. Since the assumption is that $f$ is bounded, there exists an $M>0$ such that $\|g(z) + h(z)\| \leq M$ for all $z \in \mathbb{D}$. It follows that $$\mbox{exp}\,(h(z)) \leq \mbox{exp}\,( - g(z) + M) = (1 - \|z\|^2)^{\frac{1}{4}} \,\mbox{exp}\,(M),$$ and letting $z = r e^{i\theta},$ we have $\mbox{exp}\,(h(r e^{i\theta})) \leq (1 - r^2)^{\frac{1}{4}} \mbox{exp}\,(M)$. Thus $\mbox{exp}\,(h(r e^{i\theta})) {\rightarrow}0$ uniformly as $r {\rightarrow}1^-$, and hence $\exp h(z) \equiv 0$. This is due to the maximum modulus principle because $\exp h(z) = \| \exp(h(z) + i \tilde{h}(z))\|$, where $\tilde{h}$ is a harmonic conjugate for $h$. We then have a contradiction, and the proof is complete.\ We thank E. Straube for providing us with a key idea used in the proof of Lemma 4.6. For $\Theta=\{\theta_1, \theta_2\}$ and $\Phi=\{{\varphi}_1, {\varphi}_2\}$ satisfying the corona condition, $(H^2)_{\Theta}$ cannot be isomorphic to $(A^2_{\alpha})_{\Phi}$. By identity (4.2), we conclude that $(H^2)_{\Theta}$ is isomorphic to $(A^2_{\alpha})_{\Phi}$ if and only if $$\frac{4(1+\alpha)}{(1 - \|w\|^2)^{2}} = \bigtriangledown^2 \mbox{log}\,\frac{\|{\varphi}_1(w)\|^2 + \|{\varphi}_2(w)\|^2}{\|\theta_1(w)\|^2 + \|\theta_2(w)\|^2}.$$ But according to Lemma 4.6, this is impossible unless $\alpha=-1$. Concluding remark ================= Although the case of quotient modules we have been studying in this note may seem rather elementary, the class of examples obtained is not without interest. The ability to control the data in the construction, that is, the multiplier, provides one with the possibility of obtaining examples of Hilbert modules over $\mathbb{C}[z]$ and hence operators with precise and refined properties. In [@BDF] and [@BDFP] the authors utilized this framework to exhibit operators with properties that responded to questions raised in the papers. In particular, in [@BDFP] the authors are interested in characterizing contraction operators that are quasi-similar to the unilateral shift of multiplicity one. In the earlier part of the paper, which explores a new class of operators, a plausible conjecture presents itself but examples defined in the framework of this note, introduced in Corollary 7.9, show that it is false. In [@BDF], the authors study canonical models for bi-shifts; that is, for commuting pairs of pure isometries. A question arises concerning the possible structure of such pairs and again, examples built using the framework of this note answer the question. Finally in [@DMS], the authors determine when a contractive Hilbert module in $B_1(\mathbb{D})$ can be represented as a quotient Hilbert module of the form ${\mathcal{H}}_\Theta$, where ${\mathcal{H}}$ is the Hardy, the Bergman, or a weighted Bergman module. For the case of the Hardy module, the result is contained in the model theory of Sz.-Nagy and Foias [@NF]. One can consider a much larger class of quotient Hilbert modules replacing the Hardy, the Bergman and the weighted Bergman modules by a quasi-free Hilbert module [@DM1] of rank one. In that situation, one can raise several questions relating curvature invariant, similarity and the multiplier corresponding to the given quotient Hilbert modules. These issues will be discussed in the forthcoming paper [@DKKS]. [99]{} H. Bercovici, R. G. Douglas, and C. Foias, [Canonical models for bi-isometries]{}, Operator Theory: Advances and Applications, $\mathbf{2118}$ (2011), 177-205. H. Bercovici, R. G. Douglas, C. Foias, and C. Pearcy, [Confluent operator algebras and the closability property]{}, J. Funct. Anal. $\mathbf{258}$ (2010), 4122–4153. X. Chen and R. G. Douglas, [Localization of Hilbert modules]{}, Mich. Math. J. $\mathbf{39}$ (1992), 443–454. M. J. Cowen and R. G. Douglas, [Complex geometry and operator theory]{}, Acta Math. $\mathbf{141}$ (1978), 187–261. R. G. Douglas, C. Foias, and J. Sarkar, [Resolutions of Hilbert modules and similarity]{}, Journal of Geometric Analysis, to appear. R. G. Douglas, Y. Kim, H. Kwon, and J. Sarkar, [Curvature invariant and generalized canonical operator models - II]{}, in preparation. R. G. Douglas and G. Misra, [Quasi-free resolutions of Hilbert modules]{}, Integr. Equat. Op. Thy. $\mathbf{47}$ (2003), No. 4, 435–456. R. G. Douglas, G. Misra, and J. Sarkar, [Contractive Hilbert modules and their dilations over natural function algebras]{}, Israel Journal of Math, to appear. R. G. Douglas and V. I. Paulsen, [Hilbert Modules over Function Algebras]{}, Research Notes in Mathematics Series, 47, Longman, Harlow, 1989. G. Polya, [How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method]{}, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1944. M. A. Shubin, Factorization of parameter-dependent matrix functions in normal rings and certain related questions in the theory of Noetherian operators, Mat. Sb. $\mathbf{73}$ (113) (1967), 610-629; Math. USSR Sb. B. Sz.-Nagy and C. Foias, [Harmonic Analysis of Operators on Hilbert Space]{}, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1970. M. Uchiyama, [Curvatures and similarity of operators with holomorphic eigenvectors]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. $\mathbf{319}$ (1990), 405-415. K. Zhu, [Operator Theory in Function Spaces*]{}, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 138, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 2007. [^1]: The work of Douglas and Sarkar was partially supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation. The work of Kwon was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MEST) (No. 2010-0024371), and in part, by a Young Investigator Award at the NSF-sponsored Workshop in Analysis and Probability, Texas A & M University, 2009. The research began in the summer of 2009. Sarkar was at Texas A & M University at the time and Kim and Kwon were participants of the workshop. Sarkar would also like to acknowledge the hospitality of the mathematics departments of Texas A & M University and the University of Texas at San Antonio, where part of his research was done.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| Let ${\mathcal F}$ be a family of positive homothets (or translates) of a given convex body $K$ in ${{\mathbb R}^n}$. We investigate two approaches to measuring the complexity of ${\mathcal F}$. First, we find an upper bound on the transversal number $\tau({\mathcal F})$ of ${\mathcal F}$ in terms of $n$ and the independence number $\nu({\mathcal F})$. This question is motivated by a problem of Grünbaum [@DGrK63]. Our bound $\tau({\mathcal F}) \leq2^n\binom{2n}{n}({n\log n+ \log\log n + 5n})\nu({\mathcal F})$ is exponential in $n$, an improvement from the previously known bound of Kim, Nakprasit, Pelsmajer and Skokan [@KNPS], which was of order $n^n$. By a lower bound, we show that the right order of magnitude is exponential in $n$. Next, we consider another measure of complexity, the Vapnik–Červonenkis dimension of ${\mathcal F}$. We prove that $\operatorname{vcdim}({\mathcal F})\le 3$ if $n=2$ and is infinite for some ${\mathcal F}$ if $n\geq 3$. This settles a conjecture of Günbaum [@Gr75]: Show that the maximum dual VC-dimension of a family of positive homothets of a given convex body $K$ in ${\mathbb R}^n$ is $n+1$. This conjecture was disproved by Naiman and Wynn [@NW93] who constructed a counterexample of dual VC-dimension $\left\lfloor\frac{3n}{2}\right\rfloor$. Our result implies that no upper bound exists. address: 'Dept. of Math. and Stats., 632 Central Academic Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2G1' author: - Márton Naszódi - Steven Taschuk bibliography: - 'biblio.bib' date: 2009 July 29 title: 'On the Transversal Number and VC-Dimension of Families of Positive Homothets of a Convex Body' --- [^1] Definitions and Results ======================= A convex body in ${{\mathbb R}^n}$ is a compact convex set with non-empty interior. A positive homothet of a set $S\subseteq{{\mathbb R}^n}$ is a set of the form $\lambda S+x$, where $\lambda>0$ and $x\in{{\mathbb R}^n}$. The cardinality, closure, convex hull and volume of $S$ are denoted as $\operatorname{card}(S), \operatorname{cl}(S),\operatorname{conv}(S)$ and $\operatorname{vol}(S)$, respectively. The origin of ${{\mathbb R}^n}$ is denoted $o$. Let ${\mathcal F}$ be a family of positive homothets (or translates) of a given convex body $K$ in ${{\mathbb R}^n}$. In this note we study two approaches to measuring the complexity of ${\mathcal F}$. First, we bound the transversal number $\tau({\mathcal F})$ in terms of the dimension $n$ and the independence number $\nu({\mathcal F})$. The transversal number $\tau({\mathcal F})$ of a family of sets ${\mathcal F}$ is defined as $$\tau({\mathcal F}) = \min\ \{\operatorname{card}(S) {\colon}\text{$S\cap F\ne\emptyset$ for all $F\in{\mathcal F}$}\} .$$ The independence number $\nu({\mathcal F})$ of ${\mathcal F}$ is defined as $$\nu({\mathcal F}) = \max\ \{\operatorname{card}(S) {\colon}\text{$S\subseteq{\mathcal F}$ and $S$ is pairwise disjoint}\} .$$ Clearly $\nu({\mathcal F})\le\tau({\mathcal F})$. The problem of finding an inequality in the reverse direction originates in the following question of Grünbaum [@DGrK63]: Is it true that $\nu({\mathcal F})=1$ implies $\tau({\mathcal F})\leq 3$ for any family ${\mathcal F}$ of translates of a convex body in ${\mathbb R}^2$? Karasev [@Kar00] proved the affirmative answer. One of the main results of [@KNPS] by Kim, Nakprasit, Pelsmajer and Skokan is that in ${{\mathbb R}^n}$ we have $\tau({\mathcal F}) \leq 2^{n-1}n^n\nu({\mathcal F})$. We improve the dependence on $n$ to exponential. \[thm:ubound\] Let $K\subseteq{{\mathbb R}^n}$ be a convex body and ${\mathcal F}$ a family of positive homothets of $K$. Then $$\begin{gathered} \nu({\mathcal F})\leq\tau({\mathcal F})\leq\frac{\operatorname{vol}(2K-K)}{\operatorname{vol}(K)}({n\log n+ \log\log n + 5n})\nu({\mathcal F}) \\ \le\begin{cases} 3^n({n\log n+ \log\log n + 5n})\nu({\mathcal F}) & \text{if $K=-K$,} \\ 2^n\binom{2n}{n}({n\log n+ \log\log n + 5n})\nu({\mathcal F}) & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases} \end{gathered}$$ The following proposition shows that an exponential bound is the best possible, even when ${\mathcal F}$ contains only translates of $K$. \[prop:lbound\] For sufficiently large $n$, there is a convex body $K$ in ${{\mathbb R}^n}$ and a family ${\mathcal F}$ of translates of $K$ such that $\tau({\mathcal F})\geq\frac12(1.058)^n\nu({\mathcal F})$. Our second approach is to investigate the VC-dimension of a family ${\mathcal F}$ of positive homothets (or translates) of a convex body $K$. This combinatorial measure of complexity was introduced by Vapnik and Červonenkis [@VCru], and is defined as $$\operatorname{vcdim}({\mathcal F}) = \sup\ \{\operatorname{card}(X) {\colon}\text{${\mathcal F}$ shatters $X$}\} ,$$ where a set system ${\mathcal F}$ is said to shatter a set of points $X$ if for every subset $X'\subseteq X$, there exists a set $F\in{\mathcal F}$ such that $X\cap F = X'$. Note that if there is no upper bound on the sizes of sets shattered by ${\mathcal F}$, then this definition yields $\operatorname{vcdim}({\mathcal F}) = \infty$. Our main motivation in studying the VC-dimension is its involvement in upper bounds on transversal numbers (see the Epsilon Net Theorem of Haussler and Welzl [@HW] and Corollary 10.2.7 of [@Mat02]) and related phenomena (see [@Mat04], for example). We show, however, that $\operatorname{vcdim}({\mathcal F})$ is bounded from above only in dimension two. \[thm:vcdim\] If $K\subseteq{\mathbb R}^2$ is a convex body and ${\mathcal F}$ is a family of positive homothets of $K$, then $\operatorname{vcdim}({\mathcal F}) \le 3$. \[ex:vcdim\] We construct a convex body $K\subseteq{\mathbb R}^3$ and a countable family ${\mathcal F}$ of translates of $K$ such that $\operatorname{vcdim}({\mathcal F})=\infty$. This example can, of course, be embedded in ${\mathbb R}^n$ for $n>3$ as well. Example \[ex:vcdim\] also settles a conjecture of Grünbaum on dual VC-dimension (see Section 10.3 of [@Mat02] for this notion). He showed [@Gr75] that if ${\mathcal F}$ is a family of positive homothets of a convex body in ${\mathbb R}^2$, then $\operatorname{vcdim}({\mathcal F}^\ast) \le 3$, and conjectured (point (7) on p. 21 of [@Gr75]) the upper bound $\operatorname{vcdim}({\mathcal F}^\ast) \le n+1$ for such families in ${{\mathbb R}^n}$. (Grünbaum uses a different terminology: instead of dual VC-dimension, he writes “the maximal number of sets in independent families”, where “independence” is not as we defined above.) Naiman and Wynn [@NW93] disproved this conjecture by giving an example with $\operatorname{vcdim}({\mathcal F}^\ast) = \left\lfloor\frac{3n}{2}\right\rfloor$; our example shows that no upper bound exists, since $\operatorname{vcdim}({\mathcal F}) < 2^{\operatorname{vcdim}({\mathcal F}^\ast)+1}$ ([@Mat02], Lemma 10.3.4). \[cor:dualvcdim\] There is a convex body $K\subseteq{\mathbb R}^3$ and a countable family ${\mathcal F}$ of translates of $K$ such that $\operatorname{vcdim}({\mathcal F}^\ast)=\infty$. The construction of example \[ex:vcdim\] shares some principles with the constructions given in [@HM] and in Theorem 2.9 of [@GPW] to show that certain Helly-type and Hadwiger-type theorems for line transversals of families of translates of a convex set in the plane do not generalize to ${\mathbb R}^3$. These examples and ours show that, in some sense, translates of a convex set in ${\mathbb R}^3$ may form set systems of high complexity. They also suggest that finding good bounds for the transversal numbers of such families is a difficult task. In Section \[sec:ubound\], we prove Theorem \[thm:ubound\] and Proposition \[prop:lbound\]. In Section \[sec:vcdim\], we prove Theorem \[thm:vcdim\] and construct Example \[ex:vcdim\]. Transversal and Independence Numbers of Positive Homothets {#sec:ubound} ========================================================== Let $K$ and $L$ be convex bodies in ${{\mathbb R}^n}$. Let $N(K,L)$ denote the covering number of $K$ by $L$; that is, the smallest number of translates of $L$ required to cover $K$. \[thm:RZ\] Let $K,L\subset{{\mathbb R}^n}$ be convex sets. Then $$N(K,L)\leq\frac{\operatorname{vol}(K-L)}{\operatorname{vol}(L)}({n\log n+ \log\log n + 5n}).$$ First, we prove the theorem in the case when ${\mathcal F}$ consists of translates of $K$ only. Let $\{K_1, K_2,\dots,K_\ell\}$ be a maximal set of independent (i.e., pairwise disjoint) elements of ${\mathcal F}$. Clearly, $\ell\leq\nu({\mathcal F})$. Let ${\mathcal F}_1=\{F\in{\mathcal F}{\colon}F\cap K_1\neq\emptyset\}$, and for $i=2,\dots,\ell$ let $${\mathcal F}_i=\left\{F\in{\mathcal F}\setminus\bigcup_{j=1}^{i-1}{\mathcal F}_j {\colon}F\cap K_i\neq\emptyset\right\}.$$ We will construct a transversal $T_i$ for each ${\mathcal F}_i$. It is easy to show that, for any set $S\subseteq{{\mathbb R}^n}$, $$S-K = \{x\in{{\mathbb R}^n}{\colon}(K+x)\cap S \ne \emptyset\} \text{ .}$$ An immediate consequence is that if $K_i-K \subseteq T_i-K$, then $T_i$ is a transversal of ${\mathcal F}_i$. By Theorem \[thm:RZ\], for each $i$, there is such a set $T_i$ with $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{card}(T_i) &\le \frac{\operatorname{vol}(K_i-K+K)}{\operatorname{vol}(-K)}({n\log n+ \log\log n + 5n}) \\ &= \frac{\operatorname{vol}(2K-K)}{\operatorname{vol}(K)}({n\log n+ \log\log n + 5n}) \\ &\le \begin{cases} 3^n({n\log n+ \log\log n + 5n}) & \text{if $K=-K$,} \\ 2^n\binom{2n}{n}({n\log n+ \log\log n + 5n}) & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ The last inequality for the non-symmetric case follows from the Rogers–Shephard inequality [@RS]. Hence, $T=\mathop\cup\limits_{i=1}^\ell T_i$ is a transversal of ${\mathcal F}$ of cardinality bounded from above as stated in the theorem. The proof of the case when ${\mathcal F}$ contains finitely many positive homothets of $K$ follows from an argument given in [@KNPS], which we repeat here. First, assume that $\inf\ \{\lambda {\colon}\lambda K+x\in{\mathcal F}\} >0$. Let $\varepsilon$ be a positive number, to be specified later. We say that $\lambda K+x$ is a small member of a subset $\mathcal A\subseteq{\mathcal F}$ if $$\lambda < (1+\varepsilon)\inf\ \{\mu {\colon}\mu K+x\in\mathcal A\}.$$ Let $F_1$ be a small element of ${\mathcal F}$, and let ${\mathcal F}_1=\left\{F\in{\mathcal F}{\colon}F\cap F_1\neq\emptyset\right\}.$ Next, for each $i=2,3,\dots,\ell$ inductively, let $F_i$ be a small element in ${\mathcal F}\setminus\mathop\cup\limits_{j=1}^{i-1}{\mathcal F}_j$, and let $${\mathcal F}_i=\left\{F\in{\mathcal F}\setminus\bigcup_{j=1}^{i-1}{\mathcal F}_j {\colon}F\cap F_i\neq\emptyset\right\}.$$ Let $\lambda_i=\inf\ \{\lambda {\colon}\lambda K+x\in{\mathcal F}_i\}$. By assumption, $\lambda_i>0$. Our inductive procedure of defining $F_i, {\mathcal F}_i$ and $\lambda_i$ will terminate with $\ell\le\nu({\mathcal F})$. Now, for each $F\in{\mathcal F}_i$, choose a point $z$ in $F\cap F_i$, and shrink $F$ with center $z$ to obtain a translate of $\lambda_i K$. The shrunk copy of $F$ is clearly contained in $F$. Let ${\mathcal F}_i'$ be the family of these shrunk copies. Now, ${\mathcal F}_i'$ contains only translates of $\lambda_i K$, any transversal of ${\mathcal F}_i'$ is a transversal of ${\mathcal F}_i$, and each member of ${\mathcal F}_i'$ intersects $F_i$. Thus if $F_i-\lambda_i K \subseteq T_i-\lambda_i K$, then $T_i$ is a transversal of ${\mathcal F}_i$. Theorem \[thm:RZ\] yields such a set $T_i$ with cardinality $$\operatorname{card}(T_i) \le \frac{\operatorname{vol}((1+\varepsilon)\lambda_i K- \lambda_i K + \lambda_i K)}{\operatorname{vol}(-\lambda_i K)}({n\log n+ \log\log n + 5n}).$$ Since $\operatorname{card}(T_i)$ is an integer, choosing a sufficiently small $\varepsilon$ provides the right bound. Finally, we sketch the additions necessary to handle the case when\ $\inf\ \{\lambda {\colon}\lambda K+x\in{\mathcal F}\} =0$, a case not considered in [@KNPS]. Let $(\delta_m)_{m=1}^\infty$ be a sequence of positive real numbers with $\delta_m\downarrow 0$. For every $m\in{\mathbb Z}^+$ we define ${\mathcal F}^m=\{\lambda K +x \in{\mathcal F}{\colon}\lambda>\delta_m\}$. Using the previous proof, we obtain a transversal $T^m = \{t^m_1,\dotsc,t^m_k\}$ of ${\mathcal F}^m$ for each $m$, where $k$ is the desired bound. Now, choose some $G_1\in{\mathcal F}$. By the pigeonhole principle, there is an $i\in\{1,\dotsc,k\}$ with $t^m_i\in G_1$ for infinitely many $m$; assume $i=1$. Passing to a subsequence of $(T^m)_{m=1}^\infty$, we may further assume that $t^m_1\to t_1\in G_1$. If $\{t_1\}$ is not a transversal of ${\mathcal F}$, choose $G_2\in{\mathcal F}$ with $t_1\notin G_2$; passing to a further subsequence of $(T^m)_{m=1}^\infty$, we may assume that $t^m_2\to t_2 \in G_2$. If $\{t_1,t_2\}$ is not a transversal of ${\mathcal F}$, continue in this manner, obtaining eventually a transversal of ${\mathcal F}$. For the proof of Proposition \[prop:lbound\], we need the following definition. A set $S\subseteq{{\mathbb R}^n}$ is called strictly antipodal if, for any two points $x_1$ and $x_2$ in $S$, there exists a hyperplane $H$ through $o$ such that $H+x_1$ and $H+x_2$ support $S$ and $(H+x_1)\cap S = \{x_1\}$ and $(H+x_2)\cap S = \{x_2\}$. For more on this notion, see [@Gr63]. First, we show that if $S$ is a strictly antipodal set then ${\mathcal F}=\{K+s {\colon}s\in S\}$, where $K=\operatorname{conv}(S)$, is a family of pairwise touching translates of $K$, and no three members of ${\mathcal F}$ have a point in common. We may assume that $o\in K$. Let $x_1,x_2$ be two distinct points in $S$. Clearly, $x_1+x_2\in (K+x_1)\cap(K+x_2)$. On the other hand, if $H$ is a hyperplane as in the definition of strict antipodality, then $H'=H+x_1+x_2$ separates $K+x_1$ and $K+x_2$. Moreover, $(K+x_1)\cap H' = (K+x_2)\cap H' = \{x_1+x_2\}$. So, $K+x_1$ and $K+x_2$ touch each other. We need to show that for any $x_3\in S\setminus\{x_1,x_2\}$, we have that $K+x_3$ does not contain $x_1+x_2$. Suppose it does. Then $x_1+x_2$ is a common point of $K+x_1$ and $K+x_3$, hence, by the previous argument, $x_1+x_2=x_1+x_3$, so $x_2=x_3$, a contradiction. On the other hand, Füredi, Lagarias and Morgan (Theorem 2.4. in [@FLM]) give a construction, for sufficiently large $n$, of a symmetric strictly convex body $K$ and a finite set $S$ in ${{\mathbb R}^n}$ with the property that any two translates of $K$ in the family $\{s+K : s\in S\}$ touch each other, moreover $\operatorname{card}(S) \geq (1.02)^n$. It follows that $S$ is a strictly antipodal set. Later, Swanepoel observerd (Theorem 2 in Section 2.2, [@Sw04]) that a better bound, $\operatorname{card}(S) \geq (1.058)^n$ follows from the proof in [@FLM]. Thus, for the resulting ${\mathcal F}$ we have $\nu({\mathcal F})=1$ and $\tau({\mathcal F})\geq \frac{1}{2}\operatorname{card}({\mathcal F})=\frac{1}{2}(1.058)^n$. VC-Dimension of Positive Homothets {#sec:vcdim} ================================== Let ${\mathcal F}$ be a family of positive homothets of a convex body $K\subseteq{\mathbb R}^2$. Suppose, for contradiction, that ${\mathcal F}$ shatters some set of four points, say, $X = \{x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4\}$. Case 1: One of the points of $X$ is in the convex hull of the other three, say, $x_1\in\operatorname{conv}(\{x_2,x_3,x_4\})$. By hypothesis, there is an $F\in{\mathcal F}$ such that $X\cap F = \{x_2,x_3,x_4\}$. But since $F$ is convex, it follows that $x_1\in F$, which is a contradiction. Case 2: The points of $X$ are in convex position, forming the vertices of a convex quadrilateral in, say, the order $x_1x_2x_3x_4$. (See Figure \[fig:quad\].) Without loss of generality, $X\cap K = \{x_1,x_3\}$ and $X\cap TK = \{x_2,x_4\}$, where $T\colon{\mathbb R}^2\to{\mathbb R}^2, Tx = \lambda x + t$ is a homothety with ratio $\lambda\ge 1$. First suppose $\lambda > 1$. Let $$p = \frac{1}{1-\lambda} t$$ be the centre of the homothety $T$. If $p$ is in the (closed) region $A$ shown in Figure \[fig:quad\], then $x_2\in\operatorname{conv}(\{x_1,x_3,p\})$. On the other hand, $T^{-1}x_2$ is a convex combination of $p$ and $x_2$; thus $x_2\in\operatorname{conv}(\{x_1,x_3,T^{-1}x_2\})$. (See Figure \[fig:conv\].) But $\{x_1,x_3,T^{-1}x_2\} \subseteq K$, so by convexity, $x_2\in K$, a contradiction. Similarly, if $p\in B$ then $x_4\in\operatorname{conv}(\{x_1,x_3,T^{-1}x_4\})\subseteq K$; if $p\in C\cup D$ then $x_3\in\operatorname{conv}(\{x_2,x_4,Tx_3\})\subseteq TK$; and if $p\in D\cup E$ then $x_1\in\operatorname{conv}(\{x_2,x_4,Tx_1\})\subseteq TK$. In all cases we obtain a contradiction. The case $\lambda = 1$, when $T$ is a translation, succumbs to essentially the same argument, with $p$ an ideal point corresponding to the direction of the translation. We omit the details. To illustrate the ideas of the construction, we first sketch how to construct, for any $M\in{\mathbb N}$, a convex body $K$ whose translates shatter a set of $M$ points. The sections of the paraboloid $z = x^2 + y^2$ by planes parallel to the $yz$-plane are all translates of the same parabola. (See Figure \[fig:paraboloid\].) Choose some $2^M$ of these sections and some set $X$ of $M$ points on one of them. Each section contains a translated copy of $X$; assign a subset to each section, take that subset of its copy of $X$, and let $K$ be the convex hull of the points in these subsets of copies. The translates of $K$ then shatter $X$, since an appropriate translation will superimpose the section corresponding to any desired subset on the section containing $X$. Now, we present Example \[ex:vcdim\]. Let $\mathcal E$ be the family of all finite subsets of ${\mathbb N}$, and let $E\colon{\mathbb N}\to\mathcal E$ be a bijection. Set $$A = \{(m,n)\in{\mathbb N}^2{\colon}m\in E(n)\} \text{ .}$$ For $m,n\in{\mathbb N}$, let $u_m = (\frac1m,0,\frac1{m^2})$ and $v_n = (0,\frac1n,\frac1{n^2})$, and define $$p\colon{\mathbb N}^2\to{\mathbb R}^3 \text{ ,\quad} p(m,n) = u_m + v_n \text{ .}$$ Let $K = \operatorname{conv}(\operatorname{cl}(p(A))$ and ${\mathcal F}= \{K - v_n {\colon}n\in{\mathbb N}\}$. We claim that $\operatorname{vcdim}({\mathcal F}) = \infty$. Let $P\subseteq{\mathbb R}^3$ be the paraboloid with equation $z = x^2 + y^2$. Since $P$ is the boundary of a strictly convex set, $P\cap\operatorname{conv}(S) = S$ for any $S\subseteq P$. Since $p({\mathbb N}^2)$ is a discrete set, $p({\mathbb N}^2)\cap\operatorname{cl}(S) = S$ for any $S\subseteq p({\mathbb N}^2)$. So if $T \subseteq p({\mathbb N}^2)$, then $$T\cap K = T\cap p({\mathbb N}^2) \cap P \cap K = T\cap p({\mathbb N}^2) \cap \operatorname{cl}(p(A)) = T\cap p(A) \text{ .}$$ Now, let $M\in{\mathbb N}$, $X = \{u_1,\dotsc,u_M\}$, and $X'\subseteq X$. Let $n\in{\mathbb N}$ be such that $X' = \{u_m {\colon}m\in E(n)\}$. Then $$(X + v_n)\cap K = (X + v_n)\cap p(A) = X' + v_n \text{ ,}$$ that is, $X\cap (K - v_n) = X'$. Thus ${\mathcal F}$ shatters $X$, so $\operatorname{vcdim}({\mathcal F}) \ge M$. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ The authors are grateful to Nicole Tomczak-Jaegermann and Alexander Litvak for their support and encouragement, and we thank the University of Alberta. We thank Leonard Schulman who, upon learning of our example \[ex:vcdim\], brought the question asked by Grünbaum in [@Gr75] to our attention and thus put our result in context. The first named author holds a Postdoctoral Fellowship of the Pacific Institute for the Mathematical Sciences at the University of Alberta, and the second named author was supported by a Canada Graduate Scholarship of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. We thank them as well. A note ====== After the publication of the paper, Konrad Swanepoel brought the following to our attention: In Lemma 9.11.2 of [@Bor04] (proved by I. Talata in [@Talata]) an explicit construction of an $o$-symmetric strictly convex smooth body is given with $\sqrt[3]{3^n}/3$ pairwise touching translates. That changes the bound in Proposition \[prop:lbound\] to $\tau({\mathcal F})\geq\frac{\sqrt[3]{3^n}}{6}\nu({\mathcal F})$. [^1]: The first named author holds a Postdoctoral Fellowship of the Pacific Institute for the Mathematical Sciences at the University of Alberta. The second naemd author was supported by an Alexander Graham Bell Canada Graduate Scholarship of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We address the problem to infer physical material parameters and boundary conditions from the observed motion of a homogeneous deformable object via the solution of an inverse problem. Parameters are estimated from potentially unreliable real-world data sources such as sparse observations without correspondences. We introduce a novel Lagrangian-Eulerian optimization formulation, including a cost function that penalizes differences to observations during an optimization run. This formulation matches correspondence-free, sparse observations from a single-view depth sequence with a finite element simulation of deformable bodies. In conjunction with an efficient hexahedral discretization and a stable, implicit formulation of collisions, our method can be used in demanding situation to recover a variety of material parameters, ranging from Young’s modulus and Poisson ratio to gravity and stiffness damping, and even external boundaries. In a number of tests using synthetic datasets and real-world measurements, we analyse the robustness of our approach and the convergence behavior of the numerical optimization scheme.' author: - Sebastian Weiss - Robert Maier - Rüdiger Westermann - Daniel Cremers - Nils Thuerey bibliography: - 'ms.bib' title: 'Sparse Surface Constraints for Combining Physics-based Elasticity Simulation and Correspondence-Free Object Reconstruction' --- <ccs2012> <concept> <concept\_id>10010147.10010371.10010352.10010379</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Computing methodologies Physical simulation</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>500</concept\_significance> </concept> </ccs2012> ![image](images/teaser.jpg){width="\linewidth"} \[fig:teaser\] =1em	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'In this work, we consider the hedging error due to discrete trading in models with jumps. Extending an approach developed by Fukasawa (2011) for continuous processes, we propose a framework enabling to (asymptotically) optimize the discretization times. More precisely, a discretization rule is said to be optimal if for a given cost function, no strategy has (asymptotically, for large cost) a lower mean square discretization error for a smaller cost. We focus on discretization rules based on hitting times and give explicit expressions for the optimal rules within this class.' author: - \| Mathieu Rosenbaum\ LPMA, Université Pierre et Marie Curie\ [email protected] - \| Peter Tankov\ LPMA, Université Paris Diderot\ [email protected] title: \| Asymptotically optimal discretization\ of hedging strategies with jumps --- Key words: Discretization of stochastic integrals, asymptotic optimality, hitting times, option hedging, semimartingales with jumps, Blumenthal-Getoor index 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: 60H05, 91G20 Introduction ============ A basic problem in mathematical finance is to replicate a random claim with $\mathcal F_T$-measurable payoff $H_T$ with a portfolio involving only the underlying asset $Y$ and cash. When $Y$ follows a diffusion process of the form $$\begin{aligned} dY_t = \mu(t,Y_t)dt + \sigma(t,Y_t) dW_t,\label{diff}\end{aligned}$$ it is known that under minimal assumptions, a random payoff depending only on the terminal value of the asset $H_T = H(Y_T)$ can be replicated with the so-called delta hedging strategy. This means that the number of units of underlying to hold at time $t$ is equal to $X_t = \frac{\partial P(t,Y_t)}{\partial Y}$, where $P(t,Y_t)$ is the price of the option, which is uniquely defined in such a model. However, to implement such a strategy, the hedging portfolio must be readjusted continuously, which is of course physically impossible and anyway irrelevant because of the presence of microstructure effects and transaction costs. For this reason, the optimal strategy is always replaced with a piecewise constant one, leading to a discretization error. The relevant questions are then: (i) how big is this discretization error and (ii) when are the good times to readjust the hedge.\ Assume first that the hedging portfolio is readjusted at regular intervals of length $h = \frac{T}{n}$. A result by Ruotao Zhang [@zhang.couverture], see also [@bertsimas.kogan.lo.00; @hayashi.mykland.05] then shows that for Lipschitz continuous payoff functions, assuming zero interest rates, the discretization error $$\mathcal E_T^n = \int_0^T X_t dY_t - \int_0^T X_{h[t/h]} d Y_t$$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{h\to 0} n E[(\mathcal E^n_T)^2] = \frac{T}{2}E\left[\int_0^T \left(\frac{\partial^2 P}{\partial Y^2}\right)^2 \sigma(s,Y_s)^4 ds\right].\label{zhang}\end{aligned}$$ Of course, it is intuitively clear that readjusting the portfolio at regular deterministic intervals is not optimal. However, the optimal strategy for fixed $n$ is very difficult to compute.\ Fukasawa [@fukasawa.09b] simplifies this problem by assuming that the hedging portfolio is readjusted at high frequency. The performance of different families of strategies can then be compared based on their asymptotic behavior as the number of readjustment dates $n$ tends to infinity, rather than the performance for fixed $n$. Consider a sequence of discretization strategies $$0 = T^n_0 < T^n_1 < \dots < T^n_j < \dots,$$ with $\sup_{j} \|T^n_{j+1}-T^n_j\|\to 0$ as $n\to \infty$ and let $N^n_T := \max\{j\geq 0 ; T^n_j \leq T\}$ be the total number of readjustment dates on the interval $[0,T]$ for given $n$. To compare two such sequences in terms of their asymptotic behavior for large $n$, Fukasawa [@fukasawa.09b] uses the criterion $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{n\to \infty} E[N^n_T] E[\langle \mathcal E^n\rangle_T],\label{fuklim}\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle \mathcal E^n\rangle$ is the quadratic variation of the semimartingale $(\mathcal E^n_t)_{t\geq 0}$. He finds that when the underlying asset is a continuous semimartingale, the functional admits a nonzero lower bound over all such sequences, and exhibits a specific sequence which attains this lower bound and is therefore called asymptotically efficient.\ In the diffusion model , the asymptotically efficient sequence takes the form $$\begin{aligned} T^n_{j+1} = \inf\{t>T^n_j; \|X_t - X_{T^n_j}\|^2 \geq h_n \frac{\partial^2 P(T^n_j,Y_{T^n_j})}{\partial Y^2}\},\quad X_t = \frac{\partial P(t,Y_t)}{\partial Y},\label{fukrule}\end{aligned}$$ where $h_n$ is a deterministic sequence with $h_n \to 0$. In this case, $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{n\to \infty} E[N^n_T] E[\langle \mathcal E^n\rangle_T] = \frac{1}{6}E\left[\int_0^T \frac{\partial^2 P}{\partial Y^2} \sigma(s,Y_s)^2 ds\right]^2,\label{diffeff}\end{aligned}$$ whereas for readjustment at equally spaced dates, formula yields $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{n\to \infty} E[N^n_T] E[\langle \mathcal E^n\rangle_T] = \frac{T}{2}E\left[\int_0^T \left(\frac{\partial^2 P}{\partial Y^2} \right)^2 \sigma(s,Y_s)^4 ds\right].\label{diffunif}\end{aligned}$$ Using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we then see that the asymptotically efficient discretization leads to a gain of at least a factor $3$ (and in practice, much more), compared to readjustment at regularly spaced points.\ Remark that the discretization scheme is very different from the classical approximation schemes for stochastic differential equations such as Euler or Milstein schemes. In order to be implemented it requires the continuous observation of $(X_t)$ and $(Y_t)$, which of course makes sense in the mathematical finance context because the prices are, essentially, continuously observable and the need for discretization is due to the presence of transaction costs.\ While the above approach is quite natural and provides very explicit results, it fails to take into account important factors of market reality. First, the asymptotic functional is somewhat ad hoc, and does not reflect any specific model for the transaction costs. Yet, transaction costs are one of the main reasons why continuous (or almost continuous) readjustments are not used. Therefore, they should be the determining factor for any discretization algorithm. On the other hand, the continuity assumption, especially at relatively high frequencies, is not realistic. Indeed, it is well known that jumps in the price occur quite frequently and have a significant impact on the hedging error. It can even be argued that high-frequency financial data are best described by pure jump processes, see [@finestructure].\ The objective of this paper is therefore two-fold. First, we develop a framework for characterizing the asymptotic efficiency of discretization strategies which takes into account the transaction costs. Second, we remove the continuity assumption in order to understand the effect of the activity of small jumps (often quantified by the Blumenthal-Getoor index) on the optimal discretization strategies.\ Models with jumps correspond to incomplete markets, where the hedging issue is an approximation problem: $$\begin{aligned} \min_X E\left(c + \int_0^T X_{t-} dY_t - H_T\right)^2,\label{quadcrit}\end{aligned}$$ where $Y$ is now a semimartingale with jumps. The optimal strategy $X^$ for this problem is known to exist for any $H_T \in L^2$, see [@follmer.sondermann.86; @follmer.schweizer.91; @schweizer.01; @kallsen.hubalek.al.06; @cerny.kallsen.07]. If the expectation in is computed under a martingale probability measure, then for any admissible strategy $X'$, $$E\left(c + \int_0^T X'_{t-} dY_t - H_T\right)^2 = E\left(\int_0^T (X'_{t-}-X^_{t-}) dY_t\right)^2+ E\left(c + \int_0^T X^_{t-} dY_t - H_T\right)^2.\label{pythagore}$$ Indeed, $\int X_{t-}^ dY_t$ is essentially the orthogonal projection of $H_T$ on the subspace of $L^2$ constituted by the stochastic integrals of the form $\int X_{t-} dY_t$ where $X_{t-}$ is an admissible hedging strategy. Therefore, the quadratic hedging problem and the discretization problem can be studied separately. Given that the quadratic hedging problem has already been studied by many authors, in this paper we concentrate on the discretization problem.\ Our goal is to study and compare discretization [rules]{} for stochastic integrals of the form $$\int_0^TX_{t-} dY_t,$$ where $X_t$ and $Y_t$ are semimartingales with jumps, with the aim of identifying asymptotically optimal [rules]{}. In particular we wish to understand the impact of the small jumps of $X$ on the discretization error, and therefore we assume that $X$ has no continuous local martingale part, see Remark \[purejumprem\].\ [A discretization rule is a family of stopping times $(T_i^\varepsilon)_{i\geq 0}^{\varepsilon >0}$ parameterized by a nonnegative integer $i$ and a positive real $\varepsilon$, such that for every $\varepsilon>0$, $0 = T^\varepsilon_0 < T^\varepsilon_1 < T^\varepsilon_2 < \ldots$. For a fixed discretization rule and a fixed $\varepsilon$, we let $\eta^\varepsilon(t) = \sup\{T^\varepsilon_i: T^\varepsilon_i \leq t\}$ and $N_T^{\varepsilon} = \sup\{i:T^\varepsilon_i \leq T\}$. Motivated by the decomposition , we measure the performance of a discretization rule with the $L^2$ error functional $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal E(\varepsilon) := E\left[\left(\int_0^T (X_{t-} - X_{\eta(t)-}) dY_t\right)^2\right].\label{errfunc}\end{aligned}$$ Also, to each discretization rule we associate a family of cost functionals of the form $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal C^\beta(\varepsilon) = E\left[\sum_{i\geq 1:T^\varepsilon_i \leq T} \|X_{T^\varepsilon_i} - X_{T^\varepsilon_{i-1}}\|^\beta\right],\label{costfunc}\end{aligned}$$ with $\beta\in [0,2]$. The case $\beta=0$ corresponds to a fixed cost per transaction, and the case $\beta=1$ corresponds to a fixed cost per unit of asset. [Other values of $\beta$ often appear in the market microstructure literature where one considers that transaction costs are explained by the shape of the order book.]{}\ In our framework, a discretization rule is said to be optimal for a given cost functional if no strategy has (asymptotically, for large costs) a lower discretization error and a smaller cost.\ Motivated by the representation and the readjustment rules used by market practitioners, we focus on discretization strategies based on the exit times of $X$ out of random intervals: $$\begin{aligned} T^\varepsilon_{i+1} = \inf\{t>T^\varepsilon_i : X_t\notin (X_{T^\varepsilon_i}- \varepsilon\underline{a}_{T^\varepsilon_i}, X_{T^\varepsilon_i}+\varepsilon\overline{a}_{T^\varepsilon_i}) \},\label{discrule}\end{aligned}$$ where $(\overline a_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and $(\underline a_t)_{t\geq 0}$ are positive $\mathbb F$-adapted càdlàg processes.\ We characterize explicitly the asymptotic behavior of the errors and costs associated to these random discretization rules, by showing that, under suitable assumptions, $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \varepsilon^{-2} \mathcal E(\varepsilon) &= E\left[\int_0^T {A_t} \frac{f(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)} dt\right]\\ \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta} \mathcal C^{ \beta}(\varepsilon) &= E\left[\int_0^T {\lambda_t} \frac{u^\beta(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)} dt\right],\end{aligned}$$ where, for $\underline a, \overline a \in (0,\infty)$, $$f(\underline a, \overline a) = E\left[\int_0^{\tau^} (X^_t)^2 dt\right], \quad g(\underline a, \overline a) = E[\tau^]\quad \text{and}\quad u^\beta(\underline a, \overline a) = E[\|X^_{\tau^}\|^\beta]<\infty.$$ with $\tau^ = \inf\{t\geq 0: X^_t \notin(-\underline a, \overline a) \}$, where $X^$ is a strictly $\alpha$-stable process determined from $X$ by a limiting procedure, and the processes $A$ and $\lambda$ are determined from the semimartingale characteristics of $X$ and $Y$.]{}\ [This allows us to determine the asymptotically optimal intervals as solutions to a simple optimization problem.]{} In particular, we show that in the case where the cost functional is given by the expected number of discretization dates, the error associated to our optimal strategy with the cost equal to $N$, converges to zero as $N\to \infty$ at a faster rate than the error obtained by readjusting at $N$ equally spaced dates.\ [As applications of our method, we consider the discretization of the hedging strategy for a European option in an exponential Lévy model and the discretization of the Merton portfolio strategy. In the option hedging problem,]{} we obtain an explicit representation for the optimal discretization dates, which is similar to , but includes two “tuning” parameters: an index which determines the effect of transaction costs (fixed, proportional, etc.) and the Blumenthal-Getoor index measuring the activity of small jumps.\ This paper is structured as follows. In Section \[prelim\], we introduce our framework and in particular the notion of asymptotic optimality based on the limiting behavior of the error and cost functionals. The assumptions on the processes $X$ and $Y$ and on the admissible discretization rules are also stated here. Section \[main.thm\] contains the main results of this paper which characterize the limiting behavior of the error and the cost functionals, [and Sections \[barrier.sec\] to \[explevy.sec\] provide explicit examples of optimal discretization strategies in various contexts.]{} Sections \[proofthm\] and \[proofthm2\] contain the proofs of the main results and Section \[prooflm\] gathers some technical lemmas needed in Section \[proofthm2\]. Framework {#prelim} ========= #### Asymptotic comparison of discretization rules We are interested in comparing different discretization rules, as defined in the introduction, for the stochastic integral $$\int_0^T X_{t-} dY_t,$$ where $X$ and $Y$ are semimartingales, in terms of their limiting behavior when the number of discretization points tends to infinity.\ The performance of a given discretization rule is assessed by the error functional $\mathcal E(\varepsilon) : (0,\infty)\to [0,\infty)$ [(which measures the discretization error associated to this rule)]{} and a cost functional $\mathcal C^{\beta}(\varepsilon) : (0,\infty)\to [0,\infty)$ [(which measures the corresponding transaction cost)]{}, as defined in and . We assume that the cost functional is such that $$\lim_{\varepsilon \downarrow 0} \mathcal C^{\beta}(\varepsilon) = + \infty.$$ For $C>0$ sufficiently large, we define $$\varepsilon(C) = \inf\{\varepsilon>0 : \mathcal C(\varepsilon)<C\}$$ and $\overline{\mathcal E}(C):=\mathcal E(\varepsilon(C))$. \[assdom\] We say that the discretization rule $A$ asymptotically dominates the rule $B$ if $$\limsup_{C\to \infty} \frac{\overline{\mathcal E}^A(C)}{\overline{\mathcal E}^B(C)}\leq 1.$$ To apply Definition \[assdom\], the following [simple result]{} will be very useful. \[errorcost.lm\] Assume that for a given discretization rule, the cost and error functionals are such that there exist $a>0$ and $b>0$ with $$\begin{aligned} &\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} \varepsilon^{-a}\mathcal E(\varepsilon) = \hat {\mathcal E}\quad \text{and}\quad \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} \varepsilon^{b}\mathcal C^{\beta}(\varepsilon) = \hat{\mathcal C}, \label{errorcost}\end{aligned}$$ for some [positive]{} constants $\hat{\mathcal E}$ and $\hat{\mathcal C}$. Then $$\overline{ \mathcal E}(C) \sim C^{-\frac{a}{b}} (\hat{\mathcal C})^{\frac{a}{b}} \hat{\mathcal E}\quad \text{as}\quad C\to \infty.$$ We shall consider discretizations based on the hitting times of the process $X$. Recall that such a discretization rule is characterized by a pair of positive $\mathbb F$-adapted càdlàg processes $(\overline a_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and $(\underline a_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and the discretization dates are then defined by .\ Consider the discretization rules $A = (\underline a,\overline a)$ and $B = (k\underline a, k\overline a)$ with $k>0$. These two strategies satisfy $\overline {\mathcal E}^A (C) = \overline {\mathcal E}^B (C)$ for all $C>0$. Therefore, the optimal strategies will be determined up to a multiplicative constant. #### Assumptions on the processes $X$ and $Y$ Our first main result describing the behavior of the error functional will be obtained under the assumptions [$(HY)$, $(HX)$ and $(HX^1_{loc})$]{} stated below. - We assume that the process $Y$ is an $\mathbb F$-local martingale, whose predictable quadratic variation satisfies $\langle Y \rangle_t = \int_0^t A_s ds$, where the process $(A_t)$ is càdlàg and locally bounded. - The process $X$ is a semimartingale defined via the stochastic representation $$\begin{aligned} X_t= X_0 + \int_0^t b_s ds + \int_0^t \int_{\|z\|\leq 1} z(M-\mu)(ds\times dz) + \int_0^t \int_{\|z\|>1} z M(ds\times dz), \label{defX.eq}\end{aligned}$$ where $M$ is the jump measure of $X$ and $\mu$ is its predictable compensator, absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure in time: $\mu(dt\times dz) = dt \times \mu_t(dz)$, where the kernel $\mu_t(dz)$ is such that for some $\alpha \in (1,2)$ there exist positive càdlàg processes $(\lambda_t)$ and $(\widehat K_t)$ and constants $c_+\geq 0$ and $c_-\geq 0$ with $c_++c_->0$ and, almost surely for all $t\in [0,T]$, $$\begin{aligned} &x^\alpha \mu_t((x,\infty)) \leq \widehat K_t \quad \text{and} \quad x^\alpha\mu_t((-\infty,-x)) \leq \widehat K_t \quad\text{for all $x>0$;}\label{hxbnd}\\ &x^\alpha \mu_t((x,\infty)) \to c_+ \lambda_t \quad \text{and} \quad x^\alpha\mu_t((-\infty,-x)) \to c_- \lambda_t \quad\text{when}\quad x\to 0.\label{hxalpha}\end{aligned}$$ - There exists a Lévy measure $\nu(dx)$ such that, almost surely, for all $t$, the kernel $\mu_t(dz)$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\lambda_t \nu(dz)$: $$\begin{aligned} \mu_t(dz) = K_t(z) \lambda_t \nu(dz)\label{ascomp}\end{aligned}$$ for a random function ${K_t(z)>0}$. Moreover, there exists an increasing sequence of stopping times $(\tau_n)$ with $\tau_n \to T$ such that for every $n$, $$\begin{aligned} \int_0^{\tau_n} \int_{\mathbb R} \|\sqrt{K_t(z)}-1\|^{2\rho} \nu(dz)\,dt<{ C_n,}\label{integrK}\end{aligned}$$ $\frac{1}{ C_n} \leq \lambda_t \leq { C_n}$, [ $\widehat K_t \leq C_n$]{} and $\|b_t\|\leq { C_n}$ for $0\leq t \leq \tau_n$ and some constant ${ C_n}>0$.\ ${}$\ [The assumption that $Y$ is a local martingale greatly simplifies the treatment of quadratic hedging problems in various settings because it allows to reduce the problem of minimizing the global quadratic risk to myopic local risk minimization. In particular, under this assumption, the error functional becomes $$\mathcal E(\varepsilon) = E\left[\int_0^T (X_t - X_{\eta^{\varepsilon}(t)})^2 A_t dt\right].$$ While it may be unrealistic to assume that the stock price process is a local martingale for computing the hedging strategy, in the present study we have a different objective. We are looking for the asymptotically optimal rule to discretize a given strategy, that is, the rule which minimizes, asymptotically for large number of discretization dates, the principal term of the discretization error. In the case of equally spaced discretization dates, it is known (see [@tankov.voltchkova.09] for a proof in the context of Itô semimartingales with jumps) that this principal term does not depend on the drift part of the processes $X$ and $Y$. We conjecture that the same kind of behavior holds in the context of random rebalancing dates, which means that the drift terms do not need to be taken into account when computing asymptotically optimal discretization rules. Our methodology allows to determine asymptotically optimal discretization for a given process $X$, which may correspond, for example, to a quadratic hedging strategy computed in the non-martingale setting.]{}\ \[purejumprem\] ${}$\ $-$ [In this paper, we focus on semimartingales for which the local martingale part is purely discontinuous, with the aim of determining the effect of small jumps on the convergence rate of the discretization error. Therefore, we do not include a continuous local martingale part in the dynamics of $X$. Indeed, it would asymptotically dominate the purely discontinuous part as shown in Proposition \[toy\] in appendix. The dynamics of $Y$ can, in principle, include such a continuous local martingale part, however in the usual financial models, when $X$ has no continuous local martingale part, this is also the case for $Y$. Note that from the practical viewpoint, many exponential Lévy models popular among academics and practitioners (Variance Gamma, CGMY, Normal inverse Gaussian etc.) do not include a continuous diffusion part.]{}\ [$-$ Assumption $(HX)$ defines the structure of the integrand (hedging strategy) $X$, by saying that the small jumps of $X$ ressemble those of an $\alpha$-stable process, modulated by a random intensity process $(\lambda_t)$. This assumption introduces the fundamental parameters which will appear in our limiting results: the coefficients $\alpha$, $c_+$ and $c_-$ and the intensity process $\lambda$. These parameters are determined uniquely up to multiplying $\lambda$ by a positive constant and dividing $c_+$ and $c_-$ by the same constant.]{} Note also that these parameters can be estimated from market data, see [@woerner; @aj4; @fig1; @fig2].\ $-$ The parameter $\alpha$ measures the activity of small jumps of the process $X$. In the case where $X$ is a Lévy process, the parameter $\alpha$ coincides with the Blumenthal-Getoor index of $X$ (see [@bg61]).\ $-$ The assumption $1<\alpha<2$ implies that $X$ has infinite variation and ensures that the local behavior of the process is determined by the jumps rather than by the drift part (see [@rosenbaum.tankov.10]). Note that in a recent statistical study on liquid assets [@aj4], the jump activity index defined similarly to our parameter $\alpha$ was estimated between $1.4$ and $1.7$. However, this assumption does exclude some interesting models and other statistical studies find that this parameter can be smaller than one for certain asset classes [@cont.mancini.09; @belomestny.10].\ [$-$ The assumption $(HX^\rho_{loc})$ is a technical integrability condition. In the sequel, we shall always impose $(HX^1_{loc})$ and sometimes also $(HX^\rho_{loc})$ with $\rho>1$. The representation of the compensator $\mu$ of the jump measure of $X$ implies that the jump part of $X$ is locally equivalent to a time-changed Lévy process. Indeed, time-changing the process with a continuous increasing process $\Lambda_t = \int_0^t \lambda_s ds$ has the effect of multiplying the compensator by $\lambda_t$, and making a change of probability measure with density given by has the effect of dividing the compensator by $K_t(z)$. The objects $\nu(dz)$ and $K_t(z)$ in this representation are not unique, but they do not appear in our limiting results. In particular, it is easy to show that the Lévy measure $\nu$ necessarily satisfies a stable-like condition similar to : $$\begin{aligned} x^\alpha \nu((x,\infty)) \to c_+ \quad \text{and} \quad x^\alpha\nu((-\infty,-x)) \to c_- \quad\text{when}\quad x\to 0.\label{halpha}\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, there exists a constant $c>0$ such that $$c(\sqrt{f} -1)^2 \geq (f-1)^2 \mathbf 1_{\|f-1\|\leq \frac{1}{2}} + \|f-1\| \mathbf 1_{\|f-1\|>\frac{1}{2}},\quad \text{for all $f>0$}.$$ From this simple inequality, and denoting $I_t = \int_{\mathbb R} (\sqrt{K_t(z)}-1)^2 \nu(dz)$, one can easily deduce, using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality that for another constant $C$, $$\left\|\int_x^\infty \nu(dz) - \int_x^\infty K_t(z)\nu(dz) \right\|\leq C I_t + C \left\{\int_x^\infty \nu(dz)\right\}^\frac{1}{2} I_t^{\frac{1}{2}},$$ and also that $$\left\|\left(\int_x^\infty \nu(dz)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} - \left(\int_x^\infty K_t(z)\nu(dz)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \right\| \leq C I_t,$$ for yet another constant $C$. By , under $(HX^1_{\text{loc}})$, $I_t<\infty$ for almost all $t$. For any such $t$, we can multiply the above inequality with $x^{\alpha/2}$ and take the limit $x\to 0$; we then get: $$\lim_{x\to 0} x^{\alpha} \int_x^\infty \nu(dz) = \lim_{x\to 0} x^{\alpha} \int_x^\infty K_t(z)\nu(dz),$$ but the latter limit is equal to $c_+$ by assumption . Moreover, it is always possible with no loss of generality to choose $\nu$ so that it also satisfies $$\begin{aligned} x^\alpha \nu((x,\infty)) + x^\alpha \nu((-\infty,-x)) \leq C\label{hbnd}\end{aligned}$$ for some constant $C<\infty$ and all $x>0$. Indeed, by property , it is enough to show this for all $x\geq \varepsilon$ with some $\varepsilon >0$. But for this, it is enough to take $$K_t(z) = \frac{\hat K_t}{\lambda_t} \quad \text{for}\quad \|z\|\geq \varepsilon$$ and use . Such a choice clearly does not violate condition . In the sequel we shall assume that $\nu$ has been chosen in such a way. ]{}\ In applications, the process $X$ is often defined as solution to a stochastic differential equation rather than through its semimartingale characteristics. We now give an example of an SDE which satisfies our assumptions. Let $X$ be the solution of an SDE driven by a Poisson random measure: $$\begin{aligned} X_t = X_0 + \int_0^t \bar b_s ds + \int _0^t \int_{\|z\|\leq 1} \gamma_s(z) \tilde N(ds \times dz) + \int _0^t \int_{\|z\|> 1} \gamma_s(z) N(ds \times dz),\label{sde.eq}\end{aligned}$$ where $N$ is a Poisson random measure with intensity measure $dt \times \bar\nu(dz)$, $\tilde N$ is the corresponding compensated measure, and $\gamma: [0,T] \times \Omega \times \mathbb R \to \mathbb R$ is a predictable random function.\ \[sde.prop\] Assume that $\bar\nu$ is a Lévy measure which has a compact support $U$ such that $0\in\, \text{int}\, U$ and admits a density also denoted by $\bar\nu(x)$, which is continuous outside any neighborhood of zero and is such that $$\begin{aligned} x^{\alpha+1} \bar\nu(x) = \alpha c_+ + O(x)\quad \text{and} \quad x^{\alpha+1}\bar\nu(-x) = \alpha c_- + O(x)\quad\text{when}\quad x\downarrow 0. \label{stable.strong}\end{aligned}$$ for some $\alpha \in (1,2)$ and constants $c_+> 0$ and $c_-> 0$.\ Suppose furthermore that for all $\omega \in \Omega$ and $t\in [0,T]$, $\gamma_t(z)$ is twice differentiable with respect to $z$, $\gamma'_t(z)>0$ for all $z\in U$, $\gamma_t(0) = 0$ and there exists an increasing sequence of stopping times $(\tau_n)$ with $\tau_n \to T$ and a sequence of positive contants $(C_n)$ such that for every $n$, almost surely, $$\begin{aligned} &\|b_t\|\leq C_n,\quad \frac{1}{C_n} \leq \gamma'_t(z) \leq C_n\quad \text{and}\quad \|\gamma^{\prime\prime}_t(z)\|<C_n\quad \text{for all}\quad 0\leq t \leq \tau_n,\quad z\in U.\label{extracond} $$ Then the process $X$ satisfies the assumption $(HX)$ with $\lambda_t = \gamma'_t(0)^\alpha$ and the assumption $(HX^\rho_{\mathrm{loc}})$ for all $\rho\geq 1$. The proof of this result is given in Appendix \[proof1\]. #### Assumptions on the discretization rules Our first main result (asymptotics of the error functional) requires the following assumptions on the discretization rule $(\underline a, \overline a)$. - [The integrability condition]{} $$E\left[\sup_{0\leq s \leq T}\max(\underline a_s, \overline a_s)^2\int_0^T A_t dt\right] <\infty.$$ - There exists an increasing sequence of stopping times $(\tau_n)$ with $\tau_n \to T$ such that for every $n$, $\frac{1}{ C_n} \leq \underline a_t,\overline a_t \leq { C_n}$ for $0\leq t \leq \tau_n$ and some constant ${ C_n}>0$.\ To obtain our second main result concerning the behavior of the cost functional, we shall need the following additional technical assumptions. - For some $\delta \in (0,1)$ with $\beta(1+\delta)<\alpha$, $$\begin{aligned} &\hspace{-0.6cm}E\Big[\sup_{0\leq s\leq T}(\max\{\underline a_s^{\beta-1},\overline a_s^{\beta-1}\}^{1+\delta}+\max\{\underline a_s^{(1+\delta)\beta-1},\overline a_s^{(1+\delta)\beta-1}\})\int_0^T \|b_s\|^{1+\delta}ds\Big]\\ &\hspace{-0.6cm}+ E\Big[\sup_{0\leq s \leq T}\max\{\underline a_s,\overline a_s\}^{(\beta\vee (2-\alpha))(1+\delta)}\min\{\underline a_s,\overline a_s\}^{((\beta-2)\wedge (-\alpha))(1+\delta)} \int_0^T \widehat{K}_s^{1+\delta}ds \Big] <\infty.$$ - For some $\delta\in(0,1)$, $$\hspace{-0.6cm}E\Big[\sup_{0\leq s\leq T}\min(\underline a_s,\overline a_s)^{-\alpha(1+\delta)} \int_0^T \widehat{K}_t^{1+\delta} dt+\sup_{0\leq s\leq T}\min(\underline a_s,\overline a_s)^{-1-\delta} \int_0^T \|b_t\|^{1+\delta} dt\Big] <\infty.$$ Condition $(HA'_2)$ replaces the condition $(HA_2)$ in the case $\beta=0$. For given $\beta$ and given processes $X$ and $Y$, we shall call a discretization rule $(\underline a, \overline a)$ satisfying the assumptions $(HA)$, $(HA_{loc})$ and $(HA_2)$ (if $\beta>0$) or the assumptions $(HA)$, $(HA_{loc})$ and $(HA'_2)$ (if $\beta=0$) an admissible discretization rule. Main results ============ In this section, we first characterize the asymptotic behavior of the error and cost functionals for small $\varepsilon$. From these results we then derive the asymptotically optimal discretization strategies using Lemma \[errorcost.lm\]. Asymptotic behavior of the error and cost functionals {#main.thm} ----------------------------------------------------- \[err.thm\] Under the assumptions [$(HY)$, $(HX)$, $(HX^1_{\mathrm{loc}})$, $(HA)$ and $(HA_{loc})$,]{} $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \varepsilon^{-2} \mathcal E(\varepsilon) = E\left[\int_0^T {A_t} \frac{f(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)} dt\right]\label{err.eq}\end{aligned}$$ where, for $\underline a, \overline a \in (0,\infty)$, $$f(\underline a, \overline a) = E\left[\int_0^{\tau^} (X^_t)^2 dt\right], \quad g(\underline a, \overline a) = E[\tau^]$$ with $\tau^* = \inf\{t\geq 0: X^_t \notin(-\underline a, \overline a) \}$, where $X^$ is a strictly $\alpha$-stable process with Lévy density $$\nu^(x) = \frac{c_+ 1_{x>0} + c_- 1_{x<0}}{\|x\|^{1+\alpha}},$$ and the constants $c_-$ and $c_+$ are defined in Assumption $(HX)$ (Equation ). \[cost.thm\] We use the notation of Theorem \[err.thm\]. - Let the assumptions [$(HY)$, $(HX)$, $(HX^{1}_{\mathrm{loc}})$, $(HA)$, $(HA_{loc})$ and $(HA_2')$]{} be satisfied. Then, $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \varepsilon^{\alpha} \mathcal C^0(\varepsilon) = E\left[\int_0^T \frac{{\lambda_t}}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)} dt\right].\label{cost0.eq}\end{aligned}$$ - Let $\beta \in (0,\alpha)$ and assume that [$(HY)$, $(HX)$, $(HX^{1}_{\mathrm{loc}})$, $(HX^{\rho}_{\mathrm{loc}})$ (for some $\rho > \frac{\alpha}{\alpha-\beta}\vee 2$), $(HA)$, $(HA_{loc})$ and $(HA_2)$]{} hold true. Then, $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta} \mathcal C^{ \beta}(\varepsilon) = E\left[\int_0^T {\lambda_t} \frac{u^\beta(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)} dt\right],\label{cost.eq}\end{aligned}$$ where $$u^\beta(\underline a, \overline a) = E[\|X^_{\tau^}\|^\beta]<\infty.$$ Theorems \[err.thm\] and \[cost.thm\] enable us to apply Lemma \[errorcost.lm\] and conclude that for any admissible discretization rule based on hitting times, the error functional for fixed cost behaves, for large costs, as $$\overline{\mathcal E}(C) \sim C^{-\frac{2}{\alpha-\beta}} E\left[\int_0^T {A_t} \frac{f(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)} dt\right] E\left[\int_0^T {\lambda_t} \frac{u^\beta(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)} dt\right]^{\frac{2}{\alpha-\beta}}.$$ When the cost is equal to the expected number of rebalancings ($\beta=0$), the error converges to zero at the rate $C^{-\frac{2}{\alpha}}$. On the other hand, for equidistant rebalancing dates, under sufficient regularity, the $L^2$ discretization error of the quadratic hedging strategy in exponential Lévy models is inversely proportional* to the number of rebalancings (see [@broden.tankov.09]). This means that while in diffusion models, asymptotically optimal hedging reduces the error without modifying the rate at which the error decreases with the number of rebalancings (cf equations and ), in pure jump models, any discretization based on hitting times, and a fortiori the optimal discretization, also improves the rate of convergence. Application: computing the optimal barriers {#barrier.sec} ------------------------------------------- In view of Lemma \[errorcost.lm\], we shall say that a discretization rule $(\underline a,\overline a)$ is asymptotically optimal if it is admissible, and for any other admissible rule $(\underline a',\overline a')$, $$\begin{gathered} E\left[\int_0^T {A_t} \frac{f(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)} dt\right] E\left[\int_0^T {\lambda_t} \frac{u^\beta(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)} dt\right]^{\frac{2}{\alpha-\beta}} \\\leq E\left[\int_0^T {A_t} \frac{f(\underline a'_t, \overline a'_t)}{g(\underline a'_t, \overline a'_t)} dt\right] E\left[\int_0^T {\lambda_t} \frac{u^\beta(\underline a'_t, \overline a'_t)}{g(\underline a'_t, \overline a'_t)} dt\right]^{\frac{2}{\alpha-\beta}}.\label{assoptstab}\end{gathered}$$ The following result simplifies the characterization of such rules.\ Let $(\underline a,\overline a)$ be an admissible discretization rule, and assume that there exists $c>0$ such that for any other admissible rule $(\underline a',\overline a')$, $$\begin{aligned} {A_t} \frac{f(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)} + c {\lambda_t} \frac{u^\beta(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)} \leq {A_t} \frac{f(\underline a'_t, \overline a'_t)}{g(\underline a'_t, \overline a'_t)} + c {\lambda_t} \frac{u^\beta(\underline a'_t, \overline a'_t)}{g(\underline a'_t, \overline a'_t)}\label{assoptlagrange}\end{aligned}$$ a.s. for all $t\in [0,T]$. Then the rule $(\underline a,\overline a)$ is asymptotically optimal. By the nature of Assumptions $(HA)$, $(HA_{loc})$ and $(HA_2)$ (resp. $(HA'_2)$), for all $\kappa>0$, the rule $(\kappa\underline a, \kappa\overline a)$ is admissible. In addition, by the scaling property of strictly stable processes, $$f(\kappa\underline a_t, \kappa\overline a_t) = \kappa^{2+\alpha} f(\underline a_t,\overline a_t) ,\quad g(\kappa\underline a_t, \kappa\overline a_t) = \kappa^{\alpha} g(\underline a_t,\overline a_t),\quad u^\beta(\kappa\underline a_t, \kappa\overline a_t) = \kappa^{\beta} u^\beta(\underline a_t,\overline a_t).$$ Substituting these identities into (with $\kappa$ on the left-hand side and $\kappa'$ on the right-hand side), integrating both sides and taking the expectation, we get $$\begin{gathered} \kappa^{-2} E\left[\int_0^T {A_t} \frac{f(\kappa\underline a_t, \kappa\overline a_t)}{g(\kappa\underline a_t, \kappa\overline a_t)}dt \right]+ c \kappa^{\alpha-\beta} E\left[\int_0^T {\lambda_t} \frac{u^\beta(\kappa\underline a_t, \kappa\overline a_t)}{g(\kappa\underline a_t, \kappa\overline a_t)}dt\right] \\ \leq (\kappa')^{-2}E\left[\int_0^T {A_t} \frac{f(\kappa'\underline a'_t, \kappa'\overline a'_t)}{g(\kappa'\underline a'_t, \kappa'\overline a'_t)}dt\right] + c (\kappa')^{\alpha-\beta} E\left[\int_0^T {\lambda_t} \frac{u^\beta(\kappa'\underline a'_t, \kappa'\overline a'_t)}{g(\kappa'\underline a'_t, \kappa'\overline a'_t)}dt\right].\end{gathered}$$ Under the assumptions of Theorems \[err.thm\] and \[cost.thm\] all expectations above are finite (see e.g., Lemma \[overshoot.lm\]). Now, choose $\kappa$ and $\kappa'$ so that $$c \kappa^{\alpha-\beta} E\left[\int_0^T {\lambda_t} \frac{u^\beta(\kappa\underline a_t, \kappa\overline a_t)}{g(\kappa\underline a_t, \kappa\overline a_t)}dt\right] = c (\kappa')^{\alpha-\beta} E\left[\int_0^T {\lambda_t} \frac{u^\beta(\kappa'\underline a'_t, \kappa'\overline a'_t)}{g(\kappa'\underline a'_t, \kappa'\overline a'_t)}dt\right] = 1.$$ This yields $$\begin{gathered} c^{\frac{2}{\alpha-\beta}} E\left[\int_0^T {\lambda_t} \frac{u^\beta(\kappa\underline a_t, \kappa\overline a_t)}{g(\kappa\underline a_t, \kappa\overline a_t)}dt\right]^{\frac{2}{\alpha-\beta}} E\left[\int_0^T {A_t} \frac{f(\kappa\underline a_t, \kappa\overline a_t)}{g(\kappa\underline a_t, \kappa\overline a_t)}dt \right] +1 \\ \leq c^{\frac{2}{\alpha-\beta}} E\left[\int_0^T {\lambda_t} \frac{u^\beta(\kappa'\underline a'_t, \kappa'\overline a'_t)}{g(\kappa'\underline a'_t, \kappa'\overline a'_t)}dt\right]^{\frac{2}{\alpha-\beta}} E\left[\int_0^T {A_t} \frac{f(\kappa'\underline a'_t, \kappa'\overline a'_t)}{g(\kappa'\underline a'_t, \kappa'\overline a'_t)}dt\right] + 1.\end{gathered}$$ Subtracting $1$ on both sides, dividing by $c^{2/(\alpha-\beta)}$ and using once again the scaling property, we then get . The above result shows that we may look for optimal barriers as $\underline a$ and $\overline a$ as minimizers of $$\begin{aligned} \min \left\{{A_t} \frac{f(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)} + c {\lambda_t} \frac{u^\beta(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}\right\},\label{lagmin}\end{aligned}$$ provided that the resulting $\underline a_t$ and $\overline a_t$ are admissible. Moreover if $(\underline a,\overline a)$ is the solution of then the scaling property shows that the solution of $$\begin{aligned} \min \left\{{A_t} \frac{f(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)} + c' {\lambda_t} \frac{u^\beta(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}\right\},\end{aligned}$$ is given by $(\kappa\underline a, \kappa\overline a)$ with $\kappa = \left(c'/c\right)^{\frac{1}{\alpha-\beta+2}}$. If $c'>c$ then $\kappa >1$, resulting in a smaller cost functional and a bigger error functional. Therefore, in practice $c$ may be chosen by the trader depending on the maximum acceptable cost: the bigger $c$, the smaller will be the cost of the strategy and, consequently the bigger its error.\ The functions $f$, $g$ and $u$ appearing above must in general be computed numerically. However, when [the constants $c_+$ and $c_-$ in are equal]{}, which corresponds for example to the CGMY model very popular in practice [@finestructure], the results are completely explicit, as will be shown in the next paragraph. Locally symmetric Lévy measures {#localsym.sec} ------------------------------- In this section we discuss a case important in applications, when the asymptotically optimal strategy can be computed explicitly in terms of $A$ and $\lambda$.\ \[sym.prop\] Let the cost functional be of the form with $\beta \in [0,1]$. Let the processes $X$ and $Y$ satisfy the assumptions $(HY)$, $(HX)$ with $c_+=c_-$, $(HX^{1}_{loc})$ and $(HX^{\rho}_{loc})$ with $\rho>\frac{\alpha}{\alpha-\beta}\vee 2$ (if $\beta >0$). Assume that the processes $A$, $b$ and $\lambda$ satisfy the following integrability conditions for some $\delta>0$: $$\begin{aligned} E\left[\left(\sup_{0\leq t \leq T} \frac{\lambda_t}{A_t}\right)^{\frac{2}{2+\alpha-\beta}} \int_0^T A_t dt\right]<\infty,\quad E\left[\left(\inf_{0\leq t \leq T} \frac{\lambda_t}{A_t}\right)^{\frac{(1+\delta)(\beta-\alpha)}{2+\alpha-\beta}} \int_0^T \widehat{K}_t^{1+\delta} dt\right]<\infty,\end{aligned}$$ and, if $\beta=1$, $$E\left[\left(\sup_{0\leq t \leq T} \frac{\lambda_t}{A_t}\right)^{\delta} \int_0^T \|b_t\|^{1+\delta} dt\right]<\infty,$$ or, if $\beta<1$, $$E\left[\left(\inf_{0\leq t \leq T} \frac{\lambda_t}{A_t}\right)^{(\beta-1)(1+\delta)} \int_0^T \|b_t\|^{1+\delta} dt\right]<\infty.$$ Then the strategy given by $$\underline a_t = \overline a_t = c \left( \frac{\lambda_t}{A_t}\right)^{\frac{1}{2+\alpha-\beta}}$$ is asymptotically optimal. The fact that $X$ satisfies $(HX)$ with $c_+=c_-$ means that the limiting process $X^$ is a symmetric stable process. Let $(\underline a,\overline a)$ be an [admissible]{} discretization rule. With a change of notation $a_t:= \frac{\underline a_t + \overline a_t}{2}$ and $\theta_t = \frac{\overline a_t - \underline a_t}{\overline a_t + \underline a_t}$ and using the results from the appendix, we can compute: $$\begin{aligned} \frac{f(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)} &= \frac{\alpha}{(\alpha+2)(\alpha+1)}a_t^2\left(1 + \theta_t^2(1+\alpha)\right)\\ \frac{u^\beta(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)} &= \frac{\sigma \Gamma(1+\alpha)\sin\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}}{\pi} \\& \times \int_0^\infty z^{-\alpha/2} (z+2a_t )^{-\alpha/2} \left(\|z+a_t(1+\theta_t)\|^{\beta-1} + \|z+a_t(1-\theta_t)\|^{\beta-1}\right)dz.\end{aligned}$$ For fixed $a_t$, both ratios are minimal when $\theta=0$ (for the second functional this follows from the convexity of the function $x\mapsto x^{\beta-1}$ for $x\geq 0$ and $\beta \leq 1$). Moreover, from the structure of Assumptions $(HA)$, $(HA_{loc})$ and $(HA_2)$ (resp. $(HA'_2)$), it is clear that the strategy obtained by taking $\theta=0$, that is, the strategy $(a,a)$ is also admissible. Therefore, the asymptotically optimal strategy, if it exists, will be symmetric in this case. By the same arguments as in the previous section, we can show that the optimal strategy, if it exists, minimizes $$A_t \frac{f(a_t,a_t)}{g(a_t,a_t)} + c \lambda_t \frac{u^\beta(a_t,a_t)}{g(a_t,a_t)}$$ for each $t$. Plugging in the explicit expressions computed above we see that this functional is minimized by $$a_t = c \left( \frac{\lambda_t}{A_t}\right)^{\frac{1}{2+\alpha-\beta}}.$$ By the assumptions of the proposition, this strategy is admissible, which finishes the proof. Exponential Lévy models {#explevy.sec} ----------------------- In this section we treat the case when the process $Y$ (the asset price or the integrator) is the stochastic exponential of a Lévy process. More precisely, throughout this section we assume that $$Y_t = Y_0 + \int_0^t Y_{s-} dZ_s,$$ where $Z$ is a martingale Lévy process with no diffusion part and with Lévy measure $\nu$ which has a compact support $U\in (-1,\infty)$ with $0 \in \mathrm{int}\, U$ and admits a density $\bar \nu(x)$ which is continuous outside any neighborhood of zero and satisfies . From the martingale property and the boundedness of jumps of $Z$, it follows immediately that Assumption $(HY)$ is satisfied with $A_t = Y_t^2 \int_{\mathbb R} z^2 \bar \nu(dz)$. For the choice of the integrator $X$ we consider two examples corresponding to the discretization of hedging strategies on one hand and to the discretization of optimal investment policies on the other hand.\ In this example we assume that the integrand $X$ (the hedging strategy) is a deterministic function of $Y$, which is indeed the case for classical strategies (quadratic hedging, delta hedging) and European contingent claims in exponential Lévy models — see [@kallsen.hubalek.al.06; @broden.tankov.09].\ \[levy.prop\] Let $X_t = \phi(t,Y_t)$ with $\phi(t,y) \in C^{1,2}([0,T)\times \mathbb R)$ such that for all $\bar Y\in \mathbb R$ and $T^\in [0,T)$, $$\min_{(t,y)\in [0,T^]\times [-\bar Y,\bar Y] } \frac{\partial \phi(t,y)}{\partial y} >0.$$ Then, assumptions $(HY)$, $(HX)$ and $(HX^{\rho}_{\mathrm{loc}})$ (for all $\rho\geq 1$) are satisfied with $$\begin{aligned} b_t &= \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} (s,Y_s)+ \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial y} (s,Y_{s})Y_{s}\int_{\|z\|>1}z\bar \nu(dz) \quad \text{and}\quad \lambda_t = \left(Y_t \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial y}(t,Y_t)\right)^\alpha. \end{aligned}$$ Assume additionnally that the function $\phi$ is such that the integrability conditions of Proposition \[sym.prop\] are satisfied for some $\delta >0$. Then the strategy given by $$\underline a_t = \overline a_t = c \left(\frac{\partial \phi(t,Y_t)}{\partial y}\right)^{\frac{\alpha}{2+\alpha-\beta}} Y_t^{\frac{\alpha-2}{\alpha-\beta+2}}$$ is asymptotically optimal. Applying Itô’s formula to $\phi(t,Y_t)$, we get $$\begin{aligned} X_t = \phi(0,Y_0) + \int_0^t b_s ds+ \int_0^t \int_{\|z\|\leq 1} \gamma_s(z) \tilde N(ds\times dz) + \int_0^t \int_{\|z\|> 1}\gamma_s(z) N(ds\times dz)\end{aligned}$$ with $\gamma_t(z) = \phi(t,Y_{t} (1+z)) - \phi(t,Y_{t})$, which means that we can apply Proposition \[sde.prop\]. The local boundedness conditions required by this proposition follow from the local boundedness of $Y$ and the continuity of the derivatives of $\phi$. The second statement is a direct corollary of Proposition \[sym.prop\].\ Using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the fact that $Y$ admits all moments (because $Z$ has bounded jumps), one can show that the following more compact condition implies the integrability conditions of Proposition \[sym.prop\]: for some $\delta >0$, $$\begin{aligned} &E\left[\left(\sup_{x\in U, 0\leq t \leq T} \phi'_y(t,Y_t(1+x))+\sup_{0\leq t \leq T} \|\phi'_t(t,Y_t)\|\right)^{2+\delta}+\left(\inf_{0\leq t \leq T} \phi'_t(t,Y_t)\right)^{-\alpha(2+\delta)}\right]<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ This condition can be checked for specific strategies and specific parametric Lévy models using the explicit formulas for the hedging strateigies given in [@kallsen.hubalek.al.06; @broden.tankov.09], but these computations are out of scope of the present paper.\ When $\beta=0$ and $\alpha\to 2$, we find that the optimal size of the rebalancing interval is proportional to the square root of $\frac{\partial \phi(t,Y_t)}{\partial Y}$ (the gamma), which is consistent with the results of Fukasawa [@fukasawa.09b], quoted in the introduction.\ A widely popular portfolio strategy, which was shown by Merton [@merton] to be optimal in the context of power utility maximization, is the so called constant proportion strategy, which consists in investing a fixed fraction of one’s wealth into the risky asset. Since the price of the risky asset evolves with time, the number of units which corresponds to a given proportion varies, and in practice the strategy must be discretized. Given the importance of this strategy in applications, it is of interest to compute the asymptotically optimal discretization rule in this setting.\ Assuming zero interest rate, the value $V_t$ of a portfolio which invests a proportion $\pi$ of the wealth into the risky asset $Y$ and the rest into the risk-free bank account has the dynamics $$\begin{aligned} V_T = V_0 +\int_0^T \pi V_{t-} \frac{dY_t}{Y_{t-}}= V_0 + \int_0^T X_{t-} dY_t\quad \text{with}\quad X_t = \pi\frac{V_t}{Y_t}.\label{merton.eq}\end{aligned}$$ The following result provides the asymptotically optimal discretization rule for this integral.\ Assume that $U \subset \left(-\frac{1}{\pi},\infty\right)$ if $\pi>1$ and $U\subset \left(-1, -\frac{1}{\pi}\right)$ if $\pi<0$. Then the strategy given by $$\underline{a}_t = \overline{a}_t = c V_t^{\frac{\alpha}{2+\alpha-\beta}} Y_t^{-\frac{2+\alpha}{2+\alpha-\beta}}$$ is asymptotically optimal for the integral . Applying the Itô’s formula, we find the dynamics of the integrator $X$: $$\begin{gathered} X_t = X_0 + (\pi-1) \int_0^t \int_{U} \frac{X_{s-}z}{1+z} \tilde N(ds\times dz) + (1-\pi) \int_0^t\int_{U} \frac{ X_{s-}z^2}{1+z}\nu(dz)\, ds.\end{gathered}$$ Hence, $X$ can be written in the form with $$\gamma_s(z) = \frac{(\pi-1)X_{s-}z}{1+z}\quad \text{and}\quad \bar b_s = (1-\pi) X_{s} \int_{\mathbb R}\left\{\frac{z^2}{1+z} 1_{\|z\|\leq 1} + z1_{\|z\|>1}\right\} \nu(dz).$$ Under the assumption of this proposition, the process $X$ does not change sign, and we can assume without loss of generality that $(\pi-1)X_s$ is always positive (otherwise all the computations can be done for the process $-X$). Since $X$ is a stochastic exponential of a Lévy process with bounded jumps, it is locally bounded, which means that by Proposition \[sde.prop\], $X$ satisfies the assumption $(HX)$ with $$\lambda_t = \gamma'_t(0)^\alpha = \|(\pi-1)X_{t-}\|^\alpha$$ and the assumption $(HX^{\rho}_\text{loc})$ for all $\rho\geq 1$. Moreover, since the compensator of the jump measure of $X$ is absolutely continous with respect to the Lebesgue measure (in time), we can take $\lambda_t = \|(\pi-1)X_{t}\|^\alpha$. Also, one can choose $\widehat K_t = C X_t$ for $C$ sufficiently large in condition .\ To check the integrability conditions in Proposition \[sym.prop\], observe that the processes $A_t$, $\lambda_t$, $\widehat K_t$ and $b_t$ appearing in these conditions, are powers of stochastic exponentials of Lévy processes with bounded jumps. They can therefore be represented as ordinary exponentials of (other) Lévy processes with bounded jumps, but an exponential of a Lévy process with bounded jumps admits all moments, and its maximum on $[0,T]$ also admits all moments (see Theorem 25.18 in [@sato]). Therefore, the integrability conditions in Proposition \[sym.prop\] follow by using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, and the proof is completed by an application of this proposition. Proof of Theorem \[err.thm\] {#proofthm} ============================ Step 1. Reduction to the case of bounded coefficients.* In the proofs of Theorems \[err.thm\] and \[cost.thm\], we will replace the [local boundedness and integrability assumptions of these theorems]{} with the following stronger one: - There exists a constant [$B>0$ such that $\frac{1}{B} \leq \lambda_t, \underline a_t, \overline a_t \leq B$, $\|A_t\| + \|b_t\| + \|\widehat K_t\|\leq B$ for $0\leq t \leq T$. There exists a Lévy measure $\nu(dx)$ such that, almost surely for all $t$, the kernel $\mu_t(dz)$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\lambda_t \nu(dz)$: $\mu_t(dz) = K_t(dz) \lambda_t \nu(dz)$ for a random function $K_t(z)>0$.]{} Moreover the process $(Z_t)$ defined by $$\begin{aligned} Z_t = \mathcal E\left(\int_0^{\cdot} \Big(\big(K_s(z)\big)^{-1}-1\Big)(M - \mu)\label{girsdens.eq} (ds\times dz)\right)_t,\end{aligned}$$ is a martingale and satisfies $$E^Q[\sup_{0\leq t \leq T} \|Z_t\|^{-\rho}] <\infty\quad \text{and}\quad E[\sup_{0\leq t \leq T} Z_t] <\infty,$$ where $Q$ is the probability measure defined by $$\frac{dQ}{dP}\|_{\mathcal F_T} := Z_T.$$ Indeed, we have the following lemma. \[loc.lm\] Assume that holds under the assumptions [$(HY)$, $(HX)$]{} and $(H'_1)$. Then Theorem \[err.thm\] holds. First, observe that for every $n$, $$\begin{aligned} &E\left[\left\{\int_0^{\tau_n} \int_{\mathbb R} \Big(\big(K_s(z)\big)^{-1}-1\Big)^2 M(ds\times dz)\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]\\ &\leq E\left[\left\{\int_0^{\tau_n} \int_{\|K_s(z)^{-1}-1\|\leq\frac{1}{2}} \Big(\big(K_s(z)\big)^{-1}-1\Big)^2 M(ds\times dz)\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}\right] \\ &\qquad \qquad + E\left[\left\{\int_0^{\tau_n} \int_{\|K_s(z)^{-1}-1\|>\frac{1}{2}} \Big(\big(K_s(z)\big)^{-1}-1\Big)^2 M(ds\times dz)\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}\right].\end{aligned}$$ Using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for the first term, and the fact that the second integral is a countable sum together with Proposition II.1.28 in [@jacodshiryaev] for the second term, we see that this last expression is finite since by assumption [$(HX^1_{loc})$]{}, $$\begin{aligned} &E\left[\int_0^{\tau_n} \int_{\|K_s(z)^{-1}-1\|\leq\frac{1}{2}} \Big(\big(K_s(z)\big)^{-1}-1\Big)^2 \mu (ds\times dz)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}} \\ & \qquad \qquad + E\left[\int_0^{\tau_n} \int_{\|K_s(z)^{-1}-1\|>\frac{1}{2}} \Big\|\big(K_s(z)\big)^{-1}-1\Big\| \mu (ds\times dz)\right] < \infty.\end{aligned}$$ This implies that the process $$L_t = \int_0^t\int_{\mathbb R} \Big(\big(K_s(z)\big)^{-1}-1\Big) (M-\mu)(ds\times dz)$$ is a local martingale and satisfies $E[[L]^{\frac{1}{2}}_{T\wedge \tau_n}] <\infty$ for every $n$ (see Definition II.1.27 in [@jacodshiryaev]). The process $Z_t:= \mathcal E(L)_t$ is then also well defined and we take $\sigma_n := \tau_n \wedge \inf\{t: Z_t \geq n\}$. Then, $$\sup_{0\leq t\leq T} Z_{t\wedge \sigma_n} \leq n + \|\Delta Z_{\sigma_n}\|1_{\sigma_n \leq T} \leq n + [Z]^{\frac{1}{2}}_{\sigma_n \wedge T} = n + \left(\int_0^{\sigma_n \wedge T} Z_{t-}^2 d[L]_t\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\\ \leq n + n [L]^{\frac{1}{2}}_{\sigma_n \wedge T},$$ the last term being integrable. Therefore, we can define a new probability measure $Q^n$ via $$\frac{dQ^n}{dP}\|_{\mathcal F_t} = Z_{t\wedge \sigma_n}.$$ By Girsanov theorem (Theorem III.5.24 in [@jacodshiryaev]), $M$ is a random measure with predictable compensator $\mu^{Q^n} := dt \times \lambda_t \nu(dz)$ under $Q^n$ on $\{t\leq \sigma_n\}$ and $$Z^{-1}_{t\wedge \sigma_n} = \mathcal E\left(\int_0^\cdot (K_s(z)-1)(M-\mu^{Q^n})(ds\times dz)\right)_{t\wedge \sigma_n}.$$ Therefore, by similar arguments to above, we can find an increasing sequence of stopping times $(\gamma_n)$ with $\gamma_n \to T$ and such that both $$E[\sup_{0\leq t \leq T} Z_{t\wedge \gamma_n}] <\infty\quad \text{and}\quad E^{Q^n}[\sup_{0\leq t \leq T} Z^{-1}_{t\wedge \gamma_n}] <\infty.$$ Now we define $Y^n_t = Y_{t\wedge \gamma_n}$ and $X^n$ via Equation replacing the coefficients $\lambda_t$, $b_t$ and $K_t(z)$ with $\lambda^n_t:= \lambda_{t\wedge \gamma_n}$, $b^n_t := b_{t\wedge \gamma_n}$ and $K^n_t(z) = K_t(z) 1_{t\leq \gamma_n} + 1_{t>\gamma_n}$. Moreover, we define $\underline a^n_t:= \underline a_{t\wedge \gamma_n}$, $\overline a^n_t:= \overline a_{t\wedge \gamma_n}$. The stopping times $T_i^{\varepsilon,n}$ and $\eta^n(t)$ are defined similarly. Remark that $A^n_t:= A_t 1_{t\leq \gamma_n}$ satisfies $\int_0^t A^n_s ds = \langle Y^n\rangle_t $, that $X^n$ coincides with $X$ on the interval $[0,\gamma_n]$ and that the new coefficients satisfy Assumption $(H'_1)$. Consequently, $$\begin{aligned} &\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} \varepsilon^{-2} E\left[\int_0^{\gamma_n}(X_t - X_{\eta(t)})^2 A_t dt\right]=\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} \varepsilon^{-2} E\left[\left(\int_0^{T}(X^n_t - X^n_{\eta^n(t)})^2 dY^n_t\right)^2\right]\notag\\ &= E\left[\int_0^{T} {A^n_t} \frac{f(\underline a^n_t, \overline a^n_t)}{g(\underline a^n_t, \overline a^n_t)}dt \right] = E\left[\int_0^{\gamma_n} {A_t} \frac{f(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)} dt\right],$$ which implies, by Assumption $(HA)$, that $$E\left[\int_0^{\gamma_n} {A_t} \frac{f(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)} dt\right] \leq E\left[\sup_{0\leq s \leq T}\max(\underline a_s,\overline a_s)^2\int_0^{T} A_t dt\right]<+\infty,$$ and so by Fatou’s lemma, $$E\left[\int_0^{T} {A_t} \frac{f(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)} dt\right] \leq E\left[\sup_{0\leq s \leq T}\max(\underline a_s,\overline a_s)^2\int_0^{T} A_t dt\right]<+\infty.$$ Therefore, by dominated convergence $$\lim_n E\left[\int_{\gamma_n}^T {A_t} \frac{f(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)} dt\right] = 0.$$ On the other hand, $$\varepsilon^{-2} E\int_{\gamma_n}^T (X_t - X_{\eta(t)})^2 A_t dt \leq E\left[\sup_{0\leq s \leq T}\max(\underline a_s,\overline a_s)^2\int_{\gamma_n}^T A_t dt\right].$$ The right-hand side does not depend on $\varepsilon$ and converges to zero as $n\to \infty$ by the dominated convergence theorem. Therefore, the left-hand side can be made arbitrarily small independently of $\varepsilon$, and the result follows. Step 2. Change of probability measure.We first prove the following important lemma. \[supzero\] Under the assumption $H'_{1}$, almost surely, $$\lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \sup_{i : T^\varepsilon_i \leq T } (T^\varepsilon_{i+1}-T^\varepsilon_i) = 0.$$ In this proof, let us fix $\omega \in \Omega$. By way of contradiction, assume that there exists a constant $C>0$ and a sequence $\{\varepsilon_n\}_{n\geq 0}$ converging to zero such that for every $n$, there exists $i(n)$ with $T^{\varepsilon_n}_{i(n)+1} - T^{\varepsilon_n}_{i(n)} > C$. From the sequences $\{T^{\varepsilon_n}_{i(n)+1}\}_{n}$ and $\{T^{\varepsilon_n}_{i(n)}\}_n$ we can extract two subsequences $\{T^{\varepsilon_{\phi(n)}}_{i(\phi(n))+1}\}_{n}$ and $\{T^{\varepsilon_{\phi(n)}}_{i(\phi(n))}\}_n$ converging to some limiting values $T_1< T_2$. For $n$ big enough, there exists a nonempty interval $\mathcal I$ which is a subset of both $(T_1,T_2)$ and $(T^{\varepsilon_{\phi(n)}}_{i(\phi(n))+1},T^{\varepsilon_{\phi(n)}}_{i(\phi(n))})$. Now using that $\sup_{t,s \in (T^{\varepsilon_{\phi(n)}}_{i(\phi(n))+1},T^{\varepsilon_{\phi(n)}}_{i(\phi(n))})} \|X_t-X_s\| \leq 2B\varepsilon_{\phi(n)}$, we obtain that $\sup_{s,t\in \mathcal I} \|X_t-X_s\|=0$, which cannot hold since $X$ is an infinite activity process. Let $\Delta T_{i+1}=T_{i+1}\wedge T - T_i\wedge T$. The goal of this step is to show that $$\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} \varepsilon^{-2} E\left[\int_0^{T}(X_t - X_{\eta(t)})^2 A_t dt\right]= \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} E^Q\left[ \sum_{i=1}^\infty Z^{-1}_{T_i\wedge T} A_{T_i\wedge T}\varepsilon^{-2} \int_{T_i\wedge T}^{T_{i+1}\wedge T}(X_t - X_{T_i})^2 dt\right].\label{lim0}$$ We have $$\begin{aligned} \varepsilon^{-2}E\left[\int_0^{T}(X_t - X_{\eta(t)})^2 A_t dt\right]&=\varepsilon^{-2}\sum_{i=0}^{+\infty}E\left[\int_{T_i\wedge T}^{T_{i+1}\wedge T}(X_t - X_{T_i})^2 (A_t-A_{T_i}) dt\right]\\ &+\varepsilon^{-2}\sum_{i=0}^{+\infty}E^Q\left[Z^{-1}_{T_{i+1}\wedge T}A_{T_i}\int_{T_i\wedge T}^{T_{i+1}\wedge T}(X_t - X_{T_i})^2dt\right].\end{aligned}$$ Since for $t\in[T_i,T_{i+1})$, $(X_t - X_{T_i})^2\leq B^2\varepsilon^{2}$, using the boundedness of $A$, will follow provided we show that $$\label{lim1} \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0}\sum_{i=0}^{+\infty}E\left[\int_{T_i\wedge T}^{T_{i+1}\wedge T}\|A_t-A_{T_i}\|dt\right]=0$$ and $$\label{lim2}\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0}\sum_{i=0}^{+\infty}E^Q\left[\|Z^{-1}_{T_{i+1}\wedge T}-Z^{-1}_{T_{i}\wedge T}\|\Delta T_{i+1}\right]=0.$$ The limit follows from the dominated convergence theorem ($A$ is bounded by assumption $(H'_1)$ and $A_{\eta(t)}\to A_t$ almost everywhere on $[0,T]$ since $A$ is càdlàg and by Lemma \[supzero\]). Using the fact that $Z^{-1}$ has finite quadratic variation together with Lemma \[supzero\] and Cauchy Schwarz inequality, we get that, in probability, $$\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0}\sum_{i=0}^{+\infty}\|Z^{-1}_{T_{i+1}\wedge T}-Z^{-1}_{T_{i}\wedge T}\|\Delta T_{i+1}=0.$$ Then follows from the integrability of $\text{sup}_{t\in[0,T]}Z_t^{-1}$, which is part of Assumption $(H'_1)$.\ Step 3.First, observe that by the dominated convergence theorem, since $\sup_i \Delta T_i$ tends to zero, is equal to $$\begin{aligned} S_1:=\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} S_1^\varepsilon \quad \text{with}\quad S_1^\varepsilon:=E^Q\Big[ \sum_{i=0}^\infty 1_{T_i\leq T} A_{T_i}Z^{-1}_{T_i}{\varepsilon^{-2} E^{Q}_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}}(X_t - X_{T_i})^2 dt\big]}\Big].\end{aligned}$$ For this expression to be well defined we extend the processes $\lambda$, $b$, $\underline a$, $\overline a$ by arbitrary constant values beyond $T$ and define the process $X$ for $t\geq T$ accordingly.\ Define a family of continuous increasing processes $(\Lambda_s(t))_{t\geq 0}$ indexed by $s\geq 0$ by $\Lambda_s(t) = \int_s^{s+t} \lambda_r dr$, the family of filtrations $\mathcal G^i_t = \mathcal F_{T_i + t}$ and of processes $(\tilde X^i_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and $(\hat X^i_t)_{t\geq 0}$ by $$\hat X^i_t = X_{T_i + \Lambda_{T_i}^{-1}(t)} - X_{T_i} - \int_{T_i}^{T_i + \Lambda_{T_i}^{-1}(t)} b_s ds,\qquad \tilde X^i_t = X_{T_i + \Lambda_{T_i}^{-1}(t)} - X_{T_i}.$$ The process $(\hat X^i_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is a $(G^i_t)$-semimartingale with (deterministic) characteristics $(0,\nu,0)$ under $Q$, therefore, it s a $(G^i_t)$-Lévy process under $Q$ (Theorem II.4.15 in [@jacodshiryaev]).\ Let $\tilde \tau_i = \inf\{t\geq 0: \tilde X^i_{t} \notin [-\underline a_{T_i} \varepsilon, \overline a_{T_i} \varepsilon]\}$. Using a change of variable formula we obtain that $$\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}}(X_t - X_{T_i})^2dt = \int_0^{\tilde \tau_i} \frac{(\tilde X_s^i)^2}{\lambda(T_i + \Lambda^{-1}_{T_i}(s))} ds.$$ Using the càdlàg property of $\lambda$ together with the various boundedness assumptions and the integrability of $\sup_{0\leq t \leq T} Z_t^{-1}$, we easily get that $$S_1 = \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} E^Q\Big[ \sum_{i=0}^\infty 1_{T_i\leq T} \frac{A_{T_i}Z^{-1}_{T_i}}{\lambda_{T_i}}{\varepsilon^{-2} E^{Q}_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\big[\int_{0}^{\tilde \tau_{i}} (\tilde X_t^i)^2 dt\big]}\Big].$$ Then we obviously have that $$S_1 = \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} E^Q\Big[ \sum_{i=0}^\infty 1_{T_i\leq T} \frac{A_{T_i}Z^{-1}_{T_i}}{\lambda_{T_i}} \frac{T_{i+1}-T_i}{E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}[T_{i+1}-T_i]}{\varepsilon^{-2} E^{Q}_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\big[\int_{0}^{\tilde \tau_{i}} (\tilde X_t^i)^2 dt\big]}\Big].$$ Now remark that $$\begin{aligned} T_{i+1}-T_i = \int_0^{\tilde\tau_i} \frac{ds}{\lambda(T_i + \Lambda^{-1}_{T_i}(s))}. \label{deltaT}\end{aligned}$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned} &E^Q\Big[ \sum_{i=0}^\infty 1_{T_i\leq T} \frac{A_{T_i}Z^{-1}_{T_i}}{\lambda_{T_i}} \frac{T_{i+1}-T_i}{E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}[T_{i+1}-T_i]}{\varepsilon^{-2} E^{Q}_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\big[\int_{0}^{\tilde \tau_{i}} (\tilde X_t^i)^2 dt\big]}\Big]\\& = E^Q\Big[ \sum_{i=0}^\infty 1_{T_i\leq T} {A_{T_i}Z^{-1}_{T_i}} \frac{T_{i+1}-T_i}{E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}[\tilde \tau_i]}{\varepsilon^{-2} E^{Q}_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\big[\int_{0}^{\tilde \tau_{i}} (\tilde X_t^i)^2 dt\big]}\Big] + R^\varepsilon\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} \|R^\varepsilon\| \leq C E^Q \left[\sum_{i=0}^\infty 1_{T_i\leq T} Z^{-1}_{T_i} (T_{i+1}-T_i) \left\|\frac{\lambda_{T_i}^{-1} E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}[ \tilde \tau_i] - E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}} [\int_0^{\tilde \tau_i} \frac{ds}{\lambda(T_i + \Lambda^{-1}_{T_i} (s))}]}{E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}} [\int_0^{\tilde \tau_i} \frac{ds}{\lambda(T_i + \Lambda^{-1}_{T_i} (s))}]}\right\|\right].\end{aligned}$$ Using , we obtain that $$\begin{aligned} \|R^\varepsilon\| &\leq C E^Q \left[\sum_{i=0}^\infty 1_{T_i\leq T} Z^{-1}_{T_i} \left\|{\lambda_{T_i}^{-1} E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}[ \tilde \tau_i] - E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}} [\int_0^{\tilde \tau_i} \frac{ds}{\lambda(T_i + \Lambda^{-1}_{T_i} (s))}]}\right\|\right]\\ &\leq C E^Q \left[\sum_{i=0}^\infty 1_{T_i\leq T} Z^{-1}_{T_i} \int_0^{\tilde \tau_i} \left\|{\frac{1}{\lambda_{T_i}} - \frac{1}{\lambda(T_i + \Lambda^{-1}_{T_i} (s))}}\right\|ds\right]\\ & \leq C E^Q \left[\sum_{i=0}^\infty 1_{T_i\leq T} Z^{-1}_{T_i} \int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} \left\|{\frac{1}{\lambda_{T_i}} - \frac{1}{\lambda(s)}}\right\|ds\right],\end{aligned}$$ which is easily shown to converge to zero. Consequently, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned} S_1 = \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} E^Q\Big[ \sum_{i=0}^\infty 1_{T_i\leq T} {A_{T_i}Z^{-1}_{T_i}} \frac{T_{i+1}-T_i}{E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}[\tilde \tau_i]}{\varepsilon^{-2} E^{Q}_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\big[\int_{0}^{\tilde \tau_{i}} (\tilde X_t^i)^2 dt\big]}\Big].\label{S1tilde}\end{aligned}$$ Step 4. Comparison of hitting times and associated integrals. We start with the following lemma Let $\kappa\in \mathbb R_+$ and $n \in \mathbb N$. Then, $$\underline f^{\kappa,n}_\varepsilon (\underline a_{T_i}, \overline a_{T_i}) \leq E^{Q}_{\mathcal F_{T_i}} \left[\left(\int_0^{\tilde \tau_i} \|\hat X_t^i\|^\kappa dt\right)^n\right] \leq \overline f^{\kappa,n}_\varepsilon (\underline a_{T_i}, \overline a_{T_i})$$ whenever the expression in the middle is well defined, where $\underline f_\varepsilon$ and $\overline f_\varepsilon$ are deterministic functions defined by $$\underline f^{\kappa,n}_\varepsilon(a,b)= E^{Q}\left[\left(\int_0^{\hat\tau_1} \|\hat X_t\|^\kappa dt\right)^n\right]\text{ and } \overline f^{\kappa,n}_\varepsilon(a,b)= E^{Q}\left[\left(\int_0^{\hat\tau_2\wedge \hat\tau^j} \|\hat X_t\|^\kappa dt\right)^n\right],$$ with $\hat X_t=\hat X_t^0$ and $$\begin{aligned} \hat \tau_1 &= \inf\{t: \hat X_t \leq -a\varepsilon + t B^2 \quad \text{or}\quad \hat X_t \geq b\varepsilon - t B^2\}\\ \hat \tau_2 &= \inf\{t: \hat X_t \leq -a\varepsilon - t B^2 \quad \text{or}\quad \hat X_t \geq b\varepsilon + t B^2\}\\ \hat \tau^j &= \inf\{t: \|\Delta \hat X_t\|\geq \varepsilon(a+b) \}.\end{aligned}$$ The proof follows from the fact that $\|\tilde X_t^i - \hat X_t^i\| \leq t B^2$ and that $\hat X$ is a $\mathcal G^i_t$-Lévy process under $Q$, and that a jump of size greater than $\varepsilon(a+b)$ immediately takes the process $\tilde X^i$ out of the interval. \[flimit.lm\] $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{\varepsilon \downarrow 0} \varepsilon^{-(\kappa+\alpha) n }\underline f^{\kappa,n}_\varepsilon(a,b) = \lim_{\varepsilon \downarrow 0} \varepsilon^{-(\kappa+\alpha) n }\overline f^{\kappa,n}_\varepsilon(a,b) = f^{,\kappa,n}(a,b)\label{flimit}\end{aligned}$$ uniformly on $(a,b) \in [a_1,a_2] \times [b_1,b_2]$ for all $0<a_1 \leq a_2 < \infty$ and $0<b_1 \leq b_2 < \infty$, with $$f^{,\kappa,n}(a,b) = E \left[\left(\int_0^{\tau^} \|X^_t\|^\kappa dt\right)^n\right],$$ where $X^$ is a strictly $\alpha$-stable process with Lévy density $$\nu^(x) = \frac{c_+ 1_{x>0} + c_- 1_{x<0}}{\|x\|^{1+\alpha}}.$$ and $\tau^* = \inf\{t\geq 0: X^_t \notin(-a, b) \}$. For $\varepsilon>0$, let us define $X_t^{\varepsilon}=\varepsilon^{-1}\hat{X}_{\varepsilon^\alpha t}$, $X_t^{\varepsilon,1}=X_t^{\varepsilon}-tB^2\varepsilon^{\alpha-1}$, $X_t^{\varepsilon,2}=X_t^{\varepsilon}+tB^2\varepsilon^{\alpha-1}$ and $$\begin{aligned} &\tau_1^{\varepsilon,1}=\inf\{t, X_t^{\varepsilon,1}\leq -a\}, &&\tau_1^{\varepsilon,2}=\inf\{t, X_t^{\varepsilon,2}\geq b\},\\ &\tau_2^{\varepsilon,1}=\inf\{t, X_t^{\varepsilon,2}\leq -a\}, &&\tau_2^{\varepsilon,2}=\inf\{t, X_t^{\varepsilon,1}\geq b\}\\ &\tau_3^{\varepsilon,1}=\inf\{t, X_t^{\varepsilon}\leq -a\}, &&\tau_3^{\varepsilon,2}=\inf\{t, X_t^{\varepsilon}\geq b\}.\end{aligned}$$ We write $\tau_i^{\varepsilon}=\tau_i^{\varepsilon,1}\wedge\tau_i^{\varepsilon,2}$ for $i=1,2,3$. Similarly, we define $\tau^{j,\varepsilon}:=\inf\{t:\|\Delta X_t^{\varepsilon}\|\geq (a+b)\}$. Observe that by a change of variable in the integral, $$\begin{aligned} \varepsilon^{-(\kappa+\alpha) n }\underline f^{\kappa,n}_\varepsilon(a,b) &= E^{Q} \left[\left(\int_0^{\tau^{\varepsilon}_1} \|X^{\varepsilon}_t\|^\kappa dt\right)^n\right],\\ \varepsilon^{-(\kappa+\alpha) n }\overline f^{\kappa,n}_\varepsilon(a,b) &= E^{Q} \left[\left(\int_0^{\tau^{\varepsilon}_2 \wedge \tau^{j,\varepsilon}} \|X^{\varepsilon}_t\|^\kappa dt\right)^n\right].\end{aligned}$$ From Lemma \[weakcvg\], we have that $X_t^{\varepsilon}$ converges to $X^_t$ in Skorohod topology. From Skorohod representation theorem, there exists some probability space on which are defined a process $Y^$ and a family of processes $Y^{\varepsilon}$ such that $Y^{\varepsilon}$ and $X^{\varepsilon}$ have the same law, $Y^{}$ and $X^{}$ have the same law and $Y^{\varepsilon}$ converges to $Y^{}$ almost surely, for the Skorohod topology.\ This implies that $Y^{\varepsilon,1}$ and $Y^{\varepsilon,2}$ also converge to $Y^$ almost surely, where $Y_t^{\varepsilon,1}=Y_t^{\varepsilon}-tB^2\varepsilon^{\alpha-1}$ and $Y_t^{\varepsilon,2}=Y_t^{\varepsilon}+tB^2\varepsilon^{\alpha-1}$. Now using that the application which to a function $f$ in the Skorohod space associates its first hitting time of a constant barrier is continuous at almost all $f$ which are sample paths of strictly stable processes, see Proposition VI.2.11 in [@jacodshiryaev] and its use in [@rosenbaum.tankov.10], we obtain that $\sigma_i^{\varepsilon}$ converges almost surely to $\sigma^{}$ for $i=1,2,3$, where $\sigma_i^{\varepsilon}$ and $\sigma^{}$ are defined through $Y^{\varepsilon,1}$, $Y^{\varepsilon,2}, Y^$ in the same way as $\tau_i^{\varepsilon}$ and $\tau^{}$ through $X^{\varepsilon,1}$, $X^{\varepsilon,2}, X^$. Moreover, since $\sigma_3^{\varepsilon} \leq \sigma^{j,\varepsilon}$ for all $\varepsilon$, we also have that $\sigma_2^{\varepsilon}\wedge \sigma^{j,\varepsilon} \to \sigma^$ almost surely.\ Now remark that, almost surely, $Y_t^{\varepsilon}$ converges almost everywhere in $t$ to $Y_t^{}$, see Proposition VI.2.3 in [@jacodshiryaev]. Therefore, since $\|Y_t^{\varepsilon}\|\mathrm{1}_{t\leq\sigma_1^{\varepsilon}}\leq \text{max}(a,b)$ and $\|Y_t^{\varepsilon}\|\mathrm{1}_{t\leq\sigma^{j,\varepsilon}\wedge\sigma_2^{\varepsilon}}\leq \text{max}(a,b) + B^2 t$, using the dominated convergence theorem, we obtain that almost surely $$\big(\int_0^{\sigma_1^{\varepsilon}}\|Y_t^{\varepsilon}\|^\kappa dt\big)^n\rightarrow \big(\int_0^{\sigma^{}}\|Y_t^{}\|^\kappa dt\big)^n\text{ and }\big(\int_0^{\sigma_2^{\varepsilon} \wedge \sigma^{j,\varepsilon}}\|Y_t^{\varepsilon}\|^\kappa dt\big)^n\rightarrow \big(\int_0^{\sigma^{}}\|Y_t^{}\|^\kappa dt\big)^n.$$ Finally, we deduce that $$\big(\int_0^{\tau_1^{\varepsilon}}\|X_t^{\varepsilon}\|^\kappa dt\big)^n\rightarrow \big(\int_0^{\tau^{}}\|X_t^{}\|^\kappa dt\big)^n\text{ and }\big(\int_0^{\tau_2^{\varepsilon}\wedge \tau^{j,\varepsilon}}\|X_t^{\varepsilon}\|^\kappa dt\big)^n\rightarrow \big(\int_0^{\tau^{}}\|X_t^{}\|^\kappa dt\big)^n,$$ in law.\ Now remark that $\tau^{j,\varepsilon}$ is the first jump time of a Lévy process with characteristic triplet given by $(0,\varepsilon^{\alpha}\nu\|_{\big(-(a+b)\varepsilon,(a+b)\varepsilon\big)^c},0)$. Using that this process is a compound Poisson process, we get $$P[\tau^{j,\varepsilon} > T] \leq \exp\{-T \varepsilon^\alpha \nu((-\infty,-(a+b)\varepsilon] \cup [(a+b)\varepsilon,\infty)) \},$$ which, [by the property ]{}, implies that the family $(\tau^{j,\varepsilon})_{\varepsilon>0}$ has uniformly bounded exponential moment. This implies that the families $$\big(\int_0^{\tau_2^{\varepsilon}\wedge \tau^{j,\varepsilon}}\|X_t^{\varepsilon}\|^\kappa dt\big)^n\quad \text{and}\quad \big(\int_0^{\tau_1^{\varepsilon}}\|X_t^{\varepsilon}\|^\kappa dt\big)^n = \big(\int_0^{\tau_1^{\varepsilon} \wedge \tau^{j,\varepsilon}}\|X_t^{\varepsilon}\|^\kappa dt\big)^n,$$ parameterized by $\varepsilon$, are uniformly integrable and therefore the proof of the convergence in is complete.\ It remains to show that the convergence in is uniform in $(a,b)$ over compact sets excluding zero. To do this, first observe that $f^{,\kappa,n}(a,b)$ is continuous in $(a,b)$ on compact sets excluding zero (this is shown using essentially the same arguments as above: continuity of the exit times for stable processes plus uniform integrability). Secondly, since both $\underline f^{\kappa,n}_{\varepsilon}$ and $\overline f^{\kappa,n}_\varepsilon$ are increasing in $a$ and $b$, a multidimensional version of Dini’s theorem can be used to conclude that the convergence is indeed uniform. Step 5. * First, let us show that $$S_1 = \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} E^Q\Big[ \sum_{i=0}^\infty 1_{T_i\leq T} {A_{T_i}Z^{-1}_{T_i}} \frac{T_{i+1}-T_i}{E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}[\tilde \tau_i]}{\varepsilon^{-2} E^{Q}_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\big[\int_{0}^{\tilde \tau_{i}} \hat X^2_t dt\big]}\Big].$$ Indeed, the absolute value of the difference between the expressions under the limit here and in is bounded from above by $$\begin{aligned} &E^Q\Big[ \sum_{i=0}^\infty 1_{T_i\leq T} {A_{T_i}Z^{-1}_{T_i}} \frac{T_{i+1}-T_i}{E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}[\tilde \tau_i]}{\varepsilon^{-2} E^{Q}_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\big[\int_{0}^{\tilde \tau_{i}} \|(\tilde X_t - \hat X_t)(\tilde X_t + \hat X_t)\| dt\big]}\Big]\notag\\ &\leq C E^Q\Big[ \sum_{i=0}^\infty 1_{T_i\leq T} {Z^{-1}_{T_i}} \frac{T_{i+1}-T_i}{E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}[\tilde \tau_i]}{\varepsilon^{-2} E^{Q}_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\big[\tilde \tau_i^3 + \tilde \tau_i^2 \varepsilon \big]}\Big]\notag\\ &\leq C E^Q\Big[ \sum_{i=0}^\infty 1_{T_i\leq T} {Z^{-1}_{T_i}} (T_{i+1}-T_i)\frac{\varepsilon^{-2}\overline f^{0,3}_\varepsilon(\underline a_{T_i},\overline a_{T_i}) + \varepsilon^{-1}\overline f^{0,2}_\varepsilon(\underline a_{T_i},\overline a_{T_i}) }{\underline f^{0,1}_\varepsilon(\underline a_{T_i},\overline a_{T_i})}{ }\Big],\label{tildehat}\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is a constant which does not depend on $\varepsilon$. Using Lemma \[flimit.lm\] and the fact that $\alpha>1$, we get $$\sup_{\frac{1}{B} \leq a,b \leq B}\frac{\varepsilon^{-2}\overline f^{0,3}_\varepsilon(a,b) + \varepsilon^{-1}\overline f^{0,2}_\varepsilon(a,b) }{\underline f^{0,1}_\varepsilon(a,b)} \to 0\quad \text{as $\varepsilon \to 0$.}$$ This, together with the fact that $E^Q[\sup_{0\leq t \leq T} Z_t^{-1}]<\infty$, enables us to apply the dominated convergence theorem and conclude that goes to zero.\ Finally, we have that $$\begin{aligned} S_1 &\leq \limsup_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} E^Q\Big[ \sum_{i=0}^\infty 1_{T_i\leq T} {A_{T_i}Z^{-1}_{T_i}} (T_{i+1}-T_i)\frac{\varepsilon^{-2-\alpha}\overline f^{2,1}_\varepsilon(\underline a_{T_i},\overline a_{T_i})}{\varepsilon^{-\alpha}\underline f^{0,1}_\varepsilon(\underline a_{T_i},\overline a_{T_i})}{}\Big]\\ S_1 &\geq \limsup_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} E^Q\Big[ \sum_{i=0}^\infty 1_{T_i\leq T} {A_{T_i}Z^{-1}_{T_i}} (T_{i+1}-T_i)\frac{\varepsilon^{-2-\alpha}\underline f^{2,1}_\varepsilon(\underline a_{T_i},\overline a_{T_i})}{\varepsilon^{-\alpha}\overline f^{0,1}_\varepsilon(\underline a_{T_i},\overline a_{T_i})}{}\Big].\end{aligned}$$ Using for $(\kappa,n)=(0,1)$ and $(\kappa,n)=(2,1)$ the uniform convergence on $[1/B,B]$ of $\varepsilon^{-(\kappa+\alpha) n }\underline f^{\kappa,n}_\varepsilon$ and $\varepsilon^{-(\kappa+\alpha) n }\overline f^{\kappa,n}_\varepsilon$ towards $f^{,\kappa,n}$ which is continuous, together with a Riemann-sum type argument and the dominated convergence theorem, we obtain that $$S_1 = E^Q\Big[\int_0^T A_t Z^{-1}_t \frac{ f^{,2,1}(\underline a_t,\overline a_t)}{ f^{,0,1}(\underline a_t,\overline a_t)} dt\Big] = E\Big[\int_0^T A_t \frac{ f^{,2,1}(\underline a_t,\overline a_t)}{ f^{,0,1}(\underline a_t,\overline a_t)} dt\Big].$$ Preliminaries for the proof of Theorem \[cost.thm\] =================================================== In this section, we prove some technical lemmas concerning the uniform integrability of the hitting time counts and the overshoots, which are needed for the proof of Theorem \[cost.thm\]. \[prooflm\] \[overshoot.lm\] Under the [assumption $(HX)$]{}, for all $\beta \in [0,\alpha)$ and $\varepsilon>0$, $$\begin{aligned} &E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}} [\|X_{T_{i+1}}-X_{T_i}\|^\beta] \leq c \varepsilon^{\beta-1} \max\{\underline a_{T_i}^{\beta-1},\overline a_{T_i}^{\beta-1}\}E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} \|b_s\|ds\Big] \notag\\ &\qquad + c \varepsilon^{\beta-\alpha} \max\{\underline a_{T_i},\overline a_{T_i}\}^{\beta\vee (2-\alpha)}\min\{\underline a_{T_i},\overline a_{T_i}\}^{(\beta-2)\wedge (-\alpha)} E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} {\widehat K_s} ds\Big],\label{overbound}\end{aligned}$$ provided that the right-hand side has finite expectation. \[lower.cor\] [Under the assumption $(HX)$]{}, for all $\varepsilon>0$, $$\begin{aligned} &\varepsilon^\alpha \leq c \varepsilon^{\alpha-1} \min\{\underline a_{T_i},\overline a_{T_i}\}^{-1}E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} \|b_s\|ds\Big] + c \min\{\underline a_{T_i},\overline a_{T_i}\}^{-\alpha} E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} {\widehat K_s} ds\Big],\end{aligned}$$ provided that the right-hand side has finite expectation. Apply Lemma \[overshoot.lm\] with $\beta' = 0$, $\underline a_{T_i}' = \overline a_{T_i}' = \min\{\underline a_{T_i},\overline a_{T_i}\}$; then multiply both sides of by $\varepsilon^\alpha$ and use the fact that the hitting time of the new barrier is smaller than $T_{i+1}$. [First of all, from we easily deduce by integration by parts that $$\begin{aligned} \int_{x<\|z\|\leq 1} \|z\| \mu(dt\times dz) < C \widehat K_t x^{1-\alpha}\quad \text{and}\quad \int_{\|z\|\leq x} z^2 \mu(dt\times dz) < C\widehat K_t x^{2-\alpha}\label{upperK2}\end{aligned}$$ for all $x>0$, for some constant $C<\infty$.]{}\ For this proof, let $$f(x):= x^2 1_{0\leq x\leq 2\overline a_{T_i} \varepsilon} (2\overline a_{T_i}\varepsilon)^{\beta-2}+ \|x\|^\beta 1_{x> 2\overline a_{T_i} \varepsilon} + x^2 1_{-2\underline a_{T_i} \varepsilon \leq x \leq 0} (2\underline a_{T_i}\varepsilon)^{\beta-2}+ \|x\|^\beta 1_{x<- 2\underline a_{T_i} \varepsilon}.$$ By Itô’s formula, $$\begin{aligned} &2^{\beta-2}{E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}} [\|X_{T_{i+1}}-X_{T_i}\|^\beta]} \leq E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}[f({X_{T_{i+1}}-X_{T_i}})] = E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} f'({X_s - X_{T_i}}) b_sds\Big]\notag\\ & + E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} \int_{\mathbb R}\Big\{ f({X_{s} + z - X_{T_i}}) - f({X_{s} - X_{T_i}}) - f'({X_{s} - X_{T_i}}) z 1_{\|z\|\leq 1}\Big\} \mu(ds\times dz)\Big]\notag\\ & + E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} \int_{\mathbb R}\Big\{ f({X_{s-} + z - X_{T_i}}) - f({X_{s} - X_{T_i}})\Big\} (M-\mu)(ds\times dz)\Big].\label{itoovershoot}\end{aligned}$$ The first term in the right-hand side satisfies $$E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} f'({X_s - X_{T_i}}) b_sds\Big] \leq (2\varepsilon)^{\beta-1}\max\{\underline a_{T_i}^{\beta-1},\overline a_{T_i}^{\beta-1}\}E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} \|b_s\|ds\Big].$$ For the second term, we denote $A_s:= \{z : X_s + z - X_{T_i} \in (-2\underline a_{T_i} \varepsilon, 2 \overline a_{T_i} \varepsilon)\}$ and decompose it into two terms: $$\begin{aligned} &E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} \int_{A^c_s}\Big\{ f({X_{s} + z - X_{T_i}}) - f({X_{s} - X_{T_i}}) - f'({X_{s} - X_{T_i}}) z 1_{\|z\|\leq 1}\Big\} \mu(ds\times dz)\Big]\\ &\leq C E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} \int_{(-\underline a_{T_i} \varepsilon,\overline a_{T_i} \varepsilon)^c} \Big\{ \|z\|^\beta + \varepsilon^{\beta-1}\max\{\underline a_{T_i}^{\beta-1},\overline a_{T_i}^{\beta-1}\}\|z\| 1_{\|z\|\leq 1}\Big\} {\mu(ds\times dz)}\Big] \\ &\leq C \varepsilon^{\beta-\alpha} \Big\{ \max\{\underline a_{T_i}^{\beta-\alpha},\overline a_{T_i}^{\beta-\alpha}\}+\max\{\underline a_{T_i}^{\beta-1},\overline a_{T_i}^{\beta-1}\}\max\{\underline a_{T_i}^{1-\alpha},\overline a_{T_i}^{1-\alpha}\}\Big\} E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} { \widehat K_s} ds\Big]\end{aligned}$$ and $$E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} \int_{A_s}\Big\{ f({X_{s} + z - X_{T_i}}) - f({X_{s} - X_{T_i}}) - f'({X_{s} - X_{T_i}}) z 1_{\|z\|\leq 1}\Big\} \mu(ds\times dz)\Big],$$ which is smaller than $$\begin{aligned} &E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} \int_{A_s}\Big\{\int_0^z f''(X_s - X_{T_i} + x)(z-x) dx\Big\} \mu(ds\times dz)\Big] \\ & \qquad - E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} \int_{A_s}\Big\{ f'({X_{s} - X_{T_i}}) z 1_{\|z\|> 1}\Big\} \mu(ds\times dz)\Big]\\ &\leq C \varepsilon^{\beta-2}\max\{\underline a_{T_i}^{\beta-2},\overline a_{T_i}^{\beta-2}\} E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} \int_{-3 \underline a_{T_i}\varepsilon}^{3 \overline a_{T_i}\varepsilon} z^2\mu(ds\times dz)\Big] \\ & \qquad + C\varepsilon^{\beta-1} \max\{\underline a_{T_i}^{\beta-1},\overline a_{T_i}^{\beta-1}\} E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} \int_{-3 \underline a_{T_i}\varepsilon}^{3 \overline a_{T_i}\varepsilon} z^2 \mu(ds\times dz)\Big]\\ &\leq C \varepsilon^{\beta-\alpha} (\max\{\underline a_{T_i}^{\beta-2},\overline a_{T_i}^{\beta-2}\} +\varepsilon\max\{\underline a_{T_i}^{\beta-1},\overline a_{T_i}^{\beta-1}\})\max\{\underline a_{T_i}^{2-\alpha},\overline a_{T_i}^{2-\alpha}\} E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} {\widehat K_s} ds\Big],\end{aligned}$$ where we used in the last inequality. Assembling the terms and doing some simple estimations yields the statement of the lemma, provided we can show that the third term in the right-hand side of is equal to zero. Splitting it, once again, in two parts, we then get $$\begin{aligned} &E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} \int_{A_s^c}\Big\| f({X_{s-} + z - X_{T_i}}) - f({X_{s} - X_{T_i}})\Big\| \mu(ds\times dz)\Big] \\ &\leq C E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} \int_{(-\infty,-\underline a_{T_i}\varepsilon)\cup (\overline a_{T_i}\varepsilon, \infty)}\|z\|^\beta \mu(ds\times dz)\Big]\leq C \max\{\underline a_{T_i}^{\beta-\alpha},\overline a_{T_i}^{\beta-\alpha}\} E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} {\widehat K_s} ds\Big],\end{aligned}$$ and for the other term, using the “isometry property" of the stochastic integral with respect to the random measure together with , we obtain $$\begin{aligned} &E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\Big(\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} \int_{A_s}\frac{ f({X_{s-} + z - X_{T_i}}) - f({X_{s} - X_{T_i}})}{\max\{\underline a_{T_i}^{\beta-2},\overline a_{T_i}^{\beta-2}\}} (M-\mu)(ds\times dz)\Big)^2\Big]\\ &\leq C\varepsilon^{2\beta-4} E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} \int_{-3\underline a_{T_i}\varepsilon}^{3\overline a_{T_i}\varepsilon} z^2\mu(ds\times dz)\Big]\leq C\varepsilon^{2\beta-2-\alpha}\max\{\underline a_{T_i}^{2-\alpha},\overline a_{T_i}^{2-\alpha} \} E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}}\Big[\int_{T_i}^{T_{i+1}} {\widehat K_s} ds\Big].\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that both these terms have finite expectation by the assumption of the Lemma, we can now apply standard martingale arguments to show that the third term in is equal to zero. \[sumovershoot.lm\] Assume [$(HX)$ and $(HA_2)$.]{} Let $\{\tau_n\}$ be a sequence of stopping times converging to $T$ from below. Then there exists $\varepsilon^>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \sup_{0<\varepsilon<\varepsilon^} E\Big[\Big(\varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta}\sum_{i=1}^{N^\varepsilon_T} \|X_{T_{i}} - X_{T_{i-1}}\|^\beta\Big)^{1+\delta}\Big] < \infty\label{sumovershoot1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{n\to \infty}\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} E\Big[\Big(\varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta}\sum_{i=N^\varepsilon_{\tau_n}+1}^{N^\varepsilon_T} \|X_{T_{i}} - X_{T_{i-1}}\|^\beta\Big)^{1+\delta}\Big] = 0.\label{sumovershoot2}\end{aligned}$$ In this proof, we shall use the notation $$\begin{gathered} \overline \Lambda_t = \sup_{0\leq s\leq T}(\max\{\underline a_s^{\beta-1},\overline a_s^{\beta-1}\}^{1+\delta}+\max\{\underline a_s^{(1+\delta)\beta-1},\overline a_s^{(1+\delta)\beta-1}\}) \|b_t\|^{1+\delta}+ \\ \sup_{0\leq s \leq T}\max\{\underline a_s,\overline a_s\}^{(\beta\vee (2-\alpha))(1+\delta)}\min\{\underline a_s,\overline a_s\}^{((\beta-2)\wedge (-\alpha))(1+\delta)} {\widehat K_t}^{1+\delta}.\end{gathered}$$ We now use a martingale [decomposition]{} of the sum of the increments. So we write $$\begin{aligned} &\sum_{i=1}^{n} \|X_{T_{i}} - X_{T_{i-1}}\|^\beta = M^1_n + M^2_n + Z_n,\\ &M^1_n = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \Big\{\|X_{T_{i}} - X_{T_{i-1}}\|^\beta - E_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}[\|X_{T_{i}} - X_{T_{i-1}}\|^\beta]\Big\},\\ & M^2_n = \sum_{i=1}^{n} E_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}[\|X_{T_{i}} - X_{T_{i-1}}\|^\beta] \Big\{1- \frac{\int_{T_{i-1}}^{T_{i}} \Lambda^{T_{i-1}}_s ds}{E_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}\Big[\int_{T_{i-1}}^{T_{i}} \Lambda^{T_{i-1}}_s ds\Big]}\Big\},\\ &Z_n = \sum_{i=1}^{n} E_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}[\|X_{T_{i}} - X_{T_{i-1}}\|^\beta] \frac{\int_{T_{i-1}}^{T_{i}} \Lambda^{T_{i-1}}_s ds}{E_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}\Big[\int_{T_{i-1}}^{T_{i}} \Lambda^{T_{i-1}}_s ds\Big]},\end{aligned}$$ where we write $$\Lambda^{T_i}_s := \varepsilon^{\alpha-1} \max\{\underline a_{T_i}^{\beta-1},\overline a_{T_i}^{\beta-1}\}\|b_s\|+ \max\{\underline a_{T_i},\overline a_{T_i}\}^{\beta\vee (2-\alpha)}\min\{\underline a_{T_i},\overline a_{T_i}\}^{(\beta-2)\wedge (-\alpha)} {\widehat K_s} .$$ The processes $M^1$ and $M^2$ are martingales with respect to the discrete filtration $\mathcal F^d_n := \mathcal F_{T_{n}}$. Note that for every $\mathcal F$-stopping time $\tau\leq T$, $N^\varepsilon_{\tau}$ is an $\mathcal F^d$-stopping time. The Burkholder inequality for a discrete-time martingale $M$ then writes $$E[\|M_{N^\varepsilon_T} - M_{N_\tau^\varepsilon}\|^{1+\delta}]\leq C E\Big[\Big(\sum_{i=N^\varepsilon_{\tau}+1}^{N^\varepsilon_T} (M_i-M_{i-1})^2\Big)^{\frac{1+\delta}{2}}\Big] \leq C E\Big[\sum_{i=N^\varepsilon_{\tau}+1}^{N^\varepsilon_T} \|M_i-M_{i-1}\|^{1+\delta}\Big],$$ and therefore, $$\begin{aligned} E[\|\varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta} (M^1_{N^\varepsilon_T}-M^1_{N^\varepsilon_\tau})\|^{1+\delta}]&\leq C \varepsilon^{(\alpha-\beta)(1+\delta)} E\Big[\sum_{i=N^\varepsilon_\tau+1}^{N^\varepsilon_T} \Big\|\|X_{T_{i}} - X_{T_{i-1}}\|^\beta - E_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}[\|X_{T_{i}} - X_{T_{i-1}}\|^\beta]\Big\|^{1+\delta}\Big]\\ &\leq C \varepsilon^{(\alpha-\beta)(1+\delta)} E\Big[\sum_{i=N^\varepsilon_\tau+1}^{N^\varepsilon_T} E_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}[\|X_{T_{i}} - X_{T_{i-1}}\|^{\beta(1+\delta)}]\Big]. \end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[overshoot.lm\], this is smaller than $$\begin{aligned} &C E\Big[\varepsilon^{\alpha(1+\delta)-1} \sup_{0\leq s\leq T}\max\{\underline a_s^{\beta'-1},\overline a_s^{\beta'-1}\}\int_{T_{N^\varepsilon_\tau }}^{{T_{N^\varepsilon_T }}} \|b_s\|ds \\ &\qquad + \varepsilon^{\alpha\delta}\sup_{0\leq s\leq T} \max\{\underline a_s,\overline a_s\}^{\beta'\vee (2-\alpha)} \min\{\underline a_s,\overline a_s\}^{(\beta'-2)\wedge (-\alpha)} \int_{T_{N^\varepsilon_\tau }}^{{T_{N^\varepsilon_T}}} {\widehat K_s} ds\Big]\\ &\leq C \varepsilon^{\alpha \delta} \left(E\Big[ \int_{T_{N^\varepsilon_\tau }}^{{T_{N^\varepsilon_T}}} \overline\Lambda_s ds\Big] + E\Big[ \int_{T_{N^\varepsilon_\tau }}^{{T_{N^\varepsilon_T}}} \overline\Lambda_s ds\Big]^{\frac{1}{1+\delta}}\right),\end{aligned}$$ with $\beta' = \beta(1+\delta)$, where the last estimate can be obtained, e.g. by Hölder’s inequality.\ Similarly, the process $M^2$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned} &E[\|\varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta} (M^2_{N^\varepsilon_T}-M^2_{N^\varepsilon_\tau})\|^{1+\delta}] \leq C E\Big[\sum_{i=N^\varepsilon_\tau + 1}^{N^\varepsilon_T} \Big\{\int_{T_{i-1}}^{T_{i}} \Lambda^{T_{i-1}}_s ds - E_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}\Big[\int_{T_{i-1}}^{T_{i}} \Lambda^{T_{i-1}}_s ds\Big]\Big\}^{1+\delta}\Big] \\ &\leq C E\Big[\sum_{i=N^\varepsilon_\tau + 1}^{N^\varepsilon_T} \Big\{\int_{T_{i-1}}^{T_{i}} \Lambda^{T_{i-1}}_s ds \Big\}^{1+\delta}\Big] \leq C E\Big[\int_{T_{N^\varepsilon_\tau}}^{T_{N^\varepsilon_T}} (\Lambda^{\eta_s}_s)^{1+\delta} ds \Big] \leq C E\Big[\int_{T_{N^\varepsilon_\tau}}^{T_{N^\varepsilon_T}} \overline\Lambda_s ds \Big].\end{aligned}$$ The process $Z$ can be treated along the same lines as well, since by Lemma \[overshoot.lm\], $$\begin{aligned} &E[\|\varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta} (Z_{N^\varepsilon_T}-Z_{N^\varepsilon_\tau})\|^{1+\delta}] \leq C E\Big[ \Big\{\int_{T_{N^\varepsilon_\tau}}^{T_{N^\varepsilon_T}} \Lambda^{\eta_s}_s ds \Big\}^{1+\delta}\Big] \leq C E\Big[\int_{T_{N^\varepsilon_\tau}}^{T_{N^\varepsilon_T}} \overline\Lambda_s ds \Big].\end{aligned}$$ The three expressions above are uniformly bounded by the assumption of the lemma, proving . To show , observe that $$E\Big[\int_{T_{N^\varepsilon_{\tau_n}}}^{T_{N^\varepsilon_T}} \overline\Lambda_s ds \Big] \leq E\Big[\int_{\tau_n}^{T} \overline\Lambda_s ds \Big] + E\Big[\sup_{i: T_i\leq T}\int_{T_{i-1}}^{T_{i}} \overline\Lambda_s ds \Big].$$ The first term does not depend on $\varepsilon$ and converges to zero as $n\to \infty$ by the assumption of the lemma and the dominated convergence. For the second term, we use Lemma \[supzero\] and the absolute continuity of the integral. In the case $\beta=0$, Assumption [$(HA_2)$]{} can be somewhat simplified. Assume [$(HX)$ and $(HA'_2)$]{}. Let $\{\tau_n\}$ be a sequence of stopping times converging to $T$ from below. Then there exists $\varepsilon^>0$ such that $$\sup_{0< \varepsilon < \varepsilon^} E[(\varepsilon^\alpha N^\varepsilon_T)^{1+\delta}] <\infty.$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{n\to \infty}\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} E\Big[\Big(\varepsilon^{\alpha}(N^\varepsilon_T-N^\varepsilon_{\tau_n})\Big)^{1+\delta}\Big] = 0.\end{aligned}$$ We follow the proof of Lemma \[sumovershoot.lm\], taking $\beta=0$, $$\Lambda^{T_i}_s := \varepsilon^{\alpha-1} \min\{\underline a_{T_i},\overline a_{T_i}\}^{-1}\|b_s\|+ \min\{\underline a_{T_i},\overline a_{T_i}\}^{-\alpha} {\widehat K_s} ,$$ and using Corollary \[lower.cor\] instead of Lemma \[overshoot.lm\]. Proof of Theorem \[cost.thm\] {#proofthm2} ============================= Step 1. Reduction to the case of bounded coefficients.* As before, we start with the localization procedure. Assume that holds under the assumptions $(HY)$, $(HX)$ and $(H'_1)$ and holds under the assumptions $(HY)$, $(HX)$ and $(H'_\rho)$ for some $\rho > \frac{\alpha}{\alpha-\beta}\vee 2$. Then Theorem \[cost.thm\] holds. The arguments related to the localization of $Z$ are the same or very similar to those in Lemma \[loc.lm\] and so they are omitted. We set $u^0(a,b)=1$ for any $(a,b)$. With the same notation as in the proof of this Lemma, and using in the first equality we then get, for $0\leq \beta <\alpha$: $$\begin{aligned} &\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} \varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta} E\left[\sum_{i=1}^{N^\varepsilon_T} \|X_{T_i}-X_{T_{i-1}}\|^\beta\right] = \lim_{n\to \infty} \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} \varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta}E\Big[\sum_{i=1}^{N^\varepsilon_{\gamma_n}} \|X_{T_i} - X_{T_{i-1}}\|^\beta\Big]\\ & = \lim_{n\to \infty} \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} \varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta}E\Big[\sum_{i\geq 1: T^n_i\leq \gamma_n } \|X^n_{T_i} - X^n_{T_{i-1}}\|^\beta\Big] \\ & = \lim_{n\to \infty} E\Big[\int_0^{\gamma_n} \lambda_t \frac{u^\beta(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}dt\Big] = E\Big[\int_0^{T} \lambda_t \frac{u^\beta(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{g(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}dt\Big],\end{aligned}$$ where the assumptions of the lemma are used to pass from the second to the third line.\ Step 2. Change of probability measure. The goal of this step is to show that $$S_2:=\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} \varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta} E\Big[\sum_{i=1}^{N^\varepsilon_T} \|X_{T_i} - X_{T_{i-1}}\|^\beta\Big]= \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} \varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta}E^Q\Big[\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 1_{T_{i-1}\leq T} Z^{-1}_{T_{i-1}}\|X_{T_i} - X_{T_{i-1}}\|^\beta\Big].\label{cost2}$$ For the right-hand side to be well defined we extend the processes $\lambda$, $b$, $\underline a$, $\overline a$ by arbitrary constant values beyond $T$ and define the process $X$ for $t\geq T$ accordingly. The case $\beta=0$ being straightforward, we assume that $\beta>0$.\ To prove , it is enough to show that $$\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} E^Q\Big[\varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta}\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 1_{T_{i}\leq T} (Z^{-1}_{T_{i}} -Z^{-1}_{T_{i-1}})\|X_{T_i} - X_{T_{i-1}}\|^\beta\Big] = 0\label{cost21}$$ and $$\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} \varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta} E^Q\Big[ Z^{-1}_{T_{N^\varepsilon_T}}\|X_{T_{N^\varepsilon_T+1}} - X_{T_{N^\varepsilon_T}}\|^\beta\Big] =0.\label{cost22}$$ The second term can be shown to converge to zero using Lemma \[overshoot.lm\]. For the first term, for $1<\kappa < \frac{\alpha\rho}{\alpha + \beta\rho}$, Hölder’s inequality yields $$\begin{aligned} &E^Q\Big[\Big(\varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta}\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 1_{T_{i}\leq T} (Z^{-1}_{T_{i}} -Z^{-1}_{T_{i-1}})\|X_{T_i} - X_{T_{i-1}}\|^\beta\Big)^\kappa\Big]\\ & \leq E^Q\Big[\sup_{0\leq t\leq T} Z^{-\rho}_t \Big]^{\frac{\kappa}{\rho}}E^Q\Big[\Big(\varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta}\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 1_{T_{i}\leq T} \|X_{T_i} - X_{T_{i-1}}\|^\beta\Big)^{\kappa\rho/(\rho-\kappa)}\Big]^{\frac{\rho-\kappa}{\rho}},\end{aligned}$$ which is bounded by a constant for $\varepsilon$ sufficiently small by Lemma \[sumovershoot.lm\] (applied under $Q$) (the assumptions are satisfied because we are working under $H'_\rho$ and therefore all coefficients are bounded). Therefore, the expression under the expectation in is uniformly integrable under $Q$ as $\varepsilon\downarrow 0$. On the other hand, by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, $$\begin{aligned} &\varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta}\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 1_{T_{i}\leq T} \|Z^{-1}_{T_{i}} -Z^{-1}_{T_{i-1}}\|\|X_{T_i} - X_{T_{i-1}}\|^\beta \\ &\leq \varepsilon^{\frac{\alpha-\beta}{2}} \Big(\sum_{i=1}^{N^\varepsilon_T} (Z_{T_i}^{-1} - Z_{T_{i-1}}^{-1})^2\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}} \sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\|X_t\|^{\beta/2} \Big(\varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta}\sum_{i=1}^{N^\varepsilon_T} \|X_{T_i} - X_{T_{i-1}}\|^\beta\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $Z^{-1}$ has finite quadratic variation, and the last factor is uniformly integrable under $Q$ by Lemma \[sumovershoot.lm\], due to the first deterministic factor, the whole expression converges to zero in probability and follows.\ Step 3. Using the same notation as in the proof of Theorem \[err.thm\] (Step 3), we have, $$\begin{aligned} &\varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta}E^Q\Big[\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 1_{T_{i-1}\leq T} Z^{-1}_{T_{i-1}}(T_i-T_{i-1})\frac{E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}\|\tilde X_{\tilde \tau_i}\|^\beta}{E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}[T_i - T_{i-1}]}\Big] \\&= \varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta}E^Q\Big[\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 1_{T_{i-1}\leq T} Z^{-1}_{T_{i-1}}\lambda_{T_{i-1}}(T_i-T_{i-1})\frac{E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}\|\tilde X_{\tilde \tau_i}\|^\beta}{E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}[\tilde \tau_i]}\Big] + R^\varepsilon,\end{aligned}$$ where one can show, using first Lemma \[overshoot.lm\] and then exactly the same arguments as in the proof of Theorem \[err.thm\], that $R^\varepsilon \to 0$ as $\varepsilon\downarrow 0$. Then, from the previous step, $$\begin{aligned} S_2& = \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} \varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta}E^Q\Big[\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 1_{T_{i-1}\leq T} Z^{-1}_{T_{i-1}}(T_i-T_{i-1})\frac{E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}\|X_{T_i} - X_{T_{i-1}}\|^\beta}{E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}[T_i - T_{i-1}]}\Big]\\ & = \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} \varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta}E^Q\Big[\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 1_{T_{i-1}\leq T} Z^{-1}_{T_{i-1}}\lambda_{T_{i-1}}(T_i-T_{i-1})\frac{E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}\|\tilde X_{\tilde \tau_i}\|^\beta}{E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}[\tilde \tau_i]}\Big].\end{aligned}$$ Our next goal is to replace $\tilde X_{\tilde \tau_i}$ with $\hat X_{\hat \tau_i}$ in the above expression, where $\hat \tau_i = \inf\{t\geq 0: \hat X_t \notin [-\underline a_{T_i} \varepsilon, \overline a_{T_i}\varepsilon]\}$. Let $a = \min(\underline a_{T_i}, \overline a_{T_i})$ and define $$f(x) = (\varepsilon a)^{\beta}\frac{(\beta - \varepsilon a) \left(\frac{x}{\varepsilon a}\right)^2 + 2-\beta}{2-\varepsilon a} 1_{\|x\|<\varepsilon a} + \|x\|^\beta 1_{\|x\|>\varepsilon a}.$$ $f$ is a twice differentiable function satisfying for small enough $\varepsilon$ $$\begin{aligned} \|f'(x)\|\leq C \varepsilon^{\beta-1} \quad \text{and}\quad \|f^{\prime\prime}(x)\|\leq C \varepsilon^{\beta-2} \label{fbnd}\end{aligned}$$ and hence the Itô’s formula can be applied. Then, $$\Big\| E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}[\|\tilde X_{\tilde \tau_i}\|^\beta -\|\hat X_{\hat \tau_i}\|^\beta]\Big\| \leq \Big\| E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}[f(\tilde X_{\tilde \tau_i}) -f(\hat X_{\tilde \tau_i})]\Big\|+ \Big\| E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}[f(\hat X_{\tilde \tau_i}) -f(\hat X_{\hat \tau_i})]\Big\|.$$ By definition of $\tilde X$ and $\hat X$ and because all coefficients are bounded, the first term satisfies $$\Big\| E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}[f(\tilde X_{\tilde \tau_i}) -f(\hat X_{\tilde \tau_i})]\Big\| \leq C \varepsilon^{\beta-1} E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}[\tilde \tau_i].$$ For the second term, we use the Itô’s formula: $$\begin{aligned} E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}[f(\hat X_{\tilde \tau_i}) -f(\hat X_{\hat \tau_i})]&= E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}\Big[\int_{\hat \tau_i\wedge \tilde \tau_i}^{\hat \tau_i \vee \tilde \tau_i}\int_{\mathbb R} \{f(\hat X_s + z) - f(\hat X_s) - z1_{\|z\|\leq 1} f'(\hat X_s)\}\nu(dz)\,ds\Big]\\ & + E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}\Big[\int_{\hat \tau_i\wedge \tilde \tau_i}^{\hat \tau_i \vee \tilde \tau_i}\int_{\mathbb R} \{f(\hat X_{s-} + z) - f(\hat X_{s-})\}(\widehat M(ds \times dz) - \nu(dz)\,ds)\Big],\end{aligned}$$ where $\widehat M$ is the jump measure of $\hat X$. It follows by standard arguments that the local martingale term has zero expectation. To deal with the first term we use the bounds and decompose the integrand as follows: $$\begin{gathered} \Big\|\int_{\mathbb R} \{f(\hat X_s + z) - f(\hat X_s) - z1_{\|z\|\leq 1} f'(\hat X_s)\}\nu(dz)\Big\| \\ \leq C\varepsilon^{\beta-2}\int_{\|z\|\leq \varepsilon} z^2 \nu(dz) + C\varepsilon^{\beta-1}\int_{\|z\|> \varepsilon} \|z\| \nu(dz)\leq C \varepsilon^{\beta-\alpha},\end{gathered}$$ so that finally $$\Big\| E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}[\|\tilde X_{\tilde \tau_i}\|^\beta -\|\hat X_{\hat \tau_i}\|^\beta]\Big\| \leq C \varepsilon^{\beta-1} E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}[\tilde \tau_i] + C \varepsilon^{\beta-\alpha}E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}[\|\tilde \tau_i-\hat \tau_i\|].$$ Substituting this estimate into the formula for $S_2$, we then get: $$\begin{aligned} S_2 = \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} \varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta}E^Q\Big[\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 1_{T_{i-1}\leq T} Z^{-1}_{T_{i-1}}\lambda_{T_{i-1}}(T_i-T_{i-1})\frac{E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}\|\hat X_{\hat \tau_i}\|^\beta}{E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}[\tilde \tau_i]}\Big] + \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} R^\varepsilon\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{gathered} \|R^\varepsilon\| \leq C\varepsilon^{\alpha-1}E^Q\Big[\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 1_{T_{i-1}\leq T} Z^{-1}_{T_{i-1}}\lambda_{T_{i-1}}(T_i-T_{i-1})\Big] \\+ CE^Q\Big[\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 1_{T_{i-1}\leq T} Z^{-1}_{T_{i-1}}\lambda_{T_{i-1}}(T_i-T_{i-1})\frac{E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}\|\tilde \tau_i - \hat \tau_i\|}{E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}[\tilde \tau_i]}\Big].\end{gathered}$$ The first expectation is bounded (because $\lambda$ is bounded and $Z^{-1}$ is integrable, and therefore the first term converges to zero. For the second term, we observe (using the notation of the proof of Theorem \[err.thm\], Step 4) that $$\underline f^{0,1}_\varepsilon(\underline a_{T_i},\overline a_{T_i})\leq E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}[\tilde \tau_i] \leq \overline f^{0,1}_\varepsilon(\underline a_{T_i},\overline a_{T_i})$$ and $$E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}\|\tilde \tau_i - \hat \tau_i\| \leq E^Q[\hat \tau_2 \wedge \hat \tau^j - \hat \tau_1] \leq \overline f^{0,1}_\varepsilon(\underline a_{T_i},\overline a_{T_i}) - \underline f^{0,1}_\varepsilon(\underline a_{T_i},\overline a_{T_i}).$$ In view of Lemma \[flimit.lm\] we then conclude that the second term converges to zero as well. Finally, we have shown that $$\begin{aligned} S_2 = \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} \varepsilon^{\alpha-\beta}E^Q\Big[\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 1_{T_{i-1}\leq T} Z^{-1}_{T_{i-1}}\lambda_{T_{i-1}}(T_i-T_{i-1})\frac{u^\beta_\varepsilon(\underline a_{T_{i-1}}, \overline a_{T_{i-1}})}{E^Q_{\mathcal F_{T_{i-1}}}[\tilde \tau_i]}\Big],\end{aligned}$$ where $u^\beta_\varepsilon$ is a deterministic function defined by $$u^\beta_\varepsilon(a,b) = E[\|\hat X_{\hat \tau}\|^\beta], \quad \hat \tau = \inf\{t\geq 0: \hat X_t \notin (-a\varepsilon,b\varepsilon)\}.$$ Similarly to the last step of the proof of Theorem \[err.thm\], we can now write $$\begin{aligned} S_2 &\leq \limsup_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} E^Q\Big[\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 1_{T_{i-1}\leq T} Z^{-1}_{T_{i-1}}\lambda_{T_{i-1}}(T_i-T_{i-1})\frac{\varepsilon^{-\beta}u^\beta_\varepsilon(\underline a_{T_{i-1}}, \overline a_{T_{i-1}})}{\varepsilon^{-\alpha}\underline f_\varepsilon^{0,1}(\underline a_{T_{i-1}}, \overline a_{T_{i-1}})}\Big],\\ S_2 &\geq \limsup_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} E^Q\Big[\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 1_{T_{i-1}\leq T} Z^{-1}_{T_{i-1}}\lambda_{T_{i-1}}(T_i-T_{i-1})\frac{\varepsilon^{-\beta}u^\beta_\varepsilon(\underline a_{T_{i-1}}, \overline a_{T_{i-1}})}{\varepsilon^{-\alpha}\overline f_\varepsilon^{0,1}(\underline a_{T_{i-1}}, \overline a_{T_{i-1}})}\Big].\end{aligned}$$ Using Lemma \[weakcvg\] we obtain uniform convergence of $$\frac{\varepsilon^{-\beta}u^\beta_\varepsilon(a, b)}{\varepsilon^{-\alpha}\overline f_\varepsilon^{0,1}(a, b)}$$ towards $ \frac{u^\beta(a, b)}{ f^{,0,1}(a, b)} $ and conclude that $$S_2 = E^Q \Big[\int_0^T \lambda_t Z_t^{-1} \frac{u^\beta(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{ f^{,0,1}(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}dt\Big]=E \Big[\int_0^T \lambda_t \frac{u^\beta(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}{ f^{,0,1}(\underline a_t, \overline a_t)}dt\Big].$$ Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered} =============== We are very grateful to the associate editor and to the three referees for their careful reading of the manuscript and their very relevant remarks. Some computations for stable processes ====================================== \[squarefunc\] Let $X$ be a symmetric $\alpha$-stable process on $\mathbb R$ with characteristic function $E[e^{iuX_t}] = e^{-t\sigma \|u\|^\alpha}$, [$0<\alpha<2$]{}, and $\tau_{a,b} = \inf\{t\geq 0: X_t\notin (-a,b)\}$ [with $a,b>0$.]{} Then, $$f(a,b) := E\left[\int_0^{\tau_{a,b}} X_t^2 dt\right] = \frac{\alpha (ab)^{1+\frac{\alpha}{2}}}{2\sigma\Gamma(3+\alpha) }\left\{\left(\frac{a}{b} + \frac{b}{a}\right)\left(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}\right) - \alpha\right\}.$$ The proof of this result is based on the following lemma, where we consider the exit time from the interval $[-1,1]$ by a process starting from $x$. Let $X$ be as above and $\tau_1 = \inf\{t\geq 0: X_t\notin (-1,1)\}$. Then $$f(x):=E^{x}\left[\int_0^{\tau_1} X_t^2 dt\right] = \frac{1}{\sigma}\frac{2(1-x^2)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} \left\{x^2 + \frac{\alpha}{2}\right\}}{\Gamma(3+\alpha)}1_{x\in(-1,1)}.$$ Without loss of generality, we let $\sigma=1$ in this proof. Let $\hat f(u) = \int_{\mathbb R} e^{iux} f(x) dx$. Using the arguments similar to the ones in [@getoor.61], one can show that the function $f$ satisfies the equation $\mathcal L^\alpha f (x)= -x^2$ on $x\in (-1,1)$ with the boundary condition $f(x) = 0$ on $x\notin (-1,1)$, where $\mathcal L^\alpha$ is the fractional Laplace operator [ $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal L^\alpha f (x) &= \int_{\mathbb R}(f(x+y)-f(x) - yf'(x))\frac{dy}{\|y\|^{1+\alpha}},\quad 1<\alpha<2\\ \mathcal L^\alpha f (x) &= \int_{\mathbb R}(f(x+y)-f(x) - y 1_{\|y\|\leq 1}f'(x))\frac{dy}{\|y\|^{1+\alpha}},\quad \alpha=1,\\ \mathcal L^\alpha f (x) &= \int_{\mathbb R}(f(x+y)-f(x))\frac{dy}{\|y\|^{1+\alpha}},\quad 0<\alpha<1.\end{aligned}$$]{} Moreover, the function $\hat f$ satisfies the system of integral equations $$\begin{aligned} &\frac{1}{\pi} \int_0^\infty \hat f(u) \|u\|^\alpha \cos(ux) du = x^2,\quad \|x\|<1,\\ &\frac{1}{\pi} \int_0^\infty \hat f(u) \cos(ux) du = 0,\quad \|x\|>1.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\hat f_1 (u) = u^{-\frac{1+\alpha}{2}} J_{\frac{1+\alpha}{2}}(u)$ and $\hat f_2 (u) = u^{-\frac{3+\alpha}{2}} J_{\frac{3+\alpha}{2}}(u)$, [where $J$ is the Bessel function (see [@grad section 8.40]).]{} Then, from [@grad Integral 6.699.2], we get: $$\begin{aligned} &\int_0^\infty \hat f_1(u) \cos(ux) du = \int_0^\infty \hat f_2(u) \cos(ux) du = 0,\quad \text{$\|x\|>1$,}\label{xbig}\\ &\int_0^\infty \hat f_1(u) \|u\|^\alpha \cos(ux) du = 2^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}} \Gamma\left(\frac{1+\alpha}{2}\right) \quad \text{$\|x\|<1$,} \label{xsmallalpha1}\\ &\int_0^\infty \hat f_2(u) \|u\|^\alpha \cos(ux) du = 2^{\frac{\alpha-3}{2}} \Gamma\left(\frac{1+\alpha}{2}\right) (1-(1+\alpha)x^2), \quad \text{$\|x\|<1$,}\label{xsmallalpha2}\\ &\int_0^\infty \hat f_1(u) \cos(ux) du = 2^{-\frac{\alpha+1}{2}} \frac{\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{\alpha+2}{2}\right)}(1-x^2)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} \quad \text{$\|x\|<1$,} \label{xsmall1}\\ &\int_0^\infty \hat f_2(u) \cos(ux) du = 2^{-\frac{\alpha+3}{2}} \frac{\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{\alpha+4}{2}\right)}(1-x^2)^{1+\frac{\alpha}{2}}, \quad \text{$\|x\|<1$.}\label{xsmall2}\end{aligned}$$ From (\[xbig\]–\[xsmallalpha2\]), $$\hat f(u) = \pi\frac{\hat f_1(u) - 2\hat f_2(u)}{2^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}} \Gamma\left(\frac{1+\alpha}{2}\right) (1+\alpha)}.$$ To conclude, we compute the inverse Fourier transform of $\hat f$ from (\[xsmall1\]–\[xsmall2\]). Once again, we set $\sigma=1$ without loss of generality. Recall a result of Blumenthal, Getoor and Ray [@blumenthal.al.61]: the law of a symmetric stable process starting from the point $x$ with $\|x\|<1$ and observed at time $\tau_1$ has density given by $$\mu(x,y) = \frac{1}{\pi} \sin \frac{\pi \alpha}{2} (1-x^2)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} (y^2 -1)^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}} \|y-x\|^{-1},\quad \|y\|\geq 1.$$ By scaling property, we then deduce that the density of a symmetric stable process starting from zero, and observed at time $\tau_{a,b}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \mu_{a,b}(z) = \frac{1}{\pi} \sin \frac{\pi \alpha}{2} (ab)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} \left({(z-b)(z+a)}\right)^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}} \frac{1}{\|z\|}. \label{densab}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, from the preceding lemma, we easily deduce by scaling property that $$f_A(x):=E^{x}\left[\int_0^{\tau_{A,A}} X_t^2 dt\right] = \frac{2(A^2-x^2)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} \left\{x^2 + \frac{\alpha}{2}A^2\right\}}{\Gamma(3+\alpha)}1_{x\in(-A,A)}.$$ This function satisfies the equation $\mathcal L^\alpha f_A (x)= -x^2$ on $[-A,A]$ with the boundary condition $f_A(x) = 0$ on $x\notin [-A,A]$. Taking $A\geq \text{max}(a,b)$, we then get by Itô’s formula $$E[f_A(X_{\tau_{a,b}})] = f_A(0) - E\left[\int_0^{\tau_{a,b}}X_t^2 dt\right].$$ By symmetry, it is sufficient to prove the proposition for $a\geq b$. Taking $A=a$ in the above formula, we finally get $$\begin{aligned} E\left[\int_0^{\tau_{a,b}}X_t^2 dt\right] &= \frac{\alpha a^{\alpha+2}}{\Gamma(3+\alpha)} - \int_b^a f_A(x) \mu_{a,b}(x) dx\\ & = \frac{\alpha a^{\alpha+2}}{\Gamma(3+\alpha)} - \frac{2 \sin \frac{\pi\alpha}{2}}{\pi \Gamma(3+\alpha)} (ab)^\frac{\alpha}{2} \int_b^a (z^2 + \frac{\alpha}{2}a^2) \left(\frac{a-z}{ z-b}\right)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} \frac{dz}{z}.\end{aligned}$$ Computing the integral [(using [@grad Integral 3.228.1] and the standard integral representation for the beta function)]{} then yields the result. Let us list here several other useful results which are already known from the literature or can be obtained with a simple computation. By a result of Getoor [@getoor.61]: under the assumptions of Proposition \[squarefunc\], $$E^x[\tau_1] = \frac{1}{\sigma}\frac{2^{-\alpha} \Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{2+\alpha}{2}\right) \Gamma\left(\frac{1+\alpha}{2}\right) }(1-x^2)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} = \frac{1}{\sigma}\frac{(1-x^2)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}{\Gamma(1+\alpha)}.$$ By scaling property we then deduce that for general barriers $$\begin{aligned} E[\tau_{a,b}] = \left(\frac{a+b}{2}\right)^\alpha E^{\frac{a-b}{a+b}}[\tau_1] = \frac{(ab)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}{\sigma \Gamma(1+\alpha)}.\label{tauab}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, from , we easily get, for $\beta < \alpha$, $$\begin{aligned} E[\|X_{\tau_{a,b}}\|^\beta] = \frac{\sin\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}}{\pi}(ab)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} \int_0^\infty z^{-\alpha/2} (z+a+b)^{-\alpha/2} \left(\|z+a\|^{\beta-1} + \|z+b\|^{\beta-1}\right)dz.\end{aligned}$$ [This integral can be expressed in terms of special functions and is equal to $$\begin{aligned} &a^\beta\left(\frac{b}{a+b}\right)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}\frac{ \sin\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}}{\pi}B\left(1-{\alpha/2},\alpha-\beta\right) F\left({\alpha/2}, 1-{\alpha/2}, {\alpha/2} + 1-\beta, {\frac{b}{a+b}}\right)\\ & + b^\beta\left(\frac{a}{a+b}\right)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}\frac{ \sin\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}}{\pi}B\left(1-{\alpha/ 2},\alpha-\beta\right) F\left({\alpha/2}, 1-{\alpha/ 2}, {\alpha/2} + 1-\beta, {\frac{b}{a+b}}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $B$ is the beta function and $F$ is the hypergeometric function (see [@grad Integral 3.259.3]).]{} Convergence of rescaled Lévy processes ====================================== \[weakcvg\] Let $X$ be a Lévy process with characteristic triplet $(0,\nu, \gamma)$ with respect to the truncation function $h(x) = -1\vee x \wedge 1$ with $$x^\alpha \nu((x,\infty)) \to c_+ \quad \text{and} \quad x^\alpha\nu((-\infty,-x)) \to c_-\quad\text{when}\quad x\to 0$$ for some $\alpha \in (1,2)$ and constants $c_+\geq 0$ and $c_-\geq 0$ with $c_+ + c_- >0$. For $\varepsilon>0$, define the process $X^\varepsilon$ via $X^\varepsilon_t = \varepsilon^{-1} X_{\varepsilon^\alpha t}$. Then $X^\varepsilon$ converges in law to a strictly $\alpha$-stable Lévy process $X^$ with Lévy density $$\begin{aligned} \nu^(x) = \frac{c_+ 1_{x>0} + c_- 1_{x<0}}{\|x\|^{1+\alpha}}.\label{ldens}\end{aligned}$$ Assume in addition that there exists $C<\infty$, such that for all $x>0$, $$\nu((-x,x)^c) < C x^{-\alpha}$$ and for $a,b \in (0,\infty)$ and $\beta \in (0,\alpha)$, let $$u^\beta_\varepsilon(a,b) = E[\|X^\varepsilon_{\tau^\varepsilon}\|^\beta], \quad \tau^\varepsilon = \inf\{t\geq 0: X^\varepsilon_t \notin (-a,b)\}.$$ Then, $$\lim_{\varepsilon \downarrow 0} u^\beta_\varepsilon(a,b) = u^\beta(a,b)$$ uniformly on $(a,b) \in [B^{-1},B]^2$ for all $ B < \infty$, with $$u^\beta(a,b) = E[\|X^_{\tau^}\|^\beta]$$ and $\tau^ = \inf\{t\geq 0: X^_t \notin(-a, b) \}$. Part (i). From the Lévy-Khintchine formula it is easy to see that the characteristic triplet $(A^\varepsilon,\nu^\varepsilon,\gamma^\varepsilon)$ of $X^{\varepsilon}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} A^\varepsilon &= 0\\ \nu^\varepsilon(B) &= \varepsilon^\alpha \nu(\{x:x/\varepsilon \in B\}),\quad B\in \mathcal B(\mathbb R);\\ \gamma^\varepsilon &= \varepsilon^{\alpha-1} \big\{\gamma + \int_{\mathbb R} \nu(dx) (\varepsilon h(x/\varepsilon)-h(x))\big\}.\end{aligned}$$ Under the conditions of the Lemma, by Theorem VII.2.9 and Remark VII.2.10 in [@jacodshiryaev], in order to prove the convergence in law, we need to check (a) that $$\gamma^\varepsilon \to -\frac{c_+-c_-}{\alpha(\alpha-1)},$$ where the right hand side is the third component of the characteristic triplet of the strictly stable process with Lévy density with respect to the truncation function $h$, and (b) that $\|x\|^2 \wedge 1 \cdot \nu^\varepsilon(dx)$ converges weakly to $\|x\|^2 \wedge 1 \cdot \nu^(dx)$. Since $\alpha>1$ and $h$ is bounded, for $\eta$ sufficiently small, using integration by parts and the assumption of the Lemma, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} \gamma^\varepsilon &= \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} \varepsilon^{\alpha-1} \int_{\|x\|\leq \eta} \nu(dx) (\varepsilon h(x/\varepsilon) - h(x)) \\ & = \lim_{\varepsilon \downarrow 0} \varepsilon^{\alpha-1} \left\{\int_{-\eta}^{-\varepsilon} (-\varepsilon-x)\nu(dx) + \int_{\varepsilon}^\eta (\varepsilon-x)\nu(dx) \right\}\\ & = \lim_{\varepsilon \downarrow 0} \varepsilon^{\alpha-1} \left\{\int_{-\eta}^{-\varepsilon} \nu([-\eta,x])dx - \int_{\varepsilon}^\eta \nu([x,\eta])dx \right\} \\ & = \lim_{\varepsilon \downarrow 0} \varepsilon^{\alpha-1} \left\{\int_{-\eta}^{-\varepsilon} \nu((-\infty,x])dx - \int_{\varepsilon}^\eta \nu([x,\infty))dx \right\} \\ & = \lim_{\varepsilon \downarrow 0} \varepsilon^{\alpha-1} \left\{\int_{-\eta}^{-\varepsilon} \frac{c_-}{\|x\|^\alpha}dx - \int_{\varepsilon}^\eta \frac{c_+}{\|x\|^\alpha}dx \right\} = -\frac{c_+-c_-}{\alpha(\alpha-1)}.\end{aligned}$$ For the property (b), it is sufficient to show that for all $x\geq 0$, $$\begin{aligned} &\int_x^\infty \|z\|^2 \wedge 1 \cdot \nu^\varepsilon(dz) \to \int_x^\infty \|z\|^2 \wedge 1 \cdot \nu^(dz) \\ &\text{and}\quad \int_{-\infty}^{-x} \|z\|^2 \wedge 1 \cdot \nu^\varepsilon(dz) \to \int_{-\infty}^{-x} \|z\|^2 \wedge 1 \cdot \nu^(dz).\end{aligned}$$ This is done using integration by parts and the assumption of the Lemma as in the previous step.\ Part (ii). First, similarly to the proof of Proposition 3 in [@rosenbaum.tankov.10], it is easy to show that $X^\varepsilon_{\tau^\varepsilon}$ converges in law to $X^_{\tau^}$ as $\varepsilon\downarrow 0$. To complete the proof of [the convergence of $u^\beta_\varepsilon(a,b)$ to $u^\beta(a,b)$ for fixed $a$ and $b$,]{} it remains to show that for all $\beta \in (0,\alpha)$, $$E[\|X^\varepsilon_{\tau^\varepsilon}\|^\beta]$$ is bounded uniformly in $\varepsilon$. From Lemma \[overshoot.lm\], $$E[\|X^\varepsilon_{\tau^\varepsilon}\|^\beta] \leq C \varepsilon^{-\alpha} E[\tau^\varepsilon]$$ for some constant $C$ which does not depend on $\varepsilon$. On the other hand, for $\varepsilon$ small enough, $$\begin{aligned} E[\tau^\varepsilon] \leq E[\inf\{t: \|\Delta X_t\|\geq \varepsilon(a+b)\}] = \frac{1}{\nu((-\varepsilon a,\varepsilon b)^c)} \leq C' \varepsilon^\alpha\end{aligned}$$ for a different constant $C'$ [(the equality above holds because $\inf\{t: \|\Delta X_t\|\geq \varepsilon(a+b)\}$ is an exponential random variable with parameter $\nu((-\varepsilon a,\varepsilon b)^c)$ by the Lévy-Itô decomposition).]{}\ It remains to show that the convergence is uniform in $a$ and $b$. [First, let us show that $u^\beta(a,b)$ is continuous in $(a,b)$ for $(a,b)\in[B^{-1},B]^2$ and therefore also uniformly continuous on this set. Let $(a_n)$ and $(b_n)$ be two sequences with $a_n \to a\in [B^{-1},B]$ and $b_n \to b \in [B^{-1},B]$. For any process $Y$, we write $\tau_{(a,b)}(Y) := \inf\{t\geq 0: Y_t \notin(-a,b) \}$ and $\mathcal O_{(a,b)}(Y):= Y_{\tau_{(a,b)}(Y)}$. Then, $$\mathcal O_{(a_n,b_n)}(X^) = \frac{a_n+b_n}{a+b} \mathcal O_{(a,b)}(X^n),\quad \text{where}\quad X^n = \frac{ba_n - ab_n}{a_n+b_n} + \frac{a+b}{a_n+b_n} X^.$$ Since clearly $X^n$ converges in law (in Skorokhod topology) to $X^$, we can once again proceed similarly to the proof of Proposition 3 in [@rosenbaum.tankov.10] to show that $\mathcal O_{(a_n,b_n)}(X^)$ converges in law to $\mathcal O_{(a,b)}(X^)$. Then, as above, we use the uniform integrability of $\|\mathcal O_{(a_n,b_n)}(X^)\|^\beta$ for $\beta \in (0,\alpha)$ to show that $E[\|\mathcal O_{(a_n,b_n)}(X^)\|^\beta]$ converges to $E[\|\mathcal O_{(a,b)}(X^)\|^\beta]$. ]{} Next, letting $\delta>0$, we use the uniform continuity of $u^\beta$ to choose $\rho$ such that for all $(a,b)$ and $(a',b')$ belonging to $[B^{-1},B]$, $\|a-a'\| + \|b-b'\|\leq \rho$ implies $\|u^\beta(a,b)-u^\beta(a',b')\| \leq \delta/2$.\ Next, for every $\lambda>0$, $$u^\beta_\varepsilon (\lambda a,\lambda b) = \lambda^\beta u^\beta_{\varepsilon \lambda}(a,b),$$ which means that $u^\beta_\varepsilon(\lambda a,\lambda b)$ converges to $u^\beta(\lambda a,\lambda b)$ uniformly on $\lambda \in [\lambda_1,\lambda_2]$ for $0<\lambda_1 < \lambda_2 <\infty$. For $B^{-1} = a_0 < a_1 < \dots a_N = B$ with $a_{i+1}-a_i \leq \rho$ for $i=0,\dots N-1$, this enables us to find $\varepsilon_0$ such that for all $\varepsilon< \varepsilon_0$, every $i=0,\dots N$ and all $\lambda \in [B^{-2},1]$, $$\begin{aligned} \|u^\beta_\varepsilon(\lambda a_i, \lambda B) - u^\beta(\lambda a_i, \lambda B)\| \leq \frac{\delta}{2}.\label{uniconv}\end{aligned}$$ Now, let $(a,b)\in[B^{-1},B]$ be arbitrary, but to fix the ideas, assume without loss of generality that $a\leq b$. Since $u^\beta_\varepsilon(a,b)$ is increasing in $a$ on $a\leq b$, $$u^\beta_\varepsilon(a,b) \in [u^\beta_\varepsilon(a_i\frac{b}{B},b),u^\beta_\varepsilon(a_{i+1}\frac{b}{B},b)],$$ where $i$ is such that $a_i \leq a\frac{B}{b} \leq a_{i+1}$, and by the property , also $$u^\beta_\varepsilon(a,b) \in [u^\beta(a_i\frac{b}{B},b) - \frac{\delta}{2},u^\beta(a_{i+1}\frac{b}{B},b) + \frac{\delta}{2}].$$ We finally use the uniform continuity of $u^\beta$ to conclude that $u^\beta_\varepsilon(a,b)\in [u^\beta(a,b)-\delta,u^\beta(a,b)+\delta]$. A toy model with a continuous component ======================================= Through a toy model, we show in the next proposition that if we include a continuous local martingale part in $X$, it dominates the purely discontinuous part.\ \[toy\] Assume $(HY)$ and there exists $B>0$, $\sigma>0$ and $\alpha'\in(1,2)$ such that $\|A_t\|\leq B$, $\frac{1}{B} \leq\underline a_t, \overline a_t \leq B$ and $X$ is a Lévy process with characteristic triplet $(\sigma^2,\nu, 0)$ with respect to the truncation function $h(x) = -1\vee x \wedge 1$ where $\nu$ is a Lévy measure with Lévy density $$\nu(x) = \frac{c_+ 1_{x>0} + c_- 1_{x<0}}{\|x\|^{1+\alpha'}}.$$ Then Theorem \[err.thm\] and Theorem \[cost.thm\] hold with $\lambda\equiv 1$, $\alpha=2$, $\beta<\alpha'$ and $X^_t=\sigma W_t$, where $W_t$ is a Brownian motion. We first show that Theorem \[err.thm\] holds with $X^_t=\sigma W_t$. We follow the steps of the proof in Section \[proofthm\]. Step 1 follows from the assumptions of the proposition and there is now no need to change probability. Also, Lemma \[supzero\] easily holds in the setting of Proposition \[toy\]. For Step 3, remark that $\lambda_t=1$ and therefore $$\hat X_t^i=\tilde X_t^i=X_{T_i+t}-X_{T_i},~~\tilde{\tau}_i=T_{i+1}-T_i.$$ Thus we easily get with $Q=P$ and $Z_t=1$. Then for Step 4 we have $$E_{\mathcal F_{T_i}} \left[\left(\int_0^{\tilde \tau_i} \|\hat X_t\|^\kappa dt\right)^n\right]=\underline f^{\kappa,n}_\varepsilon(\underline a_{T_i},\overline a_{T_i}),$$ with $B^2$ taken equal to zero in the definition of $\hat \tau_1$ defining $\underline f^{\kappa,n}_\varepsilon(a,b).$ Then note from [@rosenbaum.tankov.10], $\tau_1^{\varepsilon}$ has uniformly bounded polynomial moments of any order and $X_t^{\varepsilon}$ (with $\alpha=2$) converges towards $\sigma W_t$. Following the proof of Lemma \[flimit.lm\], this gives that $$\lim_{\varepsilon \downarrow 0}\varepsilon^{-(\kappa+2)}f^{\kappa,n}_\varepsilon(a,b)= f^{,\kappa,n}(a,b).$$ Finally, we obtain that the preceding convergence is uniform in $(a,b)$ as in Step 4 and Step 5 follows easily.\ In the same spirit, in order to show that Theorem \[cost.thm\] holds with $X^_t=\sigma W_t$ and $\alpha=2$, it is enough to follow the steps of the proof in Section \[proofthm2\]. This can be done as in the preceding paragraph. However, we still need to prove Part (ii) in Lemma \[weakcvg\] in the case where a Brownian component is present, meaning we take $X^_t=\sigma W_t$ for the limiting process and $\alpha=2$ in the definition of $X^{\varepsilon}_t$. To this purpose, remark that in the setting of Proposition \[toy\], $$\|X^{\varepsilon}_{\tau^{\varepsilon}}\|^\beta\leq c(1+\|\check X^{\varepsilon}_{\check\tau^{\varepsilon}}\|^\beta),$$ with $\check X_t=X_t-\sigma W_t$ and $\check\tau^{\varepsilon} = \inf\{t\geq 0: \check X^{\varepsilon}_t \notin (-(a+b),a+b)\}.$ Thus, using Lemma \[weakcvg\] , we get that $$E[\|X^{\varepsilon}_{\tau^{\varepsilon}}\|^\beta]$$ is bounded uniformly in $\varepsilon$. Then we can replicate the end of the proof of Lemma \[weakcvg\]. Proof of Proposition \[sde.prop\] {#proof1} ================================= The process $X$ can be written as $$X_t = X_0 + \int_0^t \bar b_s ds + \int _0^t \int_{\|z\|\leq 1} z (M-\mu)(ds \times dz) + \int _0^t \int_{\|z\|> 1} z M(ds \times dz),$$ where $M$ is a random measure whose compensator $\mu$ is given by $\mu(\omega,dt\times dz) = dt\times \bar\nu(\gamma^{-1}_t(dz)) 1_{z\in \gamma_t(U)}= \frac{\bar\nu(\gamma_t^{-1}(z))}{\gamma'_t(\gamma^{-1}(z))} 1_{z\in \gamma_t(U)} dt\times dz$. Hence, $$\mu_t((x,\infty)) = \int_{\gamma^{-1}_t(x)}^\infty \bar\nu(y) 1_{y\in U} dy,\qquad \mu_t((-\infty,-x)) = \int_{-\infty}^{\gamma^{-1}_t(-x)} \bar\nu(y) 1_{y\in U} dy.$$ By assumption , $$\int_{x}^\infty \bar\nu(y) 1_{y\in U} dy = \frac{c_+}{x^\alpha} + O(x^{1-\alpha}),\quad\text{and}\quad \int_{-\infty}^{-x} \bar\nu(y) 1_{y\in U} dy = \frac{c_-}{x^\alpha} + O(x^{1-\alpha}),$$ as $x\to 0$ and $$\int_{x}^\infty \bar\nu(y) 1_{y\in U} dy + \int_{-\infty}^{-x} \bar\nu(y) 1_{y\in U} dy \leq \frac{C}{x^\alpha}$$ for some $C<\infty$ and all $x>0$. On the other hand, by Taylor’s theorem, $\gamma^{-1}_t(x) = \frac{x}{\gamma'_t(x^)}$ with $x^\in [0,x]$. Therefore, we easily obtain that for some $C<\infty$, $$\begin{aligned} &x^\alpha \mu_t((x,\infty)) + x^\alpha \mu_t((-\infty,-x))\leq C\max_{x\in U} \gamma'_t(x)^{\alpha}\quad \text{for all $x$};\\ &\lim_{x\downarrow 0} x^\alpha \mu_t((x,\infty)) = c_+ \gamma'_t(0)^\alpha\quad \text{and} \quad \lim_{x\downarrow 0} x^\alpha \mu_t((-\infty,-x)) = c_- \gamma'_t(0)^\alpha,\end{aligned}$$ which proves Assumption $(HX)$.\ To show $(HX^\rho_{\mathrm{loc}})$, let $\nu$ be a strictly positive Lévy density satisfying , continuous outside any neighborhood of zero. We need to prove that the random function $K_t(z)$ defined by $$K_t(z) = \frac{\bar\nu(\gamma_t^{-1}(z))1_{z\in \gamma_t(U)}}{\gamma'_t(\gamma_t^{-1}(z)) \gamma'_t(0)^\alpha\nu(z)},$$ satisfies the integrability condition . Let $(\tau_n)$ be the sequence of stopping times from condition , let $t<\tau_n$ and $\varepsilon$ be small enough so that $\{\|z\|\leq \varepsilon\}\subset \gamma_t(U)$, $t\leq \tau_n$. Clearly, $$\begin{aligned} \int_{\mathbb R} \|\sqrt{K_t(z)}-1\|^{2\rho} \nu(dz) &\leq \int_{\|z\|\leq \varepsilon} \|\sqrt{K_t(z)}-1\|^{2\rho} \nu(dz) \notag\\ &+ \int_{\|z\|>\varepsilon, z\in \gamma_t(U)} K^\rho_t(z) \nu(dz) + \nu(\{z:\|z\|> \varepsilon\}).\label{5terms}\end{aligned}$$ The third term above is clearly bounded. To deal with the second term, observe that by the fact that $\nu$ and $\bar \nu$ are continuous outside any neighborhood of zero, condition and the fact that $U$ is compact, on the set $\{z: \|z\|>\varepsilon, z\in \gamma_t(U)\}$ for $t\leq \tau_n$, $$K_t \leq C^{1+\alpha}_n \frac{\max \{\bar\nu(z): z\in U, \|z\| \geq \varepsilon/C_n\}}{\min\{\nu(z) : \|z\|\geq \varepsilon, z \in C_n U\} }<\infty.$$ Therefore, the second term in is also bounded for $t\leq \tau_n$. We finally focus on the first term in . First, observe that on the set where $\|z\|\leq \varepsilon$, $$\begin{aligned} &\|K_t(z)-1\|\leq \left\|\frac{\|z\|^{1+\alpha} }{\|\gamma_t^{-1}(z)\|^{1+\alpha} \gamma'_t(0)^{1+\alpha}} -1\right\| \frac{\gamma'_t(0)}{\gamma'_t(\gamma_t^{-1}(z)) }\frac{\|\gamma_t^{-1}(z)\|^{1+\alpha}\bar\nu(\gamma_t^{-1}(z))}{ \|z\|^{1+\alpha}\nu(z)} \notag\\ &\qquad+\left\|\frac{\gamma'_t(0)}{\gamma'_t(\gamma_t^{-1}(z)) }- 1\right\|\frac{\|\gamma_t^{-1}(z)\|^{1+\alpha}\bar\nu(\gamma_t^{-1}(z))}{ \|z\|^{1+\alpha}\nu(z)} +\left\| \frac{\|\gamma_t^{-1}(z)\|^{1+\alpha}\bar\nu(\gamma_t^{-1}(z))}{ \|z\|^{1+\alpha}\nu(z)} - 1\right\|.\label{3termsK}\end{aligned}$$ For the first term in , by Taylor’s formula and using the condition : $$\begin{aligned} \left\|\frac{\|z\|^{1+\alpha} }{\|\gamma_t^{-1}(z)\|^{1+\alpha} \gamma'_t(0)^{1+\alpha}} -1\right\| &= \left\|\frac{\gamma_t'(z^)^{1+\alpha} }{\gamma'_t(0)^{1+\alpha}} -1\right\|\leq (1+\alpha) C_n^{2\alpha+1} \left\|\gamma_t'(z^) -\gamma'_t(0)\right\|\\&\leq (1+\alpha) C_n^{2\alpha+2} \|z\|, \end{aligned}$$ where $z^\in [z\wedge 0, z \vee 0]$. In the second term, similarly, $$\left\|\frac{\gamma'_t(0)}{\gamma'_t(\gamma_t^{-1}(z)) }- 1\right\|\leq C_n \|\gamma'_t(\gamma_t^{-1}(z)) - \gamma'_t(0)\|\leq C_n^2 \|\gamma^{-1}_t(z)\|\leq C^{3n} \|z\|.$$ For the third term, it follows from that for some constant $C<\infty$, $$\begin{aligned} \left\| \frac{\|\gamma_t^{-1}(z)\|^{1+\alpha}\bar\nu(\gamma_t^{-1}(z))}{ \|z\|^{1+\alpha}\nu(z)} - 1\right\|&\leq \left\| \frac{1+ C \|\gamma^{-1}_t(z)\|}{1-C \|z\|} - 1\right\|\leq \frac{C}{1-C\varepsilon} \left(\|\gamma_t^{-1}(z)\|+\|z\|\right) \\&\leq \frac{C(1+C_n)}{1-C\varepsilon} \|z\|. \end{aligned}$$ In addition, assume that $\varepsilon$ is chosen small enough so that $C\varepsilon<1$. Therefore, $$\|K_t(z)-1\|\leq c_n \|z\|$$ for some constant $c_n<\infty$ (which may later change from line to line). This easily implies that for $\rho\geq 1$, $$\int_{\|z\|\leq \varepsilon} \|\sqrt{K_t(z)}-1\|^{2\rho} \nu(dz) \leq c_n.$$ [10]{} , [[Estimating the degree of activity of jumps in high frequency data]{}]{}, Ann. Stat., 37 (2009), pp. 2202–2244. , [Spectral estimation of the fractional order of a Lévy process]{}, Ann. Stat., 38 (2010), pp. 317–351. , [When is time continuous]{}, J. Financ. Econ., 55 (2000), pp. 173–204. , [Sample functions of stochastic processes with stationary independent increments]{}, J. Math. Mech., 10 (1961), pp. 493–516. , [On the distribution of first hits for symmetric stable processes]{}, T. Am. Math. Soc., 99 (1961), pp. 540–554. , [Tracking errors from discrete hedging in exponential [L]{}évy models]{}, International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance, 14 (2011), pp. 1–35. , [The fine structure of asset returns: [A]{}n empirical investigation]{}, J. Bus., 75 (2002), pp. 305–332. , [On the structure of general mean-variance hedging strategies]{}, The Annals of Probability, 35 (2007), pp. 1479–1531. , [Nonparametric tests for pathwise properties of semimartingales]{}, Bernoulli, 17 (2011), pp. 781–813. , [Hedging with options in models with jumps]{}, in Stochastic Analysis and Applications - the Abel Symposium 2005, Springer, 2007. , [Nonparametric estimation of time-changed Lévy models under high-frequency data]{}, Adv. Appl. Probab., 41 (2009), pp. 1161–1188. , [Statistical estimation of Lévy-type stochastic volatility models]{}, Annals of Finance, 8 (2012), pp. 309–335. , [Hedging of contintgent claims under incomplete information]{}, in Applied Stochastic Analysis, M. H. A. Davis and R. J. Elliott, eds., Gordon and Breach, 1991, pp. 389–414. , [Hedging of non-redundant contingent claims]{}, in Contributions to Mathematical Economics, W. Hildenbrand and A. Mas-Colell, eds., North Holland, 1986, pp. 205–224. , [Asymptotically efficient discrete hedging]{}, in Stochastic Analysis with Financial Applications, Progress in Probability, vol. 65, Springer, 2011, pp. 331–346. , [First passage times for symmetric stable processes in space]{}, T. Am. Math. Soc., 101 (1961), pp. 75–90. , [Table of Integrals, Series and Products]{}, Academic Press, 1995. , [Hedging errors: an asymptotic approach]{}, Mathematical Finance, 15 (2005), pp. 309–343. , [Limit Theorems for Stochastic Processes]{}, Springer, Berlin, 2nd ed., 2003. , [Variance-optimal hedging for processes with stationary independent increments]{}, The Annals of Applied Probability, 16 (2006), pp. 853–885. , [Optimum consumption and portfolio rules in a continuous-time model]{}, J. Economic Theory, 3 (1971), pp. 373–413. , [Asymptotic results for time-changed [L]{}évy processes sampled at hitting times]{}, Stoch. Proc. Appl., 121 (2011), pp. 1607–1632. , [[L]{}évy Processes and Infinitely Divisible Distributions]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1999. , [A guided tour through quadratic hedging approaches]{}, in Option Pricing, Interest Rates and Risk Management, E. Jouini, J. Cvitanic, and M. Musiela, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2001. , [Asymptotic analysis of hedging errors in models with jumps]{}, Stoch. Proc. Appl., 119 (2009), pp. 2004–2027. , [Inference in Lévy-type stochastic volatility models]{}, Adv. Appl. Probab., 39 (2007), pp. 531–549. , [Couverture approchée des options [E]{}uropéennes.]{}, PhD thesis, Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, 1999.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'This is a brief summary of lectures given at the Fourth Mexican School on Gravitation and Mathematical Physics. The lectures gave an introduction to branes in eleven-dimensional supergravity and in type IIA supergravities in ten-dimensions. Charge conservation and the role of the so-called ‘Chern-Simons terms’ were emphasized. Known exact solutions were discussed and used to provide insight into the question ‘Why don’t fundamental strings fall off of D-branes,’ which is often asked by relativists. The following is a brief overview of the lectures with an associated guide to the literature.' author: - Donald Marolf title: 'Branes, Charge and Intersections' --- Physics Department, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244 Preface ======= This course was intended to be similar to the set of lectures I gave introducing branes in supergravity and string theory at the Third Mexican School on Gravitation and Mathematical Physics in 1998. A full write up of this previous set of lectures can be found in [@maz]. The presentation in [@maz] is in fact more similar to the lectures given at the Fourth School in 2000 than to the original 1998 lectures and I would still recommend [@maz] for an introduction to the subject. As with the 1998 lecture series, the style was intended for an audience with a relativity background as opposed to other introductions aimed more at those with a particle physics background. I apologize for the fact that several typographic errors remain in [@maz], though I believe that the equations are now correct. Readers of [@maz] are encouraged to e-mail me at [email protected] to point out such errors and make suggestions for future versions that will eventually be produced. The more recent lecture series went beyond the material in [@maz] by including discussions of the so-called ‘Chern-Simons terms.’ These are terms in the supergravity actions that are responsible for the interesting features that arise in more complicated cases such as ‘intersections of branes.’ In particular, the goal was to include some more recent results from [@branetrans; @frad; @T-dual]. Unfortunately, this required that the basic introduction be shortened in the 2000 lecture series which likely made these lectures more difficult for the uninitiated. The reader interested in learning this additional material will surely benefit from taking the time to digest [@maz] in full before studying [@branetrans; @frad; @T-dual]. These latter papers were written as research papers and not as pedagogical introductions or reviews. Though I believe that [@maz] does contain sufficient introduction to allow the reader to follow [@branetrans; @frad; @T-dual], the reader is advised to read these latter papers somewhat more slowly than [@maz]. Note, by the way, that I do not mean to say that [@maz] will be a quick read for those who are new to the subject. Below, I give a brief summary of the material covered in the 2000 lecture series. I am afraid that this summary is little more than a list of topics covered together with a somewhat more comprehensive guide to the literature. Nevertheless, I hope that it will be of use. Summary ======= The 2000 lecture series began with an introduction to eleven-dimensional supergravity. Given certain generally accepted caveats, there is in fact a unique supergravity theory in eleven-dimensions and it was first obtained in [@CJS]. With the same caveats, eleven is in fact the highest number of dimensions in which a supergravity theory exists. For reasons related to this observation, it turns out the eleven-dimensional supergravity is the simplest point for a physicist trained in General Relativity to begin to learn about string theory and supergravity. The point is that, to a first approximation, the dynamics of eleven-dimensional supergravity are essentially those of an Einstein-Maxwell theory (together with some Fermions). In particular, eleven-dimensional supergravity contains no ‘dilaton’ field as do other relevant supergravity theories. Theories with a dilaton are not minimally coupled in the sense of the strong equivalence principle and, as a result, hold a few extra surprises for relativists. The idea of the lectures was to start by thinking of supergravity as being much like Einstein-Maxwell theory and then to slowly add back the features that distinguish it. The first such property is that while the familiar Maxwell field has a rank two field strength tensor $F$, the supergravity gauge fields have field strengths which are $p$-forms (i.e., rank $p$ covariant anti-symmetric tensors), each with a different value of $p$. It is the feature $p> 2$ which leads to the introduction of ‘branes.’ ‘Brane’ is a word for an extended object and is derived from the word membrane. In modern terminology, a membrane is known as a ‘2-brane’ because of it is extended in two spacelike directions; that is, it is 2+1 manifold. Similarly, strings are known as 1-branes and particles as 0-branes. Higher dimensional branes also arise in string theory and supergravity. It turns out that the fundamental electric charges of rank $p$ gauge fields for $p > 2$ are necessarily such extended objects and that particles are necessarily neutral under such gauge fields. The details (as well as a similar discussion for magnetic charges) can be found in [@maz]. Indeed, a large part of [@maz] is devoted to this point. One may either consider these gauge fields alone or one may include their couplings to gravity. In this latter case, one finds an associated set of so-called charged black $q$-brane solutions. These solutions are analogs of Reissner-Nordström [@nord] black holes but with horizons that are extended in $q$ directions instead of being compactly generated. For simplicity, these solutions are often discussed only in the extremal limit and this was the case both in the lectures and in [@maz]. In eleven-dimensional supergravity these black branes have smooth horizons even in the extremal limit just as in Einstein-Maxwell theory, though this property fails to hold in most other supergravity contexts. Readers interested in the non-extremal solutions should consult other reviews of black branes in string theory such as [@YR; @Stelle; @Duff; @Peet]. Another complication of eleven-dimensional supergravity is of course the Fermions needed for supersymmetry. While I did not address the Fermions in the 2000 lecture series, one may find a brief introduction to their properties in [@maz]. For more details, the reader may wish to consult [@CJS; @GSW; @Joe; @GH]. The final complication arises from the so-called Chern-Simons term. This term has certain features in common with the distinctive term in 2+1 Chern-Simons theory, which is of course a topological field theory having no local degrees of freedom. However, the effects of this term discussed in the lectures have little to do with topological quantum field theory. To understand just what these effects are, it turns out to be convenient to postpone a discussion of the Chern-Simons term until after discussing how ten-dimensional supergravity arises from Kaluza-Klein reduction of the eleven-dimensional theory. Thus, Kaluza-Klein reduction was discussed next in the lectures and is the next topic in [@maz]. It is important to have some understanding of Kaluza-Klein reduction before moving on to the new material not included in [@maz]. In the lectures and [@maz] I consider only Kaluza-Klein reduction on circles, but [@MS] is a standard reference for more general reductions. The reason that it is easier to first discuss Kaluza-Klein reduction and to only later address Chern-Simons terms is that the reduction process in fact creates additional Chern-Simons terms. This may seem like an additional complication, but on turning the picture around it yields insight into generic Chern-Simons terms. The point is that one may find a geometric picture of why the Chern-Simons terms arise in the dimensional reduction and this geometric picture clarifies properties of generic Chern-Simons terms. In particular, the effect of these ‘geometric’ Chern-Simons terms on intersections of branes is more easily seen as the effect of the twisting of space in the eleventh dimension on a simple configuration of branes in eleven dimensions. This point is not addressed in [@maz], though it forms the main theme of [@frad]. A particular example is considered in detail in [@branetrans], including a lower dimensional example that is much more easily visualized. The discussion of [@branetrans] is more elementary and may make a better starting point, though [@frad] addresses additional issues such as charge quantization. See also [@Town] for an earlier and rather general discussion of Chern-Simons terms and brane intersections. The discussion above covers the main general topics addressed in the 2000 lecture series. In addition to describing this general structure, a final goal of the course was to describe how these general properties could be used to extract information about non-perturbative physics in string theory. The example given in the lectures considered fundamental strings attached to a particular type of D-brane, the famous branes on which fundamental strings are allowed to end. For an introduction to these branes the reader should consult the review [@clifford] or the text [@Joe]. The focus of this final discussion concerns the sensible question “what prevents fundamental strings from falling off of (i.e., separating from) D-branes and drifting off on their own?” I have often heard relativists ask this question of string theorists. A common answer to this question invokes charge conservation, though this answer can be confusing to relativists because the charge considered is not one that is seen in supergravity. Indeed, strictly speaking this common answer turns out to be true only in the setting of perturbative string theory. Nevertheless, a related answer can be obtained by studying the conservation of a supergravity charge. One finds that the fundamental string [can]{} in fact separate from the D-brane, but only by transforming itself into a higher dimensional brane which, at least in the perturbative string limit, is in fact much more massive. In other words, there are energetic reasons for the fundamental string to remain bound to the D-brane and in the perturbative string limit this binding is very tight indeed. On the other hand, the binding is rather weak at large values of the string coupling so that at the non-perturbative level there can be significant fluctuations away from the D-brane. While this picture follows from general reasoning, the solutions constructed in [@branetrans] and the related constructions of [@CGS; @CGST] give a closely connected concrete example. The reader interested in more details should consult the second section of [@T-dual], in particular in the material associated with figure 1 of that reference. The treatment there is somewhat brief as the point is not central to that paper, but unfortunately I know of no other discussions of this point. The reader who succeeds in absorbing the information outlined above will have gone a long way toward being able to understand discussions of branes in supergravity and even toward beginning research projects of their own. Although I have described it only briefly here, there is in fact a sizable amount of information to learn. I should state that the review [@maz] based on my 1998 lectures addresses a number of additional topics that I was not able to include in the 2000 lecture series and that I have not mentioned in this summary. The reader pursuing a broad understanding of branes in supergravity should certainly digest such additional material as well, though those desiring only a mild introduction will be sufficiently occupied with the topics listed here. New reviews of branes and supergravity appear on a regular basis, and I encourage the reader to scan the archives for further resources. I expect that a fully revised and expanded version of [@maz] will be available before too many more years pass, but I hope that the present summary and guide to the literature can be of some use until this does in fact occur. [99]{} D. Marolf, “String/M-branes for relativists,” gr-qc/9908045. A. Gomberoff and D. Marolf, “Brane transmutation in supergravity,” JHEP [0002]{}, 021 (2000) \[hep-th/9912184\]. D. Marolf, “Chern-Simons terms and the three notions of charge,” hep-th/0006117. D. Marolf, “T-duality and the case of the disappearing brane,” hep-th/0103098. E. Cremmer, B. Julia, and J. Scherk, “Supergravity Theory in Eleven-Dimensions,” [Phys. Lett.]{} [B76]{} 409 (1978). D. Brill and T. Dray, “Spell it Nordström,” [General Relat. and Grav.]{} [25]{} 435-436 (1993). D. Youm, “Black Holes and solitons in string theory,” [Phys. Rept.]{} [316]{} 1 (1999) hep-th/9710046. K. S. Stelle, “BPS branes in supergravity,” hep-th/9803116. M. J. Duff, “TASI lectures on branes, black holes and anti-de Sitter space,” hep-th/9912164. A. W. Peet, “TASI lectures on black holes in string theory,” hep-th/0008241. M. Green, J. Schwarz, and E. Witten, [Superstring theory]{}, (Cambridge U. Press, NY, 1987). J. Polchinski, [String Theory]{} (Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, 1998). G. W. Gibbons and C. M. Hull, “A Bogomolny Bound for General Relativity and Solitons in N=2 Supergravity,” [Phys. Lett.]{} [109B]{} 190 (1982). J. Maharana and J. H. Schwarz, “Noncompact symmetries in string theory,” Nucl. Phys. B [390]{}, 3 (1993) \[hep-th/9207016\]. C. G. Callan, A. Guijosa and K. G. Savvidy, “Baryons and string creation from the fivebrane worldvolume action,” Nucl. Phys. B [547]{}, 127 (1999) \[hep-th/9810092\]. C. G. Callan, A. Guijosa, K. G. Savvidy and O. Tafjord, “Baryons and flux tubes in confining gauge theories from brane actions,” Nucl. Phys. B [555]{}, 183 (1999) \[hep-th/9902197\]. C. V. Johnson, “D-brane primer,” hep-th/0007170. Townsend, P.K. “Brane Surgery," [Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.]{} [58]{} 163 (1997).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - Francesco Cavazzani title: Complete Homogeneous Varieties via Representation Theory ---	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- bibliography: - 'arxiv.bib' --- Learning-Based Stopping Power Mapping on Dual Energy CT for Proton Radiation Therapy Tonghe Wang, Yang Lei, Joseph Harms, Beth Ghavidel, Liyong Lin, Jonathan J. Beitler, Mark McDonald, Walter J. Curran, Tian Liu and Xiaofeng Yang\* Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA *\Corresponding author: Xiaofeng Yang, PhD Department of Radiation Oncology Emory University School of Medicine 1365 Clifton Road NE Atlanta, GA 30322 E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Purpose:Dual-energy CT (DECT) has been used to derive relative stopping power (RSP) map by obtaining the energy dependence of photon interactions. The DECT-derived RSP maps could potentially be compromised by image noise levels and the severity of artifacts when using physics-based mapping techniques, which would affect subsequent clinical applications. This work presents a noise-robust learning-based method to predict RSP maps from DECT for proton radiation therapy. Method:The proposed method uses a residual attention cycle-consistent generative adversarial network. Residual blocks with attention gates were used to force the model focus on the difference between RSP maps and DECT images. Cycle consistent generative adversarial networks were used to let the DECT-to-RSP mapping be close to a one-to-one mapping by introducing an inverse RSP-to-DECT mapping. To evaluate the accuracy of the method, we retrospectively investigated 20 head-and-neck cancer patients with DECT scans in proton radiation therapy simulation. Ground truth RSP values were assigned by calculation based on chemical compositions. These ground truth RSP maps acted as learning targets in the training process for DECT datasets, and were evaluated against results from the proposed method using a leave-one-out cross-validation strategy. Result:The predicted RSP maps showed an average normalized mean square error (NMSE) of 2.83% across the whole body volume, and average mean error (ME) less than 3% in all volumes of interest (VOIs). With additional simulated noise added in DECT datasets, the proposed method still maintained a comparable performance, while the physics-based stoichiometric method suffered degraded inaccuracy from increased noise level. Based on the statistical analysis of comparative dose volume histogram (DVH) metrics of dose maps calculated on ground truth and predicted RSP maps among 19 pencil beam scanning proton treatment plans, the average differences in DVH metrics for clinical target volumes (CTVs) were less than 0.2 Gy for D95% and Dmax with no statistical significance (average prescription dose = 60 Gy). Maximum difference in DVH metrics of organs-at-risk (OARs) was around 1 Gy on average. Conclusion:These results strongly indicate the high accuracy of RSP maps predicted by our machine-learning-based method and show its potential feasibility for proton treatment planning and dose calculation. keywords:** Stopping power, dual energy CT, proton therapy, machine learning. INTRODUCTION ============= Proton radiation therapy has been one of the emerging treatment modalities that may have better clinical outcomes to a wide range of patients due to favorable dosimetric properties related to the Bragg Peak and virtually no exit dose compared with photon radiation therapy [@RN1619; @RN1622; @RN1621; @RN1620]. The calculation of proton dose based on CT simulation images requires the conversion from the Hounsfield Unit (HU) numbers to the relative stopping power (RSP) for different materials [@RN1690; @RN1689; @RN1688]. One of the currently implemented methods is to calibrate RSP based on the HU number on tissue characterization phantoms with known atomic compositions and electron densities. A one-to-one relationship between HU and RSP can then be established by a piecewise linear function. However, a direct HU-RSP calibration may introduce ambiguity since tissues with different combinations of atomic composition and electron density may have the same attenuation, which may cause inaccuracy in determining radiation absorption properties for proton dose calculations in treatment planning [@RN1630]. Moreover, the approximation of real tissue with tissue substitutes in phantom also introduces error due to the differences in chemical composition [@RN1691]. Recently, dual energy CT (DECT) has been introduced to radiation therapy simulation for its ability in providing material specific information by differentiating the energy dependence of photoelectric and Compton interactions of different materials [@RN1364; @RN726; @RN1150; @RN722]. Parametric maps, such as RSP, electron density, effective atomic number and mean excitation energy (I), can be derived from DECT images in a voxel-wise manner using physical equations [@RN1625; @RN1624]. However, the physics-based method can be very sensitive to the noise and artifacts on the DECT images since the overlapping of the two energy spectra would turn the system into an ill-posed problem. On the other hand, in addition to the noise and artifacts present in single energy CT has, DECT suffers extra noise and artifacts caused by non-ideal dual energy datasets acquisition scheme, such as patient motion artifacts in two-sequential-scan DECT [@RN810; @RN806] and cross scatter artifacts in dual-source CT [@RN1628; @RN1627]. Meanwhile, Twin-beam DECT (TBCT) has been introduced into radiation therapy simulation for its good temporal coherence, full field-of-view, and low hardware complexity and cost, while it has poorer energy spectra separation when compared with other DECT modalities [@RN1154; @RN806; @RN1693]. The strong overlapping of energy spectra of linear attenuation coefficient among different materials would lead to significant noise magnification from the acquired projection to the results of material differentiation [@RN726; @RN199; @RN1698; @RN1699]. The physical derivation does not accommodate these non-idealities, and would magnify the noise and artifacts on the DECT images to the derived parametric maps that directly lead to uncertainty and inaccuracy. With the development of machine learning in recent years, novel methods have been developed to convert between images presenting similar anatomy but different modalities [@RN16; @RN1697; @RN1703; @RN1406; @RN1405; @RN1361; @RN1711; @RN1705; @RN1708; @RN1679]. Due to the data-driven properties, learning-based methods are expected to be more robust to noise. These algorithms have also been introduced for parametric map generation from DECT [@RN1630]. In the study by Su et al., models are trained by a large number of pairs of DECT images and corresponding parametric maps using different algorithms, and then predict parametric maps from a new DECT image input. However, the training model is based on phantom of tissue substitutes but is used for predicting on clinical patient datasets. The approximation of real tissue by tissue substitutes still exists, and the learning on phantom with piecewise values on simple geometry may neglect the heterogeneities and complexities present in real patient datasets. Thus, an appropriate training model with ground truth based on human scans is of interest. In this work, we propose a novel machine-learning based method to predict RSP maps from DECT for proton radiation therapy. The aim of this study is to provide an alternative approach to the physics-based method with more noise robustness. In our method, we integrated a residual attention architecture into cycle consistent generative adversarial networks (cycle-GANs). Compared with other machine-learning based methods, the advantages include automatic extraction of deep features from DECT images and using residual blocks to force the model to focus on the differences between RSP and DECT. Moreover, a deep attention strategy was integrated into the network architecture to highlight the informative features which would well represent the difference between RSP and DECT images. Thirdly, cycle-GANs were used to let the DECT-to-RSP mapping be close to a one-to-one mapping by introducing an inverse RSP-to-DECT mapping. We retrospectively investigated 20 head-and-neck patients with Twin-beam DECT scan acquired during CT simulation and treated with proton radiation therapy. Ground truth RSP values were assigned by calculation based on chemical compositions. These ground truth RSP maps acted as learning targets in the training process for DECT datasets, and were evaluated against results from the proposed method using a leave-one-out cross-validation strategy. The accuracy of predicted RSP maps by the proposed was quantified with multiple quality and dosimetric metrics. All results generated by the proposed method were compared to the physics-based stoichiometric method. Methods and Materials ===================== Workflow -------- Fig.1 outlines the schematic workflow of our prediction method. The DECT is able to provide two CT image dataset acquired with low and high energy spectra. For a given series of low and high DECT images, and their corresponding RSP maps, the RSP maps were used as the regression target. The use of both energy images provides the model higher fidelity since the CT values at two energy levels demonstrate two different energy dependences of material attenuation, which indicates material information. During training, 96×96×32 voxel patches were extracted from low and high energy images by a sliding window with an overlap of 80×80×22 between any two neighboring patches. Furthermore, in order to enlarge the training data variation, data augmentations, such as flipping, rotation, scaling and rigid warping were used. Then, the patches were fed into a 3D deep learning framework as a two-channel input and mapped to a one-channel output patch, which was correlated to training target, i.e., RSP image. To enforce a one-to-one mapping, a cycle-GAN-based framework was used to introduce an inverse mapping, which took the RSP map as one-channel input and mapped it to low and high energy CT images as two-channel output. In order to learn the specific differences among these three datasets, 6 residual blocks were used as short skip connections in the end-to-end U-Net-based generator architecture. To further highlight significant features that can fully represent these three image datasets, 3 attention gates were used for the other three long skip connections. As shown in the generator architecture in Fig. 2. To judge the realism of the predicted maps, a fully convolutional network (FCN) architecture-based discriminator was used to discriminate the true image from a predicted image. After training, the paired patches of low and high DECT images were extracted from a new arrival patient’s DECT dataset, and are fed into the trained networks to obtain the predicted RSP patches. Finally, by using patch fusion, the RSP map of a new arrival patient’s DECT was predicted. ![image](figure1){width="6.50in" height="4.20in"} Fig. 1. The schematic flowchart of the proposed method. The first row shows the training stage. The second row shows the prediction stage. Network architecture -------------------- Fig. 2 shows the generator and discriminator network architectures used in the proposed method. As can be seen from Fig.2, the network architecture of discriminator is a traditional FCN [@RN1711]. The generator architecture (of both DECT-to-RSP and RSP-to-DECT) is an end-to-end U-Net including encoding and decoding paths. The encoding path is composed of three convolution layers with a stride size of 2 to reduce the feature maps size and several further convolution layers with stride size of 1. The decoding path is composed of three deconvolution layers to obtain the end-to-end mapping, several convolution layers, and a tanh layer to perform the regression. In order to combine the features extracted from encoding path and decoding path, six short connections and three long skip connections were used to bypass the features extracted from previous hidden layer to current hidden layer. The short connection was implemented by a residual block, since the residual block could lead the feature maps extracted from deep hidden layer to learn the difference of source and target images’ distributions. A residual block is implemented by two convolution layers within residual connection and an element-wise sum operator [@RN1677]. As is shown in Fig.2, the long skip connection was implemented by concatenating these feature maps extracted from the layer of encoding path with same sized feature maps extracted from the layer of decoding path. Attention gate (AG) could capture the most relevant semantic (segment) information without enlarging the receptive field [@RN1697]. Since in this work, the target RSP image is close to a semantic image, we propose to integrate AG into the long skip connection to highlight the semantic features from feature maps extracted from previous layer of encoding path. The details of the implementation of attention gate can be found in our previous work [@RN1697]. ![image](figure2){width="6.50in" height="4.20in"} Fig. 2. The generator and discriminator network. Loss function ------------- The learnable parameters of generators and discriminators were optimized iteratively and in an alternative manner. The accuracy of both networks is directly dependent on the design of their corresponding loss functions. The generator loss consists of an adversarial loss and a cycle consistency loss. The goal of the adversarial loss is to improve the generator to produce the synthetic images that can fool the discriminators via minimizing adversarial losses, which relies on the output of the discriminators, i.e., the distribution of feeding synthetic RSP image (generated from DECT-to-RSP generator $G_{DECT-RSP}$ into the discriminator of RSP and the distribution of feeding synthetic DECT image (generated from RSP-to-DECT generator $G_{RSP-DECT}$) into the discriminator of DECT. For clarity, we present only formulation for $G_{DECT-RSP}$. $$L_{adv}\ (G_{DECT-RSP},D_{RSP},I_{DECT},I_{RSP})\ =SCE[D_{RSP}\ (G_{DECT-RSP}\ (I_{DECT})),1]$$ where $I_{DECT}$ is the DECT two-channel image and $G_{DECT-RSP}(I_{DECT})$ is the output of the DECT-to-RSP generator, i.e. the predicted RSP. $D_{RSP}$ is the RSP discriminator which is designed to return a binary value indicating whether a pixel region is real (from RSP) or fake (from predicted RSP), so this measures the number of incorrectly generated pixels in the predicted RSP. The function $SCE\left(\bullet,1\right)$ is the sigmoid cross entropy between the discriminator map of the predicted RSP and a unit mask. In this work, mean absolute error (MAE) and gradient difference error (GDE) were used as a compound loss to calculate the cycle consistency loss of generator [@RN1711]. The MAE loss forces the generator to synthesis RSP images with accurate voxel intensity to a level of ground truth RSP images. The GDE loss forces the synthetic RSP images’ gradient structure to a level of ground truth RSP images. $$L_{cyc}\left(G_{DECT-RSP},G_{RSP-DECT},I_{DECT}\right)=\begin{matrix}MAE\left[G_{RSP-DECT}\left(G_{DECT-RSP}(I_{DECT})\right),I_{DECT}\right]+\\\lambda GDE\left[G_{RSP-DECT}\left(G_{DECT-RSP}(I_{DECT})\right),I_{DECT}\right]\\\end{matrix}$$ where $\lambda$ is a parameter which control the MAE and GDE loss for cycle consistency. $G_{RSP-DECT}\left(G_{DECT-RSP}(I_{DECT})\right)$ is the output of first feeding $I_{DECT}$ into the generator $G_{DECT-RSP}$ and then feeding the output into the generator $G_{RSP-DECT}$, namely the output of this term denotes the cycle RSP. Finally, the optimization of generator is obtained by $$\begin{split} &G_{DECT-RSP},G_{RSP-DECT}=\\ &\underset{G_{DECT-RSP},G_{RSP-DECT}}{arg\min}\left\{\begin{matrix}L_{adv}\left(G_{DECT-RSP},D_{RSP},I_{DECT},I_{RSP}\right)+L_{adv}(G_{RSP-DECT},D_{DECT},I_{RSP},I_{DECP})\\L_{cyc}\left(G_{DECT-RSP},G_{RSP-DECT},I_{DECT}\right)+L_{cyc}\left(G_{DECT-RSP},G_{RSP-DECT},I_{DECT}\right)\\\end{matrix}\right\} \end{split}$$ The optimization of discriminator is obtained by $$\begin{split} \left({D_{RSP},D}_{DECT}\right)={\rm \underset{{D_{RSP},D}_{DECT}}{arg\min}}{\left\{\left.\begin{matrix}SCE\left[D_{RSP}\left({G_{DECT-RSP}(I}_{DECT}\right)),0\right]+\ SCE\left[D_{RSP}\left(I_{RSP}\right),1\right]+\\SCE\left[D_{DECT}\left({G_{RSP-DECT}(I}_{RSP}\right)),0\right]+\ SCE\left[D_{DECT}\left(I_{DECT}\right),1\right]\\\end{matrix}\right\}.\right.} \end{split}$$ Data Acquisition ---------------- In this retrospective study, we analyzed the dataset of 20 patients with squamous cell carcinoma in H&N region. Patient selection standard is head and neck patients who were scanned in TBCT mode and had targets and organs-at-risk (OARs) delineated by physicians. The 20 patients included 13 males and 7 females with ages ranging from 25 to 89. Their tumor sites vary from patient to patient including larynx, buccal mucosa, tongue, and etc., and 12 patients underwent excisions. Each patient had CT simulation by TBCT in DECT mode with 110 seconds delay after 100 mL Omnipaque 300 iodine contrast injected at 2.5 mL/s. Institutional review board approval was obtained with no informed consent required for this HIPAA-compliant retrospective analysis. The DECT images were acquired using a Siemens SOMATOM Definition Edge Twin-beam CT scanner at 120 kVp with the patient in treatment position (pitch: 0.45, rotation time: 0.5 s, scan time: around 30 s, CTDIvol: around 20 mGy, reconstruction kernel: Q30f, tube current ranges from 500 to 650 mA, and metal artifact correction was in use). The 120 kVp x-rays were split into high and low spectra by 0.05 mm tin and 0.6 mm gold filters, yielding high energy and low energy scans for reconstruction, respectively. Composed images were also reconstructed from raw projection dataset by disregarding spectral differences. All the above images were reconstructed by Siemens Syngo CT VA48A with spacing 0.98 × 0.98 × 1.5 mm3 and 512 × 512 pixels of each slice. The ground truth RSP map of each patient was created by manually classifying the composed DECT images into different materials and assigning corresponding RSPs. In this study, we differentiated seven types of material as listed in Table I, each of which has RSP calculated using the chemical compositions published in ICRP 23 [@RN1692; @RN1630]. Equations and details of calculation were done as previously reported [@RN1691]. Note that although the learning target is bulk-assigned RSP maps, the predicted RSP maps are still patient-specific with continuous values. -------------------------- ------ Air 0 Lung 0.26 Adipose 0.96 Muscle 1.04 Brain 1.06 Skeleton – spongiosa 1.16 Skeleton – cortical bone 1.63 -------------------------- ------ : Ground truth RSPs of different materials calculated based on chemical compositions published in ICRP 23 \[tab:addlabel\] The cohort of 20 patients was used to evaluate our method using leave-one-out cross-validation. For one test patient, the model is trained by the remaining 19 patients. The model is initialized and re-trained for next test patient by training another group of 19 patients. The training datasets and testing datasets are separated and independent during each study. For our training, we used data augmentation and 3D patch-based method to increase training data variation. Flipping, rotation, scaling and rigid warping were used to enlarge the data size by 72 times. Patch size was set to 96x96x32. For comparison, physics-based dual-energy stoichiometric method was implemented to generate RSP maps as well. We used the Gammex RMI 467 electron density phantom with the chemical compositions of inserted materials specified by the manufacturer. The RSP value of each rod was calculated from the known chemical compositions using equations reported [@RN1691]. The rods were randomly placed throughout the phantom for 5 different scans so an average HU value, relatively independent of positioning, could be obtained. The same CT scanning protocol as used for patient scans was used during the phantom scan. The HU was measured on each rod at both high and low energy images, and calibrated with the calculated RSP values using equations reported [@RN1630]. The calibration was then applied on patient DECT images to generate physics-based RSP maps. To investigate the performance of the proposed method at different noise levels, we simulated additional noise on the original DECT image datasets. On each pixel, random noise was added with a probability distribution of Gaussian with mean = 0 and standard deviation = 0.5%, 1%, 2% and 5% of the value of that pixel+1000HU, respectively. To further demonstrate the feasibility of dose calculation using the predicted RSP by proposed method in proton treatment planning, we compared the difference between dose maps calculated on the ground truth RSP and the predicted RSP using the same plan parameters. 19 of the 20 patients have clinical proton treatment plans using pencil beam scanning and optimized with multi field optimization (MFO) technique. All plans have 4 to 5 beams, and were robustly optimized with 3mm setup uncertainty in all directions, which was covered by the 3.5% range uncertainty. The average prescription dose to clinical target volumes (CTVs) is 60.2 Gy among all patients. The structures and original treatment plans were duplicated onto the RSP maps of ground truth or prediction for dose calculation using the same algorithm (Proton Convolution Superposition) in Eclipse 13.7 (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). For each plan, we visually checked the similarity of the dose distributions calculated on ground truth RSP and predicted RSP. Quantitatively, clinically relevant dose volune histogram (DVH) metrics were extracted for comparison of dose to CTVs and relevant OARs. For plans with multiple CTVs, the DVH of each CTV was counted separately. Image Quality Metrics --------------------- In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of generated RSP maps by comparing with ground truth RSP maps. We quantitatively characterized the overall accuracy by normalized mean square error (NMSE) within patient body. The NMSE measures the average error among all pixels, which can be described as $$NMSE=\lVert RSP-RSP_0 \rVert_2^2/\lVert RSP\rVert_2^2$$ where $RSP$ and $RSP_0$ are generated and ground truth RSP maps, respectively, and $\lVert \bullet \rVert_2$ is the L2 norm. To quantify the accuracy of each material, we calculated the mean error (ME) and NMSE on each material VOI except air. ME quantifies the error of averaged RSP in a certain materials, which is defined as, $$ME=\frac{\sum_{i\in VOI_j}{RSP\left(i\right)-RSP_0\left(i\right)}}{\sum_{i\in VOI_j}{RSP_0\left(i\right)}}$$ where $i$ indicates the index of the $i$th pixel in the VOIs of the $j$th material. Results ======= In Fig. 3, the quality of RSP maps is shown using a side-by-side comparison with ground truth and physics-based results from one patient without additional simulated noise. It is seen that the RSP maps by the proposed method maintain comparable resolution, contrast and most of the details as the ground truth. Errors are observed due to misclassification between adipose and muscle, and between spongiosa bone and cortical bone, in addition to boundaries between different materials (column (g)). Compared with the results by the proposed method, physics-based results show larger error in lungs (e3). It also has degraded quality caused by noise and artifacts. For example, a large discrepancy in (e3) can be seen around the corresponding region of streaking artifacts in (a3) and (b3). The profiles indicated in Fig. 3 (a) are shown in Fig. 5(1). The results by our method are much closer to the ground truth. Similarly, an exemplary result with additional 5% simulated noise is also shown in Fig. 4. RSP maps generated by the proposed method and their corresponding profiles (Fig. 5(2)) remain close to the results without additional noise, while those generated by the physics method are highly affected by the noise and demonstrate severe inaccuracies (column b). The averages of measured NMSE within patient body at different noise level among all 20 patients are summarized in Table II. The proposed method maintains a comparable accuracy when noise increases from 0% to 5%, while the physics-based method shows severe degradation in performance. The averages of measured NMSE and ME within different VOIs at different noise level among all 20 patients are summarized in Table III. With several exceptions of lower but comparable NMSEs in adipose and muscle at lowest noise level, overall, our method outperforms the physics-based method in NMSE and ME. With the noise level increased, physics-based results are more affected in accuracy, while the accuracy of the proposed method is successfully maintained. Thus, the advantage of the proposed method over the physics-based method is more prominent at higher noise levels, which indicates greater robustness to noise. Fig. 6 compares the calculated proton dose maps at selected axial, sagittal and coronal planes of a patient as an example in the case of no additional noise simulated. The dose maps calculated on the ground truth qualitatively appear to be more similar on those of the predicted RSP maps by the proposed method than by the physics-based method. Most dose error of the proposed method is around the distal end of the beams, while that of the physics-based method happens at all the high dose-gradient regions to a much wider and severe extent. The differences in DVH metrics of clinically relevant OARs between ground truth and predicted RSP among all patients in the cases of no added noise are shown in Fig. 7. The DVH statistical differences among all patients are summarized in Table IV. For the proposed method, the mean differences are less than 0.2Gy for CTVs with no statistical significance. DVH metrics has no significant difference in all OARs except esophagus and brainstem with overestimation less than 1.2Gy. Compared with the results by the physics-based method, the results by our method have less variation in most of the DVH metrics. ![image](figure3){width="6.50in" height="4.20in"} Fig. 3. The axial views of one patient without simulated noise. Rows (1), (2) and (3) are three different slices. Columns (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) are the high energy CT images, low energy CT images, ground truth RSP maps, physics-based RSP map, and maps produced by the proposed method, respectively. Columns (e) and (g) are the difference maps of (d)-(c) and (f)-(c), respectively. The yellow dotted lines on (a) indicate the positions of profiles displayed in Fig. 5. The window level of RSP maps (a, b, c, d, and f) is \[0, 2\]. ![image](figure4){width="6.50in" height="4.20in"} Fig. 4. The axial views of one patient with 5% additional simulated noise. Rows (1), (2) and (3) are three different slices. Columns (a), (b), (c) and (e) are the high energy CT images, low energy CT images, RSP maps by physics method and by the proposed method, respectively. Columns (d) and (f) are the difference maps of (c) and (e) from ground truth in Fig 3 column (c), respectively. The yellow dotted lines on (a) indicate the positions of profiles displayed in Fig. 5. The window level of RSP maps (a, b, c and e) is \[0, 2\]. ![image](figure5){width="6.50in" height="4.20in"} Fig. 5. Comparison of RSP map profiles. The positions of profiles (a), (b) and (c) are indicated by yellow dotted lines in Fig. 3 or 4 (a1), (a2) and (a3), respectively. Row (1) and (2) are the profiles of results in Fig. 3 (without simulated noise) and 4 (5% additional simulated noise), respectively. ![image](figure6){width="6.50in" height="4.20in"} Fig. 6. Dose distribution calculated on (a) ground truth, and predicted RSP by (b) physics-based method and (d) proposed method from DECT datasets of one patient without additional simulated noise presented in three orthogonal views (1), (2) and (3). The dose difference maps of (a) vs (b) and (a) vs (d) are shown in (c) and (e), respectively. ![image](figure7){width="6.50in" height="4.20in"} Fig. 7. Differences of clinically relevant DVH between dose maps calculated on ground truth and predicted RSP maps by (a) the physics-based method and (b) the proposed method. The central mark indicates the median, and the bottom and top edges of the box indicate the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively. The whiskers extend to the most extreme data points not considered outliers, and the outliers are plotted individually using the ‘+’ symbol. Additional noise level 0% 0.50% 1% 2% 5% ------------------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------- Physics -3.00±0.51 -3.06±0.51 -3.25±0.51 -4.22±0.54 -13.18±0.47 Proposed -2.83±0.52 -2.97±0.65 -2.99±0.65 -3.03±0.52 -3.35±1.00 : Mean ± standard deviation (STD) of NMSE within patient body at different noise level among all 20 patients. 0% 0.50% 1% 2% 5% ------------- -- ---------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- Physics -47.31±14.10 -47.33±14.09 -47.40±14.06 -47.67±13.98 -49.18±13.47 Proposed 0.18±3.98 1.81±7.13 1.82±7.10 1.77±7.11 1.68±9.35 Physics [-5.46±1.87]{} [-5.62±1.87]{} [-6.08±1.89]{} [-8.05±2.07]{} [-22.10±1.97]{} Proposed [0.15±1.34]{} [0.74±3.94]{} [0.77±3.93]{} [0.87±4.19]{} [-0.01±4.02]{} Physics [-3.73±1.62]{} [-3.90±1.62]{} [-4.38±1.63]{} [-6.30±1.73]{} [-20.41±1.41]{} Proposed [-1.24±1.00]{} [-0.74±3.84]{} [-0.76±3.83]{} [-0.80±4.00]{} [-0.76±3.90]{} Physics [-3.11±0.19]{} [-3.32±0.19]{} [-3.89±0.19]{} [-5.71±0.19]{} [-20.53±0.18]{} Proposed [2.91±1.33]{} [4.16±4.41]{} [4.18±4.40]{} [4.22±4.38]{} [4.76±4.49]{} Physics [-6.45±1.69]{} [-6.55±1.70]{} [-6.85±1.70]{} [-8.45±1.66]{} [-19.64±1.20]{} Proposed [1.03±2.12]{} [1.51±4.37]{} [1.50±4.36]{} [1.45±4.44]{} [2.02±4.75]{} Physics [-13.66±2.37]{} [-13.92±2.32]{} [-14.73±2.20]{} [-17.14±1.97]{} [-24.54±1.55]{} Proposed -1.71±1.96 -3.53±5.24 -3.55±5.24 -3.63±5.28 -2.61±5.70 \[2\][\]{} Physics 39.51±7.28 39.53±7.28 39.57±7.28 39.68±7.28 40.37±7.33 Proposed 5.04±2.54 9.11±4.19 9.11±4.18 9.07±4.21 10.39±4.57 Physics 1.73±0.48 1.78±0.49 1.93±0.51 2.87±0.62 12.46±0.64 Proposed 2.45±0.97 2.75±1.07 2.77±1.06 2.80±0.92 3.10±1.23 Physics 2.32±0.71 2.36±0.73 2.49±0.76 2.87±0.62 12.46±0.77 Proposed 3.01±0.62 2.84±0.66 2.88±0.68 2.79±0.92 3.18±1.05 Physics 0.15±0.01 0.17±0.02 0.26±0.01 0.75±0.01 10.71±0.01 Proposed 0.12±0.01 0.37±0.51 0.38±0.51 0.38±0.51 0.44±0.60 Physics 3.87±1.15 3.97±1.15 4.27±1.14 5.58±1.01 13.46±0.67 Proposed 2.80±0.56 2.61±0.87 2.60±0.86 2.59±0.77 3.07±1.37 Physics 7.94±1.14 8.13±1.12 8.74±1.07 10.70±0.92 17.14±0.56 Proposed 4.81±0.45 5.58±0.85 5.89±0.86 5.62±0.77 6.30±1.29 : Add caption \[tab:addlabel\] -- -------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- \[2\][\]{} Brainstem Cochlea Esophagus Mandible Oral cavity [Parotid]{} D95% Dmax Dmax Dmax Dmean Dmax Dmean [Dmean]{} Mean 0.074 -0.662 -0.482 0.016 -0.751 -0.046 -0.559 -0.165 ±STD (Gy) ±0.681 ±1.630 ±1.379 ±0.498 ±0.933 ±1.305 ±1.075 [±1.439]{} P-value vs \[1\][\]{}[0.535]{} \[1\][\]{}[0.026]{} \[1\][\]{}[0.156]{} \[1\][\]{}[0.884]{} \[1\][\]{}[0.013]{} \[1\][\]{}[0.893]{} \[1\][\]{}[0.116]{} \[1\][\]{}[0.537]{} ground truth Mean 0.103 0.175 0.741 -0.023 1.173 0.015 0.116 -0.009 ±STD (Gy) ±0.357 ±0.792 ±1.291 ±0.567 ±1.152 ±0.329 ±0.208 [±0.064]{} P-value vs \[1\][\]{}[0.107]{} \[1\][\]{}[0.218]{} \[1\][\]{}[0.037]{} \[1\][\]{}[0.85]{} \[1\][\]{}[0.005]{} \[1\][\]{}[0.859]{} \[1\][\]{}[0.095]{} \[1\][\]{}[0.437]{} ground truth -- -------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- : Mean ± STD of differences of clinically relevant DVH between dose maps calculated on ground truth and predicted RSP maps \[tab:addlabel\] Discussion ========== In this study, we proposed a novel machine-learning based method to predict RSP maps from DECT for proton radiation therapy. As an alternative to the current physics-based method, our proposed method aims to provide accurate RSP values with more resistance to noise. We evaluated the accuracy of predicted RSP maps using our method in the context of head-and-neck cancer patients. The RSP maps showed an average NMSE of 2.83% across the whole body volume, and average ME less than 3% in all VOIs. With additional simulated noise added in DECT datasets, the proposed method still maintained comparable performance, while the physics-based method suffered from degraded inaccuracy with increased noise level. Based on the statistical analysis of comparative DVH metrics of dose maps calculated on ground truth and predicted RSP maps among 19 pencil beam scanning proton treatment plans, we showed that the average differences in DVH metrics for CTVs were less than 0.2 Gy for D95% and Dmax with no statistical significance. Maximum difference in DVH metrics of OARs was around 1 Gy on average. These results strongly indicate the high accuracy of RSP maps predicted by our machine-learning-based method and show potential feasibility for proton treatment planning and dose calculation. In this study, we proposed a method to generate RSP maps by learning from DECT image datasets and its corresponding ground truth RSP. Note that the patients’ true RSP values are unavailable. The ground truth of this study is then assumed by assigning calculated RSP values to manually segmented regions of materials on patient DECT images, where the calculation is based on the known chemical composition. Such material assignment method is used in current proton and photon studies when the required material information is unable to be readily or accurately derived from CT simulation images [@RN1694; @RN1630; @RN1695]. Although the learning target is bulk-assigned RSP maps, the predicted RSP maps is still patient-specific with continuous values, preserved fine image textures and contrasts. Potential error may be caused by the inaccuracy in segmentation and inter- and intra-patient variation in composition, which can be a limitation in the implementation of this study. However, it is worth noting that this study does not aim to evaluate the absolute error of the predicted RSP from patients’ true RSP values which are unavailable. Instead, we demonstrate the performance of the proposed method by evaluating its discrepancy of the prediction with its training dataset. Such performance will remain similar level when the training dataset is selected differently. With the prediction performance maintained, a better knowledge of RSP in training stage, such as more and finer types of materials segmented and assigned on a patient, differentiation of same type of tissue among diverse demographics [@RN1702], or estimation from animal tissue models [@RN1701; @RN1700], will directly lead the predicted results to be closer to physical reality. Machine-learning based methods are relatively new for DECT RSP map prediction. Only a few existing studies relied on patient data, rather than phantom data. The RSP prediction accuracy by our method is competitive to others. Su et al investigated the performance of historical centroid, random forest, and artificial neutral networks in solving this problem. Models were trained on tissue substitutes and tested on patient data. Results showed MEs were around 5% for all VOIs in the abdominal region when compared with calculated RSP values as ground truth. Our study moved a step further in integrating a deep attention strategy and Cycle-GAN into the mapping from DECT to RSP, directly training on patient datasets, and demonstrating the dosimetric feasibility. In this study, we used Twin-beam scanner for DECT acquisition. Note that the proposed method does not specify the scan scheme, thus it is applicable to other DECT modalities. We presented it in the context of TBCT in order to demonstrate the noise robustness of the proposed method. TBCT has inferior energy separation than other DECT modalities, which leads to a higher sensitivity to artifacts and noise on DECT image datasets [@RN1693]. It can be a potential reason that the results by physics-based method demonstrated larger error and higher noise level than previously reported [@RN1624] where DECT images were acquired by two sequential scans at two different energy levels, which have a larger separation between the two energy spectra than the Twin-beam scan scheme used in this study. However, TBCT has unique advantages over other DECT modalities for radiation therapy simulation in good temporal coherence, full field-of-view, and low hardware complexity and cost. Thus, our method overcomes the drawback of TBCT in RSP map generation by its insensitivity to noise, thus facilitating the clinical use of TBCT in radiation therapy workflow. In the present study, we found that the dose difference in column (3) of Fig. 6 mostly happened at the distal end of the beam. It is consistent with current studies about range uncertainties of proton beams caused by the error in RSP maps [@RN1695]. The overestimation in dose could be resulted from the underestimation of muscle RSP with less compensation from the overestimation of adipose RSP. Future study could include investigations in determining the range deviations to the ground truth from the systematic prediction error on each material. Computational cost for training a model is a challenge for deep learning-based methods. We implemented the proposed algorithm with Python 3.7 and TensorFlow as in-house software on a NVIDIA Tesla V100 GPU with 32GB of memory. Adam gradient optimizer with learning rate of 2e-4 was used for optimization. In the present study, the training stage requires 30 GB and 16 hours for the training datasets of 19 patients, and 2 minutes for each patient in testing stage. In this study, we limited our study to the head-and-neck region. Head-and-neck patients feature high anatomical complexity and variability between patients. The tumor shape, size, and location can vary greatly for different patients, and it is common to see the tumor changing the exterior body shape, which is challenging for learning-based method. Future studies should involve a comprehensive evaluation with a larger population of patients with diverse anatomical abnormalities to further reduce bias during the model training. Different testing and training datasets from different institutes would also be valuable to evaluate the clinical utility of our method. Moreover, the proposed method can be applied to other treatment sites of clinical importance for proton therapy, which would be of great interest for expanding this work to the clinic. Conclusion ========== We proposed a novel machine-learning based method to predict RSP maps from DECT for proton radiation therapy. This work demonstrates a novel machine-learning based method, which integrated a residual attention architecture into Cycle-GAN, to effectively capture the relationship between the DECT and RSP maps for proton radiation therapy. The predicted RSP using the proposed method achieves high accuracy for proton dose calculation. This research is supported in part by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01CA215718, and Emory Winship Pilot Grant. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| A contribution linear in $r$ to the gravitational potential can be created by a suitable conformal duality transformation: the conformal factor is $1/(1+r)^2$ and $r$ will be replaced by $r/(1+r)$, where $r$ is the Schwarzschild radial coordinate. Thus, every spherically symmetric solution of conformal Weyl gravity is conformally related to an Einstein space. This result finally resolves a long controversy about this topic. As a byproduct, we present an example of a spherically symmetric Einstein space which is a limit of a sequence of Schwarzschild–de Sitter space-times but which fails to be expressable in Schwarzschild coordinates. This example also resolves a long controversy. author: - \| Hans - Jürgen Schmidt$^{1} $[^1]\ [$^1$[Institut für Mathematik, Universität Potsdam]{}]{}\ [[PF 601553, D-14415 Potsdam, Germany]{}]{}\ [[and]{}]{}\ [[Institut für Theoretische Physik, Freie Universität Berlin,]{}]{}\ [[Arnimallee 14, D-14195 Berlin, Germany]{}]{}\ title: 'A new conformal duality of spherically symmetric space–times' --- Keyword(s): Alternative Theories of Gravity, Conformal invariance, spherical symmetry, Schwarzschild coordinates, Einstein spaces. Introduction ============ From the Lagrangian L = C\_[ijkl]{}C\^[ijkl]{} where $C^i_{\, \, jkl} $ is the conformally invariant Weyl tensor one gets the Bach tensor \[1\] B\_[ij]{} = 2 C\^[k l]{}\_[ ij ;lk]{} + C\^[k l]{}\_[ ij ]{} R\_[lk]{} Recently, the solutions of the Bach equation $B_{ij}=0$, i.e., the vacuum solutions of conformal Weyl gravity, enjoyed a renewed interest because in the static spherically symmetric case one gets a term linear in $r$, (cf. \[2\] for a deduction and for the motivation): ds\^2 = - A(r) dt\^2 + + r\^2 d\^2 with A(r) = 1-3 - + r - k r\^2 Further dicussion of this solution can be found in \[3\]. In \[4\], the viability of the term $\gamma r $ is doubted, whereas in \[2,3\] just this part of the potential played the main role.[^2] A solution of the Bach equation is called trivial if it is conformally related to an Einstein space, i.e. to a vacuum solution of the Einstein equation with arbitrary $\Lambda$ \[5\]. So our question reads: Do non-trivial spherically symmetric solutions of the Bach equation exist? Up to now, contradicting answers have been given: Metric (3) with (4) is an Einstein space for $\gamma = 0$ only, so it seems to be a non-trivial solution for $\gamma \ne 0$, whereas in \[5\] (cf. also \[6\] for earlier references) it is stated that only trivial spherically symmetric solutions of the Bach equation exist. It is the aim of the present paper to clarify this contradiction by introducing a new type of conformal duality within spherically symmetric space-times.[^3] The result will be that the value of $\gamma$ in eq. (4) can be made vanish by a conformal transformation. Then the question whether this linear term is physically measurable or not depends on the question in which of these two conformal frames the non-conformal matter lives. As a byproduct of this discussion we will present a new view to the question (see the different statements to this question in \[9-12\]) under which circumstances a spherically symmetric Einstein space can be expressed in Schwarzschild coordinates. The paper is organized as follows: In sct. 2 we will deduce the new duality transformation, in sct. 3 we apply this transformation to the solution eq. (3,4), and in sct. 4 we look especially to those solutions where Schwarzschild coordinates do not apply. A new conformal duality transformation ====================================== The general static spherically symmetric metric can be written as ds\^2 = - A(r) dt\^2 + B(r) dr\^2 + C(r) d\^2 where $d\Omega^2 = d\psi^2 + \sin^2 \psi d\phi^2$ is the metric of the standard 2-sphere. The functions $A$, $B$ and $C$ have to be positive. The main simplification for solving the Bach equation for metric (5) was done in \[2\] as follows: The two possible gauge degrees of freedom (a redefinition of the radial coordinate $r$ and the conformal invariance of the Bach equation) can be used to get $r$ as Schwarzschild coordinate, i.e., $C(r)=r^2$, and $A(r) \cdot B(r) = 1$, i.e., one starts from the metric (3). The case when Schwarzschild coordinates do not apply will be discussed in sct. 4, here we concentrate on the following question: Do there exist conformal transformations of metric (3) which keep that metric form-invariant? Of course, if $r$, $ds$, and $t$ are multiplied by the same non-vanishing constant $\alpha$, and the function $A$ will be redefined accordingly, then metric (3) remains form-invariant. This conformal transformation with a constant conformal factor is called a homothetic transformation, and it will not be considered essential. Likewise, the transformation $r \longrightarrow -r$ not changing the form of the metric (3) will not be considered essential. Example: Let $A(r)=1-\frac{2m}{r}$, i.e., the Schwarzschild solution with mass parameter $m$. Let $\hat r = \alpha \ r$, $d \hat s^2 = \alpha^2 \ ds^2$, then $d \hat s^2$ represents the Schwarzschild solution with mass parameter $\hat m = \alpha \ m$.[^4] One should expect that further conformal transformations do not exist because we already applied the conformal degree of freedom to reach the form (3) from the form (5). This expectation shall be tested in the following: Let $b(r)$ be any non–constant function, and let the conformally transformed metric be $d\tilde s^2 \ = \ b^2(r) \ ds^2$. With eq. (3) this reads d s\^2 = - b\^2(r) A(r) dt\^2 + + b\^2(r) r\^2 d\^2 Next, we have to assume that $b(r) \cdot r$ is not a constant, and then we can introduce $\tilde r =b(r) \cdot r$ as new Schwarzschild radial coordinate for metric (6). We get = b(r) + r Form-invariance in the 00-component means that A(r) = b\^2(r) A(r) and form-invariance in the 11-component implies = Eqs. (8) and (9) together imply = b\^2(r) If the lower sign appears we shall apply the transformation $r \longrightarrow -r$ to get the upper sign. So we get without loss of generality from eqs. (10) and (7) b\^2(r) = b(r) + r The non-constant solutions of eq. (11) are b(r) = with a non-vanishing constant $\alpha$. The assumption that $b(r) \cdot r$ is not a constant is always fulfilled. We get r = which is valid for $1+\alpha r \ne 0$ and can be inverted to r = where $\tilde \alpha = - \alpha $. Eqs. (13) and (14) are dual to each other: Exchange of tilted and untilted quantities changes the one of them to the other. A likewise duality can be found for eq. (8) because of b (r) b(r) 1 and for eq. (12). Factorizing out a suitable homothetic transformation we can restrict to the case $\alpha = 1$. Further, we restrict to the case that the denominator of eq. (13) is positive. Let us summarize this restricted case as follows: Let $A(r)$ be any positive function, let $b(r) = 1/(1+ \alpha r)$ with $\alpha = 1$ and let $$ds^2 \quad = \quad - A(r) dt^2 \ + \ \frac{dr^2}{A(r)} \ + \ r^2 d\Omega^2$$ Then the tilde-operator defined by $\tilde \alpha = - \alpha$, $\tilde A(\tilde r) = b^2(r) A(r)$, $$\tilde r \quad = \quad \frac{r}{1+\alpha r}$$ and $$d\tilde s^2 \ = \ b^2(r) \ ds^2$$ represents a duality, i.e., the square of the tilde-operator is the identity operator. Spherical symmetry and the Bach equation ======================================== Let us apply the duality from sct. 2 to the Schwarzschild–de Sitter solution, i.e., to metric (3) with A(r) = 1 - - r\^2 That means, we have to insert eq. (16) into eqs. (6, 12, 14). Finally, we remove all the tildes, and we arrive at a metric which exactly coincides with eqs. (3,4): There is a one-to-one correspondence between the three parameters $m$, $\Lambda$, $\alpha$ on the one hand, and $\beta$, $\gamma$, $k$ on the other hand. Here is the main result of the present paper: The Mannheim-Kazanas \[2\]-solution given by eqs. (3,4) of the Bach equation is nothing but a conformally transformed Schwarzschild-de Sitter metric; the 3-parameter set of solutions (3,4) can be found by the conformal duality deduced in sct. 2. It should be mentioned that the set of solutions of the full non-linear field equation is really only 3-dimensional, and that this is in contrast to the linearized equation which allows all linear combinations of 1, $r$, $1/r$, and $r^2$, i.e., a 4-dimensional set. Up to now we had assumed that the metric is static and spherically symmetric. However, also the Bach equation allows to prove a Birkhoff-like theorem \[6, 13\]: Every spherically symmetric solution is conformally related to a solution possessing a fourth isometry.[^5] Another version of this result reads: Every spherically symmetric solution is almost everywhere conformally related to an Einstein space. Furthermore, the necessary conformal factor can always be chosen such that it maintains the spherical symmetry. Why we need the restriction “almost everywhere” in the second version? This applies to those points where the necessary conformal transformation becomes singular. Example: Take $u=1/r$ as new coordinate in the Schwarzschild solution and apply an analytic conformal transformation such that the metric can be analytically continued to negative values $u$ via a regular point $u=0$; by construction, this space-time solves the Bach equation, but at $u=0$ it fails to be conformally related to an Einstein space. Applicability of Schwarzschild coordinates ========================================== To complete the discussion we want to give also those spherically symmetric solutions of the Bach equation which cannot be expressed in Schwarzschild coordinates. Before we do so, let us compare with the analogous situation in Einstein’s theory. It has a long tradition to assume, see e.g. \[9\], that every static spherically symmetric line element can be expressed in Schwarzschild coordinates, i.e., that in metric (5), $C(r) = r^2$ can be achieved by a coordinate transformation. However, the topic is a little bit more involved:[^6] Let us take a special example of the Schwarzschild-de Sitter metric: We insert $m=l/3 > 0 $ and $\Lambda = 1/l^2$ into eqs. (3,16). For any positive constant $\varepsilon$ we apply the following coordinate transformations r = l + x, t = l\^2 / and get ds\^2 = - l\^4 D d\^2 + + (l+x)\^2 d\^2 with D = \[1 - - \] Developing this $D$ in a series in $\varepsilon $ it turns out that it is regular at $\varepsilon =0$ and there its value reads $D=-x^2/l^2$. Therefore: Eq. (18) represents a one-parameter family of space-times analytic in the parameter $\varepsilon$, and for every $\varepsilon > 0$ it represents a spherically symmetric solution of the Einstein equation with $\Lambda = 1/l^2$. From continuity reasons, it represents a solution also for $\varepsilon = 0$. We get ds\^2 = l\^2\[- + x\^2 d\^2 + d\^2\] which represents a spherically symmetric Einstein space which cannot be written in Schwarzschild coordinates. (It should be noted that in these coordinates, $x$ is timelike and $\tau$ is space-like.) The deduction of this solution presented here seems to be new. Nevertheless, it is already known, but usually it is not listed within the set of spherically symmetric Einstein spaces: In \[11\] it is listed in table 10.1. under the topic “$G_6$ with $\Lambda$-term”. In fact, metric (20) represents the cartesian product of two 2-spaces of constant and equal curvature, cf. \[12\]. Therefore, it is also a static metric and possesses a 6-dimensional isometry group. A fortiori, metric (20) represents also a static spherically symmetric solution of the Bach equation, and this solution is not listed in refs. \[2,3\]. Further, let us mention that the cartesian product of two 2-spaces of constant curvature $P$ and $Q$ resp. represents an Einstein space iff $P=Q$, and it represents a solution of the Bach equation iff $P^2 = Q^2$. Thus, for $P=-Q \ne 0$ we get another static spherically symmetric solution of the Bach equation which cannot be expressed in Schwarzschild coordinates; however, it is conformally flat and therefore trivial, too. Finally, we want to stress that the above consideration only dealt with vacuum solutions of conformal Weyl gravity; of course, the inclusion of non-conformal matter requests to fix one of the conformal frames, and it has to be discussed yet whether this shall be the Schwarzschild-de Sitter or in the Mannheim-Kazanas frame. The result of the present paper is that both solutions are conformally related, and that no further spherically symmetric solutions of the Bach equation exist. Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered} =============== Financial support from DFG is gratefully acknowledged. I thank the colleagues of Free University Berlin, where this work has been done, especially Prof. H. Kleinert, for valuable comments. References {#references .unnumbered} ========== \[1\] R. Bach, Math. Zeitschr. [9]{} (1921) 110; H. Weyl, Sitzber. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. Berlin, Phys.-Math. Kl. (1918) 465. \[2\] P. Mannheim, D. Kazanas, Gen. Relat. Grav. [26]{} (1994) 337; P. Mannheim, D. Kazanas, Phys. Rev. D [44]{} (1991) 417; P. Mannheim, Phys. Rev. D [58]{} (1998) 103511; N. Spyrou, D. Kazanas, E. Esteban, Class. Quant. Grav. [14]{} (1997) 2663. \[3\] A. Edery, M. Paranjape, Phys. Rev. D [58]{} (1998) 024011; A. Edery, M. Paranjape, Gen. Relat. Grav. [31]{} (1999) in print. \[4\] J. Demaret, L. Querella, C. Scheen, Class. Quant. Grav. [16]{} (1999) 749. \[5\] H.-J. Schmidt, Ann. Phys. (Leipz.) [41]{} (1984) 435. \[6\] R. Schimming, p. 39 in: M. Rainer, H.-J. Schmidt (Eds.) Current topics in mathematical cosmology, WSPC Singapore 1998. \[7\] H.-J. Schmidt, gr-qc/9703002; Gen. Relat. Grav. [29]{} (1997) 859. \[8\] V. Faraoni, E. Gunzig, P. Nardone: Conformal transformations in classical gravitational theories and in cosmology, gr-qc/9811047, Fund. Cosmic Physics, to appear 1999. \[9\] M. v. Laue, Sitzber. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. Berlin, Phys.-Math. Kl. (1923) 27. \[10\] C. Misner, K. Thorne, J. Wheeler: Gravitation, Freeman, San Francisco 1973. \[11\] D. Kramer, H. Stephani, M. MacCallum, E. Herlt: Exact solutions of Einstein’s field equations, Verl. d. Wiss. Berlin 1980. \[12\] M. Katanaev, T. Klösch, W. Kummer: Global properties of warped solutions in General Relativity, gr-qc/9807079. \[13\] H.-J. Schmidt, Grav. and Cosmol. [3]{} (1997) 185; gr-qc/9709071. [^1]: http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/\~hjschmi e-mail: [email protected] [^2]: From dimensional analysis one can deduce the powers of $r$ in three different ways as follows: a) In the Newtonian limit (i.e. $\Delta$ is the flat-space Laplacian) one gets from the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian $L_{EH}$ via $\Delta \varphi =0$ the two spherically symmetric solutions $\varphi = 1$ and $\varphi = 1/r$; and from $L$ eq. (1) via $\Delta \Delta \varphi =0$ one gets additionally $\varphi = r$ and $\varphi = r^2$ (and, of course, all the linear combinations.) $\varphi = 1$ gives flat space, and $\varphi = r^2$ corresponds to the de Sitter space-time, so the essential terms are $1/r$ for $L_{EH}$ and $r$ for $L$. b) $L$ and $L_{EH}$ differ by a factor $<length>^2$, so this should be the case for the potentials, too. c) Similarly one gets this as heuristic argument by calculating the Greens functions in momentum space. [^3]: It will be a duality different from that one introduced in \[7\], cf. \[8\] for a review on conformal transformations between fourth-order theories of gravity. [^4]: This applies also to negative values $\alpha$. [^5]: This fourth isometry may be time-like or space-like, and we have a regular horizon at surfaces where this character changes, so this is exactly analogous to the situation in Einstein’s theory. [^6]: In \[10\], sct. 23.2., page 595 one reads: “For a more rigorous proof that in any static spherical system Schwarzschild coordinates can be introduced, see Box 23.3.”. But that Box 23.3. at page 617 does not only give this proof, but also the necessary assumption: “ …such a transformation is possible, (i.e. nonsingular) only where $(\nabla r)^2 \ne 0$.” Later in the book (page 843) one can find the sentence: “The special case $(\nabla r)^2 = 0$ is treated in exercise 32.1.” and 3 pages later “We thank G.F.R. Ellis for pointing out the omission of the case $(\nabla r)^2 = 0$ in the preliminary version of this book.” Gaussian coordinates for metric (5), i.e., $B \equiv 1$, can always be chosen by a redefinition of $r$, but Schwarzschild coordinates can be introduced only in regions where $dC/dr \ne 0$. On the other hand, the Schwarzschild radius comes out after one integration which has the result that usually, the order of the field equation will be reduced by one if expressed in Schwarzschild coordinates. This latter property is the very reason for the usefulness of them.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| Online Analytical Processing (OLAP) comprises tools and algorithms that allow querying multidimensional databases. It is based on the multidimensional model, where data can be seen as a cube such that each cell contains one or more measures that can be aggregated along dimensions. In a “Big Data” scenario, traditional data warehousing and OLAP operations are clearly not sufficient to address current data analysis requirements, for example, social network analysis. Furthermore, OLAP operations and models can expand the possibilities of graph analysis beyond the traditional graph-based computation. Nevertheless, there is not much work on the problem of taking OLAP analysis to the graph data model. This paper proposes a formal multidimensional model for graph analysis, that considers the basic graph data, and also background information in the form of dimension hierarchies. The graphs in this model are node- and edge-labelled directed multi-hypergraphs, called graphoids, which can be defined at several different levels of granularity using the dimensions associated with them. Operations analogous to the ones used in typical OLAP over cubes are defined over graphoids. The paper presents a formal definition of the graphoid model for OLAP, proves that the typical OLAP operations on cubes can be expressed over the graphoid model, and shows that the classic data cube model is a particular case of the graphoid data model. Finally, a case study supports the claim that, for many kinds of OLAP-like analysis on graphs, the graphoid model works better than the typical relational OLAP alternative, and for the classic OLAP queries, it remains competitive. author: - 'Leticia Gómez${}^1$, Bart Kuijpers${}^2$, Alejandro Vaisman${}^3$' title: 'Online Analytical Processsing on Graph Data[^1]' --- [Keywords]{}: OLAP, Data Warehousing, Graph Database, Big Data, Graph Aggregation Introduction {#sec:introduction} ============ Online Analytical Processing(OLAP) [@Kimball1996; @VZ14] comprises tools and algorithms that allow querying multidimensional (MD) databases. In these databases, data are modelled as [data cubes]{}, where each cell contains one or more measures of interest, that quantify facts. Measure values can be aggregated along dimensions, organized as sets of hierarchies. Traditional OLAP operations are used to manipulate the data cube, for example: aggregation and disaggregation of measure data along the dimensions; selection of a portion of the cube; or projection of the data cube over a subset of its dimensions. The cube is computed after a process called ETL, an acronym for Extract, Transform, and Load, which requires a complex and expensive load of work to carry data from the sources to the MD database, typically a data warehouse (DW). Although OLAP has been used for social network analysis [@KraiemFKRT15; @RehmanWS13], in a “Big Data” scenario, further requirements appear [@OLAPonBigData]. In the classic paper by Cohen et al. [@CohenDDHW09], the so-called MAD skills (standing from Magnetic, Agile and Deep) required for data analytics are described. In this scenario, more complex analysis tools are required, that go beyond classic OLAP [@DBLP:conf/sigmod/TangHYDZ17]. Graphs, and, particularly, property graphs [@Hartig14; @Robinson13], are becoming increasingly popular to model different kinds of networks (for instance, social networks, sensor networks, and the kind). Property graphs underlie the most popular graph databases [@Angles2012]. Examples of graph databases and graph processing frameworks following this model are Neo4j[^2], Janusgraph[^3] (previously called Titan), and GraphFrames[^4]. In addition to traditional graph analytics, it is also interesting for the data scientist to have the possibility of performing OLAP on graphs. From the discussion above, it follows that, on the one hand, traditional data warehousing and OLAP operations on cubes are clearly not sufficient to address the current data analysis requirements; on the other hand, OLAP operations and models can expand the possibilities of graph analysis beyond the traditional graph-based computation, like shortest-path, centrality analysis and so on. In spite of the above, not many proposals have been presented in this sense so far. In addition, most of the existing work addresses homogeneous graphs (that is, graphs where all nodes are of the same type), where the measure of interest is related to the OLAP analysis on the graph topology [@graphOLAP; @Wang2014; @graphCube]. Further, existing works only address graphs with binary relationships (see Section \[sec:related\] for an in-depth discussion on these issues). However, real-world graphs are complex and often heterogeneous, where nodes and edges can be of different types, and relating different numbers of entities. This paper proposes a MD data model for graph analysis, that considers not only the basic graph data, but background information in the form of dimension hierarchies as well. The graphs in this model are node- and edge-labelled directed multi-hypergraphs, called graphoids. In essence, these can be denoted “property hypergraphs”. A graphoid can be defined at several different levels of granularity, using the dimensions associated with them. For this, the [Climb]{} operation is available. Over this model, operations like the ones used in typical OLAP on cubes are defined, namely [Roll-Up]{}, [Drill-Down]{}, [Slice]{}, and [Dice]{}, as well as other operations for graphoid manipulation, e.g., [n-delete]{} (which deletes nodes). The hypergraph model allows a natural representation of facts with different dimensions, since hyperedges can connect a variable number of nodes of different types. A typical example is the analysis of phone calls, the running example that will be used throughout this paper. Here, not only point-to-point calls between two partners can be represented, but also “group calls” between any number of participants. In classic OLAP [@Kimball1996], a group call must be represented by means of a fact table containing a fixed number of columns (e.g., caller, callee, and the corresponding measures). Therefore, when the OLAP analysis for telecommunication information concerns point-to-point calls between two partners, the relational representation (denoted ROLAP) works fine, but when this is not the case, modelling and querying issues appear, which calls for a more natural representation, closer to the original data format. And here is where the hypergraph model comes to the rescue [@GomezKV17]. In summary, the main contributions of the paper are: 1. A graph data model based on the notion of graphoids; 2. The definition of a collection of OLAP operations over these graphoids; 3. A proof that the classical OLAP operations on cubes can be simulated by the OLAP operations defined in the graphoid model and, therefore, that these graphoid-based operations are at least as powerful as the classical OLAP operations on cubes; 4. A case study and a series of experiments, that give the intuition of a class of problems where the graphoid model works clearly better than relational OLAP, whereas for classic OLAP queries, the graph representation is still competitive with the relational alternative. In addition to the above, of course all the classic analysis tools from graph theory are supported by the model, although this topic is beyond the scope of this paper. This paper does not claim that the graphoid model is always more appropriate than the classic relational OLAP representation. Instead, the proposal aims at showing that when a more flexible model is needed, where n-ary relationships between instances are present (and n is variable), the model allows not only for a more natural representation, but also can deliver better performance for some critical queries. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section \[sec:related\] discusses related work. Section \[sec:datamodel\] presents the graphoid data model. Section \[sec:olap-operations\] presents the OLAP operations on graphoids, while Section \[sec:classical-olap\] shows that the graphoid OLAP operations capture the classic OLAP operations on cubes. Section \[sec:casestudy\] discusses a case study and presents an experimental analysis. Section \[sec:conclu\] concludes the paper. Related Work {#sec:related} ============ The model described in the next sections is based on the notion of property graphs [@AnglesABHRV17]. In this model, nodes and edges (hyperdeges, as will be explained later) are labelled with a sequence of attribute-value pairs. It will be assumed that the values of the attributes represent members of dimension levels (i.e., each attribute value is an element in the domain of a dimension level), and thus nodes and edges can be aggregated, provided that an attribute hierarchy is defined over those dimensions. Property graphs are the usual choice in modern graph database models used in practical implementations. Attributes are included in nodes and edges mainly aimed at improving the speed of retrieval of the data directly related to a given node. Here, these attributes are also used to perform OLAP operations. A key difference between existing works, and the proposal introduced in this paper, is that the latter supports the notion of OLAP hypergraphs, highly expanding the possibilities of analysis. This way, instead of binary relationships between nodes, there are n-ary, probably duplicated relationships, which are typical in Data Warehousing and OLAP. Further, supporting n-ary relationships allows naturally modelling OLAP situations where different facts have a different number of relations, like in the group calls case commented in Section \[sec:introduction\], and studied in Section \[sec:casestudy\]. In other words, the model handles multi-hypergraphs. Also, the paper works over the classic OLAP operations, and formally defines their meaning in a graph context. This approach allows an OLAP user to work with the notion of a data cube at the conceptual level [@VZ14], regardless the kind of underlying data (in this case, graphs), defining OLAP operations in terms of cubes and dimensions rather than in terms of nodes and edges. Finally, the authors have shown the usefulness of this proposal in different scenarios, like trajectory analysis [@GKV19] and typical OLAP analysis on social networks [@VBV19]. Data Model {#sec:datamodel} ========== This section presents the graphoid OLAP data model. First, background dimensions are formally defined, along the lines of the classic OLAP literature. Then, the (hyper)graph data model is introduced. Hierarchies and Dimensions {#subsec:instances} -------------------------- The notions of dimension schema and dimension graph (or dimension instance) that will be used throughout the paper, are introduced first. These concepts are needed to make the paper self-contained, and to understand the examples. The reader is referred to [@KV17] for full details of the underlying OLAP data model. \[def:dimension-schema\] Let $D$ be a name for a dimension. A dimension schema $\sigma(D)$ for $D$ is a lattice (a partial order), with a unique top-node, called $All$ (which has only incoming edges) and a unique bottom-node, called $Bottom$ (which has only outgoing edges), such that all maximal-length paths in the graph go from $Bottom$ to $All$. Any path from $Bottom$ to $All$ in a dimension schema $\sigma(D)$ is called a hierarchy of $\sigma(D)$. Each node in a hierarchy (that is, in a dimension schema) is called a level of $\sigma(D)$. The running example used throughout this paper analyses calls between customers, which belong to different companies. For this, as background (contextual) information for the graph data representing calls (to be explained later), there is a Phone dimension, with levels Phone (representing the phone number), Customer, City, Country, and Operator. There is also a Time dimension, with levels Date, Month, and Year. The following examples explain this in detail. \[ex:dimension-schema\] Figure \[fig:dimension-schema\] depicts the dimension schemas $\sigma(Phone)$ and $\sigma(Time),$ for the dimensions $\mbox{Phone}$ and $\mbox{Time}$, respectively. In addition, there is also a dimension denoted $\mbox{Id}$, representing identifiers, that will be explained later. In the dimension $\mbox{Phone}$, it holds that $Bottom=\mbox{Phone}$, and there are two hierarchies denoted, respectively, as $$\mbox{Phone} \rightarrow \mbox{Customer} \rightarrow \mbox{City} \rightarrow \mbox{Country}\rightarrow All,$$ and $$\mbox{Phone}\rightarrow \mbox{Operator} \rightarrow All.$$ The node $\mbox{Customer}$ is an example of a level in the first of the above hierarchies. For the dimension $\mbox{Time}$, $Bottom=\mbox{Day}$ holds, as well as the hierarchy $\mbox{Day} \rightarrow \mbox{Month} \rightarrow \mbox{Year}\rightarrow All$. ![Dimension schemas for the dimensions $\mbox{Time}$ ($a$), $\mbox{Phone}$ ($b$), and $\mbox{Id}$ (identifier) ($c$).[]{data-label="fig:dimension-schema"}](dimension-hierarchy.pdf) \[def:instanceGraph\] Let $D$ be a dimension with schema $\sigma(D)$, and let $\ell$ be a level in $\sigma(D)$. A level instance of $\ell$ is a non-empty, finite set $dom(D.\ell)$. If $\ell=All$, then $dom(D.All)$ is the singleton $\{all\}$. If $\ell=Bottom$, then $dom(D.Bottom)$ is the domain of the dimension $D$, that is, $dom(D)$. A dimension graph (or instance) $I(\sigma(D))$ the dimension schema $\sigma(D)$ is a directed acyclic graph with node set $$\bigcup_{\ell} dom(D.\ell),$$ where the union is taken over all levels in $\sigma(D)$. The edge set of this directed acyclic graph is defined as follows. Let $\ell$ and $\ell'$ be two levels of $\sigma(D)$, and let $a\in dom(D.\ell)$ and $a'\in dom(D.\ell')$. If $H$ is a hierarchy in $\sigma(D)$, then the hierarchy instance (relative to the dimension instance $I(\sigma(D))$) is the subgraph of $I(\sigma(D))$ with nodes from $dom(D.\ell)$, for $\ell$ appearing in $H$. This subgraph is denoted $I_H(\sigma(D))$. A hierarchy instance $I_H(\sigma(D))$ is always a (directed) tree, since a hierarchy is a linear lattice. The following terminology is used. If $a$ and $b$ are two nodes in a hierarchy instance $I_H(\sigma(D))$, such that $(a,b)$ is in the transitive closure of the edge relation of $I_H(\sigma(D))$, then it is said that $a$ rolls-up to $b$, and denoted by $\rho_H(a,b)$ (or $\rho(a,b)$ if $H$ is clear from the context). Example \[ex:instanceGraph\] illustrates these concepts. \[ex:instanceGraph\] Consider dimension $\mbox{Phone}$ whose schema $\sigma(Phone)$ is given in Figure \[fig:dimension-schema\] ($b$). Associated with this schema, there is an instance where $dom(Phone)= {\allowbreak}dom(Phone.Bottom) = {\allowbreak}dom(Phone.Phone)=$ $ \{Ph_1, Ph_2, $ $ Ph_3, Ph_4, Ph_5\}$. Also, at the $\mbox{Operator}$ level, $dom(Phone.Operator)={\allowbreak}\{ATT,$ $Movistar, \ {\allowbreak}Vodafone\}$. This dimension instance $I(\sigma(Phone))$ is depicted in Figure \[fig:dimension-instance\], which shows, e.g., that phone lines $Ph_2$ and $\ Ph_4$ correspond to the operator $Vodafone$. ![An example of a dimension instance $I(\sigma(Phone))$ for the dimension $Phone$.[]{data-label="fig:dimension-instance"}](phone-instance.pdf) In what follows, “sound” dimension graphs are assumed. In thses graphs, rolling-up from the $Bottom$ level, to the same element along different paths, gives the same result [@KV17], typical in so-called balanced (or homogeneous) dimensions [@VZ14]. The Base Graph and Graphoids {#subsec:graphoids} ---------------------------- As a basic data structure for modelling OLAP on graph data, the concept of graphoid is introduced and defined in this section. A graphoid plays the role of a multi-dimensional cuboid in classical OLAP and it is designed to represent the information of the application domain, at a certain level of granularity. Essentially, a graphoid is a node- and edge-labelled directed multi-hypergraph. In what follows, a collection of dimensions $D_1,..., D_d$ is assumed in the application domain, and their schemas $\sigma(D_1),{\allowbreak}..., {\allowbreak}\sigma(D_d)$ are given. Furthermore, hierarchy instances $I(\sigma(D_1)),{\allowbreak}..., {\allowbreak}I(\sigma(D_d))$ for all dimensions are given. Finally, assume that a special dimension $D_0=\mbox{Id}$ is given, to represent unique identifiers (Figure \[fig:dimension-schema\](c)). The notions of attributes, node types and edge types are defined next. #### Attributes The set of attributes ${{\cal A}}$ that describe the data is defined as ${{\cal A}}=\{D.\ell\mid D\in\{D_0,D_1,..., D_d\}\mbox{ and } {\allowbreak}\ell \mbox{ is a level of } D\}.$ As described in Section \[subsec:instances\], to each attribute $A$ of ${{\cal A}}$, a domain $dom(A)$ is associated, from which the attribute takes values. #### Node types Assume a finite, non-empty set ${{\cal N}}$ of node types. Elements of ${{\cal N}}$ are denoted by a string starting with a hashtag. For example, the node type $\#\mbox{Phone}$ indicates that a node in a graph represents a phone line number. There are also two functions, $ar$ and $dim$ defined on ${{\cal N}}$. For each node type $\#\mbox{n}$ in ${{\cal N}}$, $ar(\#\mbox{n})$ is a natural number, called the arity, that expresses the number of attributes associated with a node of type $\#\mbox{n}$. Also, $dim(\#\mbox{n})$ is an $ar(\#\mbox{n})$-tuple of attributes, which are dimensions defined at the $Bottom$ level, the first of which is the Identifier dimension. This means that $dim(\#\mbox{n})$ is an element of $\{\mbox{Id}\}\times \{D_1,..., D_d\}^{ar(\#\mbox{n})-1}$. The tuple $dim(\#\mbox{n})$ tells which attributes are associated with a node of type $\#\mbox{n}$, without specifying their levels. Finally, assume that $dim(\#\mbox{n})$ contains no repetition, which is the usual case in practice. The identifier dimension is always used at its Bottom level. #### Edge types Assume the existence of a finite, non-empty set ${{\cal E}}$ of edge types, which is disjoint from the set ${{\cal N}}$. Elements of ${{\cal E}}$ will also be denoted by a string starting with a hashtag. For example, the node type $\#\mbox{{\sf Call}}$ indicates that an edge connects nodes that participate in a call. Again, also assume the existence of the functions $ar$ and $dim$ on ${{\cal E}}$. To each edge type $\#\mbox{e}$ in ${{\cal N}}$, $ar(\#\mbox{e})$ is a natural number, called the arity, that expresses the number of attributes associated with an edge of type $\#\mbox{e}$. Also, $dim(\#\mbox{e})$ is an $ar(\#\mbox{e})$-tuple of attributes, which are dimensions (at Bottom-level). This means that $dim(\#\mbox{e})$ is an element of $ \{D_0,D_1,..., D_d\}^{ar(\#\mbox{e})}$. The tuple $dim(\#\mbox{n})$ expresses which attributes are associated with an edge of type $\#\mbox{e}$, without specifying their levels. Finally, assume that $dim(\#\mbox{e})$ contains no repetition. The identifier dimension (at its Bottom level) may appear, but is not required. If the identifier dimension appears, this only occurs once, among the attributes that describe edges of a certain type. It is now possible to define the notion of graphoid. \[def:graphoid\]Let $D_0=\mbox{Id}$ be the identifier dimension. Let dimensions $D_1,..., D_d$ be given with their respective schemas and instances. Let $\ell_1,..., \ell_d$ be levels for these respective dimensions. A $(D_1.\ell_1,..., D_d.\ell_d)$-graphoid (or graphoid, for short, if the levels are clear from the context) is a 6-tuple $G=(N,\tau_N,\lambda_N,$ $E, \tau_E, \lambda_E)$, where - $N$ is a finite, non-empty set, called the set of nodes of $G$; - $\tau_N$ is a function from $N$ to ${{\cal N}}$ (that associates a unique type with each node of $G$); - $\lambda_N$ is a function that maps a node $n\in N$ to a string $[\#\mbox{n}, a_1,..., a_{ar(\#\mbox{n})}]$, where $\#\mbox{n}=\tau_N(n)$ and, if $dim(\#\mbox{n})=(A_1,..., A_{ar(\#\mbox{n})}) $, then, for $i=1,..., ar(\#\mbox{n})$, $a_i\in dom(D_j.\ell_j)$, if $A_i$ is the dimension $D_j$. It is assumed that different $a_1$-values are associated with different nodes, since the first attribute value acts as a node identifier; $\lambda_N$ is denoted the node labelling function; - $E$ is a subbag[^5] of the set ${\cal P}(N)\times {\cal P}(N)$, which we call the set of (multi hyper-)edges of $G$; - $\tau_E$ is a function from $E$ to ${{\cal E}}$ (that associates a unique type to each edge of $G$); and - $\lambda_E$ is a function that maps a hyperedge $e\in E$ to a string $[\#\mbox{e}, {\allowbreak}b_1,{\allowbreak}...,{\allowbreak}b_{ar(\#\mbox{n})}]$, where $\#\mbox{e}=\tau_E(e)$ and, if $dim(\#\mbox{e})=(B_1,..., B_{ar(\#\mbox{n})}) $, then, for $i=1,..., ar(\#\mbox{e})$, $b_i\in dom(D_j.\ell_j)$, if $B_i$ is the dimension $D_j$; $\lambda_E$ is called the edge labelling function. The basic graph data that serves as input data to the graph OLAP process, is called the base graph. A base graph plays the role of a multi-dimensional cube in classical OLAP and is designed to contain all the information of the application domain, at the lowest level of granularity. \[def:basegraph\]Let dimensions $D_1,..., D_d$ be given with their respective schemas and instances. The $(D_1.\mbox{Bottom},...,$ $D_d.\mbox{Bottom})$-graphoid is called the base graph. \[ex:base-graph\] The running example used in this paper is aimed at analysing calls between customers of phone lines; lines correspond to different operators. Examples \[ex:dimension-schema\] and \[ex:instanceGraph\] showed some of the dimensions used as background information. Next, the call information is shown, represented as a graph. The dimension plays the roles of the calling line and the callee lines (this is called a role-playing dimension in the OLAP literature [@VZ14]). The information in the hyperedges reflects the total duration of the calls between two or more phone numbers on a given day. Figure \[fig:fig-phone-as-graph\] shows an example of a base graph, where $N=\{1,2,3,4,5\}$ is the node set. The nodes in this base graph are all of the same type and represent phones (not persons–a person may have more than one phone). In this example, ${{\cal N}}=\{\#\mbox{{\sf Phone}}\}$. The node type $\#\mbox{{\sf Phone}}$ has arity $2$. Its first attribute is a node identifier and the second one is a dimensional attribute that represents the phone number, with domain $\{\mbox{Ph}_1, \mbox{Ph}_2, ...\}$. In the example of Figure \[fig:fig-phone-as-graph\], $$\lambda_N : i\mapsto [\#\mbox{{\sf Phone}},10+i, \mbox{Ph}_i], \mbox{for}~ i=1,...,5.$$ Hyperedges represent phone calls, which most of the time involve two phones, but which may also involve multiple phones, representing so-called “group calls.” So, edges are all of the same type $\#\mbox{{\sf Call}}$ and ${{\cal E}}=\{\#\mbox{{\sf Call}}\}$. In Figure \[fig:fig-phone-as-graph\], a directed hyperedge from a subset $S$ of $N$ to a subset $T$ of $N$ is graphically represented by a coloured node which has incoming arrows (of the same colour) from all elements of $S$ and outgoing arrows (again of the same colour) to all elements of $T$. Such a coloured construction is a depiction of the hyperedge $e=(S,T)$, which will be denoted $S\rightarrow T$ from now on.[^6] For example, the red and purple hyperedges $\{1\}\rightarrow\{2\}$ represent two different phone calls from $\mbox{Ph}_1$ to $\mbox{Ph}_2$, made on the same day and of the same duration. This example explains why the model assumes bags rather than sets. The orange hyperedge $\{3\}\rightarrow\{2,5\}$ represents a group call, from $\mbox{Ph}_3$ to both $\mbox{Ph}_2$ and $\mbox{Ph}_5.$ There are six phone calls shown in the figure. So, $E$ is the bag $\{\!\!\{ \{1\}\rightarrow\{2\}, \{1\}\rightarrow\{2\}, \{4\}\rightarrow\{3\} , \{4\}\rightarrow\{5\}, \{3\}\rightarrow\{2,5\}, \{5\}\rightarrow\{2,3\} \}\!\!\}.$ The edge labelling function $\lambda_E$ associates two attributes, with edges of type $\#\mbox{{\sf Call}}$, namely Date and Duration. Date is a dimensional attribute to which the dimensional hierarchy in Figure \[fig:dimension-schema\] is associated. Duration is a measure attribute (which has as an associated aggregation function, in this case, the summation). ![Basic phone call data as a base graph.[]{data-label="fig:fig-phone-as-graph"}](fig-phone-as-graph.pdf) Note that, although the base graph plays the role of a multi-dimensional cube in classical OLAP (or a fact table in relational OLAP), a key difference is that this cube has a variable number of “axes”, since it can represent facts including a variable number of dimensions. The next example discusses two graphoids whose dimensions are at different levels of granularity. Later it will be explained how these graphoids can be obtained from the base one. \[ex:graphoid\] Continuing with Example \[ex:base-graph\], consider two available dimensions, namely $D_1=\mbox{Time} $ and $D_2=\mbox{Phone}$. A $(\mbox{Time.Day}, {\allowbreak}\mbox{Phone.Operator})$-graphoid based on the base graph of Figure \[fig:fig-phone-as-graph\], is shown in Figure \[fig:fig-phone-RU-company-alternative\]. Here, in the Phone nodes, the phone numbers have been replaced with their corresponding operator name, at the Phone.Operator level in the dimension $\mbox{Phone}$ (e.g., for $\mbox{Ph}_3$, the corresponding operator is Movistar). ![A $(\mbox{Time.Day}, \mbox{Phone.Operator})$-graphoid, based on the data shown in Figure \[fig:fig-phone-as-graph\].[]{data-label="fig:fig-phone-RU-company-alternative"}](fig-phone-RU-company-alternative.pdf) Figure \[fig:fig-phone-RU-company\] shows an alternative $(\mbox{Time.Day}, \mbox{Phone.Operator})$-graphoid for the data from Figure \[fig:fig-phone-as-graph\]. This graphoid has $N=\{1,2,3\}$ as a node set. The nodes with identifiers 12 and 14 represent, respectively, $\mbox{Ph}_2$ and $\mbox{Ph}_4$ in the base graph (and also in the graphoid of Figure \[fig:fig-phone-RU-company-alternative\]), which belong to the operator Vodafone. Thus, these two nodes were collapsed into one (with identifier 12) and similarly, the nodes $\mbox{Ph}_3$ and $\mbox{Ph}_5$ were collapsed into one node (with identifier 13). These operations were possible because these nodes have identical attribute values (apart from the identifier). For the dimension $\mbox{Time}$, all information in Figure \[fig:fig-phone-RU-company\] is at the level of $\mbox{Day}$ and all information for the dimension $\mbox{Phone}$ is at the level of $\mbox{Company}$. These examples show that there can be more than one $(\mbox{Time.Day},{\allowbreak}\mbox{Phone.Operator})$-graphoids “consistent” with the given base graph. Thus, some kind of normalization is needed. This is studied in the next section. ![An alternative $(\mbox{Time.Day}, \mbox{Phone.Operator})$-graphoid, based on the data shown in Figure \[fig:fig-phone-as-graph\].[]{data-label="fig:fig-phone-RU-company"}](fig-phone-RU-company.pdf) \[remark:conceptual\] Nodes are assumed to represent basic objects in the modelled application world. These objects are given by a number of descriptive attributes. Measure information, typically present in an OLAP setting to quantify facts, is, in this philosophy, represented as attributes on the hyperedges. The call duration is an example of a measure that is placed on edges of the type $\mbox{\sf Call}$. However, the above definition also allows for node attributes to be dimensions that contain measure information. Consider a slightly modified situation in which an object of type $\#\mbox{\sf Phone}$ includes an additional attribute that expresses the average (or expected) billing amount for that particular phone number, for example, $[\#\mbox{\sf Phone}, 11, \mbox{Ph}_1, 880]$. In this modified setting, a user may want to compute the average expected billing amount over all phone lines. To answer these kinds of queries, attribute values of certain types of nodes must be averaged (in the example, the $\#\mbox{\sf HasExpectedBill}$ attribute). However, in the model presented here, aggregations are only performed on attribute values of hyperedges. Whenever this problem occurs, the representation can be modified as illustrated in Figure \[fig:fig-edgify\]. On the left-hand side, there is a node that includes the $\#\mbox{\sf HasExpectedBill}$ attribute. On the right-hand side, this attribute is brought to the $All$ level in its dimension and gets the value $all$. The expected billing information is moved to a new edge of type $\#\mbox{\sf HasExpectedBill}$, where it can be subject to aggregation. The above operation is called the edgification of an attribute $A$ in a node of type $\#\mbox{\sf n}$, and it is denoted by $\mbox{\sf Edgify}(\#\mbox{\sf n}, A)$. ![(a) A node with label $[\#\mbox{\sf Phone}, 11, \mbox{Ph}_1, 880]$, where 880 expresses the expected bill. (b) An edgification of this node, where the expected billing information is moved to an edge that is labelled $\#\mbox{\sf HasExpectedBill}$.[]{data-label="fig:fig-edgify"}](fig-edgify.pdf) Minimal graphoids {#subsec:minimal-graphoids} ------------------ In this section, the notion of minimal $(D_1.\ell_1,{\allowbreak}..., {\allowbreak}D_d.\ell_d)$-graphoid is defined. This graphoid is obtained collapsing the nodes that have identical labels (apart from the identifier) in the original graphoid. Let $G=(N,\tau_N,\lambda_N, E, \tau_E, \lambda_E)$ be a $(D_1.\ell_1,..., D_d.\ell_d)$-graphoid. If the nodes $n_1, n_2\in N$ have identical labels, apart from the identifier, denoted $\lambda_N(n_1)=_{\mbox{\tiny Id}}\lambda_N(n_2)$, then these nodes are identified, such that only the one with the smallest identifier is preserved, while the others are deleted. So, if the $\lambda_N$-values of the nodes $n_1,n_2,..., n_k$ pairwise satisfy the $=_{\mbox{\tiny Id}}$-relationship, and $n_1$ has the smallest identifier among them, then the nodes $n_2,..., n_k$ are replaced by $n_1$ and then deleted. The expression $rep_N(n_i)=n_1$, for $i=1,2,..., k$, indicates that $n_1$ represents the nodes $n_1,n_2,..., n_k$ in the minimal graph. All edges leaving from or arriving at the nodes $n_2,..., n_k$ are redirected to $n_1$. For this purpose, the function $rep_N$ is defined on subsets of the node set $N$: if $S\subseteq N$, then $rep_N(S)= \{rep_N(n)\mid n\in S\}$. Now, the notion of minimal graphoid is defined more formally. \[def:minimal-graphoid\]Let $D_0, D_1,..., D_d$ and $\ell_1,..., \ell_d$ be the same as in Definition \[def:graphoid\]. Let $G=(N,\tau_N,\lambda_N, E, \tau_E, \lambda_E)$ be a $(D_1.\ell_1,..., D_d.\ell_d)$-graphoid. The minimal graphoid of $G$ is the $(D_1.\ell_1,..., D_d.\ell_d)$-graphoid $G'=(N',\tau_{N'},\lambda_{N'}, E', \tau_{E'}, \lambda_{E'})$, defined as follows: - $N'$ is the set $rep_N(N)=\{ rep_N(n)\mid n\in N\}$; - $\tau_{N'}$ is a function from $N'$ to ${{\cal N}}$, defined as $\tau_{N'}(rep_N(n)):=\tau_N(rep_N(n))$, for each $n$ in $N$; - $\lambda_{N'}$ is a function on $N'$ defined as $\lambda_{N'}(rep_N(n)):=\lambda_N(rep_N(n))$, for each $n$ in $N$; - $E'$ is a subbag of the set ${\cal P}(N')\times {\cal P}(N')$, defined as follows: for each hyperedge $e=S\rightarrow T$ in $E$, then a new hyperedge $rep_N(e):=rep_N(S)\rightarrow rep_N(T)$ is in $E'$; - $\tau_{E'}$ is a function from $E'$ to ${{\cal E}}$, defined as $\tau_{E'}(rep_N(e)):=\tau_E(e)$, for each $e$ in $E$; - $\lambda_{E'}$ is a function on $E'$ and it is defined as $\lambda_{E'}(rep_N(e)):=\lambda_E(e)$, for each $e$ in $E$. The set $N$ of nodes of $G$ is contracted to the set $N'=rep_N(N)$, therefore each node in $N'$ has the smallest identifier among all nodes that are mapped to $n$ by the $rep_N$-function. For edges, $E'$ is defined as the bag $\{\!\!\{ rep_N(e)\mid e\in E\}\!\!\}$, which means that for each hyperedge in $E$, there is a corresponding hyperedge in $E'$. This means that the cardinalities of the bags $E$ and $E'$ are the same. Proposition \[prop:unique-minimal-graphoid\] immediately follows from Definition \[def:minimal-graphoid\]. \[prop:unique-minimal-graphoid\] For any $(D_1.\ell_1,..., D_d.\ell_d)$-graphoid $G=(N,\tau_N,{\allowbreak}\lambda_N, {\allowbreak}E, {\allowbreak}\tau_E, {\allowbreak}\lambda_E)$, its minimal $(D_1.\ell_1,{\allowbreak}{\allowbreak}..., D_d.\ell_d)$-graphoid always exists and it is unique. \[ex:mingraphoid\] The two $(\mbox{Time.Day},{\allowbreak}\mbox{Phone.Operator})$-graphoids shown in Figures \[fig:fig-phone-RU-company-alternative\] and \[fig:fig-phone-RU-company\] in Example \[ex:graphoid\], correspond to the graph of Figure \[fig:fig-phone-as-graph\]. The graphoid of Figure \[fig:fig-phone-RU-company\] is the minimal graphoid of Figure \[fig:fig-phone-RU-company-alternative\]. In this example, the original nodes $2$ and $4$ are contracted into one node, namely the node $2$ (since it has the smallest identifier of the two). Similarly, the original nodes $3$ and $5$ are contracted into the node $3$. The original node $1$ remains unchanged. Between nodes $1$ and $2$, there are two edges (with the same label) in the original graph. They are copied in the minimal graph. The edges between nodes $4$ and $3$, and $4$ and $5$, respectively, become two edges between the nodes $2$ and $3$ in the minimal graph. The two hyperedges that involve nodes $2$, $3$ and $5$ correspond to two hyperedges between the nodes $2$ and $3$ in the minimal graph. For any $(D_1.\ell_1,..., D_d.\ell_d)$-graphoid $G=(N,\tau_N,\lambda_N, E, \tau_E, \lambda_E)$, the result of the minimisation described in this section is denoted $\mbox{\sf Minimize}(G)$, and called the minimisation of $G$. \[remark:compute-minimal\] It is easy to see that the minimal $(D_1.\ell_1,..., D_d.\ell_d)$-graphoid of a $(D_1.\ell_1,..., D_d.\ell_d)$-graphoid $G=(N,\tau_N,\lambda_N, E, \tau_E, \lambda_E)$ can be computed, in the worst case, in time that is quadratic in $\|N\|$ and linear in $\|E\|$. This can be improved, for instance, with an early pruning of the nodes that will not be contracted. Addressing this issue is beyond the scope of this paper. OLAP Operations on Graphs {#sec:olap-operations} ========================= In this section, the operations that compose the graph-OLAP language over graphoids are defined. Section \[sec:classical-olap\] will show that these operations can simulate the typical OLAP operations on cubes. Climb {#subsec:climb} ----- The $\mbox{\sf Climb}$-operation, intuitively, allows to define graphs at different levels of granularity, based on the background dimensions. \[def:climb\] Assume a $(D_1.\ell_1,..., D_d.\ell_d)$-graphoid $G$ is given as follows: $G=(N,\tau_N,\lambda_N, E, \tau_E, \lambda_E)$. Let $D_k$ be a dimension that appears in $G$, and $\ell_k$ and $\ell'_k$ be levels in the schema $\sigma(D_k)$ of this dimension, such that $\ell_k\rightarrow \ell'_k$. Also, let $\rho_{\ell_k\rightarrow\ell'_k}$ be the corresponding rollup function (at the instance level). Finally, let $\#\mbox{\sf n}$ be a node type that appears in $G$, and $\#\mbox{\sf e}$ be an edge type that appears in $G$. The node-climb-operation of $G$ along the dimension $D_k$ from level $\ell_k$ to level $\ell'_k$ in all nodes of type $\#\mbox{\sf n}$, denoted $\mbox{\sf Climb}(G, \#\mbox{\sf n}, D_k.(\ell_k\rightarrow\ell'_k))$, replaces all attribute values $a$ from $dom(D_k.\ell_k)$ by the value $\rho_{\ell_k\rightarrow\ell'_k}(a)$ from $dom(D_k.\ell'_k)$, in all nodes of $G$ of type $\#\mbox{\sf n}$, leaving $G$ unaltered otherwise. The edge-climb-operation of $G$ along the dimension $D_k$ from level $\ell_k$ to level $\ell'_k$ in all hyperedges of type $\#\mbox{\sf e}$, denoted $\mbox{\sf Climb}(G, \#\mbox{\sf e}, D_k.(\ell_k\rightarrow\ell'_k))$, replaces all attribute values $a$ from $dom(D_k.\ell_k)$ by the value $\rho_{\ell_k\rightarrow\ell'_k}(a)$ from $dom(D_k.\ell'_k)$, in all edges of $G$ of type $\#\mbox{\sf e}$, leaving $G$ unaltered otherwise. \[ex:climb\] Applying to the graphoid $G$ depicted in Figure \[fig:fig-phone-as-graph\] the operation $\mbox{\sf Climb}(G, \#\mbox{\sf Phone}, \mbox{Phone}.(\mbox{Phone}\rightarrow \mbox{Operator}))$, results in the graphoid shown inFigure \[fig:fig-phone-RU-company-alternative\]. \[remark:climb\] If a dimension $D_k$ appears in multiple node types and edge types, to apply the $\mbox{\sf Climb}$-operation on many of them, the shorthand expression $\mbox{\sf Climb}(G, \{\#\mbox{\sf n}_1, {\allowbreak}...,{\allowbreak}\#\mbox{\sf n}_r, {\allowbreak}\#\mbox{\sf e}_1,{\allowbreak}..., {\allowbreak}\#\mbox{\sf e}_s\}, {\allowbreak}D_k.(\ell_k\rightarrow\ell'_k))$ can be used. Finally, $\mbox{\sf Climb}(G, \ast , D_k.(\ell_k\rightarrow\ell'_k))$ denotes a climbing, in the dimension $D_k$, from level $\ell_k$ to level $\ell'_k$ in all possible node and edge types. Grouping {#subsec:grouping} -------- The $\mbox{\sf Group}$-operation, both on nodes and on edges, is defined in this section. \[def:grouping\] Assume a $(D_1.\ell_1,..., D_d.\ell_d)$-graphoid $G$ is given as follows: $G=(N,\tau_N,\lambda_N, E, \tau_E, \lambda_E)$. Let $D_k$ be a dimension that appears in $G$ and let $\ell_k$ and $\ell'_k$ be levels in the schema $\sigma(D_k)$ of this dimension, such that $\ell_k\rightarrow \ell'_k$. Let $\rho_{\ell_k\rightarrow\ell'_k}$ be the corresponding rollup function. Let $\#\mbox{\sf n}$ be a node type that appears in $G$ and let $\#\mbox{\sf e}$ be an edge type that appears in $G$. The node-grouping of $G$ along the dimension $D_k$ from level $\ell_k$ to level $\ell'_k$ in all nodes of type $\#\mbox{\sf n}$, denoted $\mbox{\sf Group}(G, \#\mbox{\sf n}, D_k.(\ell_k\rightarrow\ell'_k))$, is defined as $\mbox{\sf Minimize}(\mbox{\sf Climb}(G, \#\mbox{\sf n}, D_k.(\ell_k\rightarrow\ell'_k)))$. The edge-grouping of $G$ along the dimension $D_k$ from level $\ell_k$ to level $\ell'_k$ in all hyperedges of type $\#\mbox{\sf e}$, denoted $\mbox{\sf Group}(G, \#\mbox{\sf e}, D_k.(\ell_k\rightarrow\ell'_k))$, is defined as $\mbox{\sf Climb}(G, \#\mbox{\sf n}, D_k.(\ell_k\rightarrow\ell'_k))$. \[ex:group\] Applying to the graphoid $G$ depicted in Figure \[fig:fig-phone-RU-company-alternative\] the operation $\mbox{\sf Group}(G, \#\mbox{\sf Phone}, \mbox{Phone}.(\mbox{Phone}\rightarrow \mbox{Operator}))$, results in the graphoid, depicted in Figure \[fig:fig-phone-RU-company\]. Aggregate {#subsec:aggregation} --------- In this section, the $\mbox{\sf Aggr}$-operation on measures stored in edges is defined. \[def:aggregate\] Given a minimal $(D_1.\ell_1,..., D_d.\ell_d)$-graphoid $G$ defined as $G=(N,\tau_N,\lambda_N, E, \tau_E, \lambda_E)$, let $D_k$ be a dimension that appears in the hyperedges of $G$ of type $\#\mbox{\sf e},$ that plays the role of a measure, to which the aggregate function $F_k$ can be applied. The aggregation of the graphoid $G$ over the dimension $D_k$ (using the function $F_k$), denoted $\mbox{\sf Aggr}(G, \#\mbox{\sf e}, $ $D_k, F_k)$, results in a graphoid $G'$ over the same $N, \tau_N$ and $\lambda_N$ as $G$, with the following modified hyperedge bag $E'$. If the hyperedges $e_1,e_2, ..., e_r$ are all of type $\#\mbox{\sf e}$ and all of type $S\rightarrow T$ (and if they are the only ones), and if $\lambda_E$ agrees on all of them apart from a possible identifier-attribute, and apart from the dimension $D_k$, then the hyperedges $e_1,e_2, ..., e_r$ are replaced by one of them (say $e_1$) of the same type and with the same attribute values, apart from the identifier, which is the identifier of $e_1$, and the value of the attribute $D_k.\ell_k$, which becomes the value of the aggregation function $F_k$ applied to the values of the attribute $D_k.\ell_k$ of the edges $e_1,e_2, ..., e_r$. \[ex:aggregate\] Applying the operation $\mbox{\sf Aggr}(G, \#\mbox{\sf Call}, \mbox{Duration}, \mbox{\sc Sum})$ to the graphoid $G$, depicted in Figure \[fig:fig-phone-RU-company\], results in a graphoid where the two edges that connect the nodes $1$ and $2$ are replaced by one edge with label $[ \#\mbox{\sf Call}, 10/10/2016, 8]$, which contains, in the measure attribute, the sum of the two durations. \[remark:aggregate\] To aggregate multiple dimensions $M_1,{\allowbreak}..., {\allowbreak}M_k$, using the aggregate functions $F_1,{\allowbreak}...,{\allowbreak}F_k$ simultaneously, the notation would be: $\mbox{\sf Aggr}(G, {\allowbreak}\#\mbox{\sf e}, {\allowbreak}\{M_1,..., M_k\}, {\allowbreak}\{F_1,..., F_k\})$. Also, for simplicity, only the typical SQL aggregate functions [Sum]{}, [Max]{},[Min]{} and [Count]{} are considered. \[remark:climb-group-aggr\] Although the operations $\mbox{\sf Climb}$, $\mbox{\sf Group}$, and $\mbox{\sf Aggr}$, are not present in classic relational OLAP, they are included here for several reasons: first, they can be useful when operating on graphs in practice; second, they facilitate and make it simple the definition of the Roll-up operation, that otherwise could be unnecessarily difficult to express. Roll-Up {#subsec:rollup} ------- The operations defined above allow defining the $\mbox{\sf Roll-Up}$-operation over dimensions and measures stored in edges, as explained next. \[def:rollup\] Assume a $(D_1.\ell_1,..., D_d.\ell_d)$-graphoid $G$ is given as follows: $G=(N,\tau_N,\lambda_N, E, \tau_E, \lambda_E)$. Let $D_c$ be a dimension that appears in some nodes and/or hyperedges of $G$, that plays the role of a climbing dimension. Let $M_1,..., M_k$ be dimensions that appear in the hyperedges of type $\#\mbox{\sf e}$ of $G$. These dimensions play the role of measure dimensions, and it is assumed that aggregate functions $F_1,..., F_k$ are associated with them. Let $\#\mbox{\sf n}_1,..., \#\mbox{\sf n}_r$ be node types appearing in $G$, and let $\#\mbox{\sf e}_1,..., \#\mbox{\sf e}_s$ be hyperedge types appearing in $G$. The roll-up of $G$ over the dimensions $M_1,..., M_k$ (using the functions $F_1,..., F_k$) in hyperedges of type $\#\mbox{\sf e}$, and over the climbing dimension $D_c$ from level $\ell_c$ to level $\ell'_c$ in nodes of types $\#\mbox{\sf n}_1,..., \#\mbox{\sf n}_r$ and edges of types $\#\mbox{\sf e}_1,...,\#\mbox{\sf e}_s$, denoted $$\mbox{\sf Roll-Up}(G,\{\#\mbox{\sf n}_1,...,\#\mbox{\sf n}_r, \#\mbox{\sf e}_1,...,\#\mbox{\sf e}_s\}, D_c.(\ell_c\rightarrow\ell'_c);\#\mbox{\sf e},M_1,...,M_k,F_1,...,F_k),$$ is defined as $$\displaylines{\quad\mbox{\sf Aggr}(\mbox{\sf Minimize}(\mbox{\sf Climb}(G, \{\#\mbox{\sf n}_1,..., \#\mbox{\sf n}_r, \#\mbox{\sf e}_1,..., \#\mbox{\sf e}_s\}, \hfill{} \cr \hfill{} D_c.(\ell_c\rightarrow\ell'_c))),\#\mbox{\sf e}, M_1,..., M_k, F_1,..., F_k).\quad}$$ \[ex:roll-up\] Applying to the graphoid depicted in Figure \[fig:fig-phone-RU-company\] the operation $\mbox{\sf Roll-Up}(G, \{ \#\mbox{\sf Call}\}, {\allowbreak}\mbox{Time}.(\mbox{Day}\rightarrow\mbox{Year}); {\allowbreak}\#\mbox{\sf Call},{\allowbreak}\mbox{Duration}, {\allowbreak}\mbox{\sc Sum})$, results in the graphoid of Figure \[fig:fig-phone-RU-company+Agg\]. The minimisation step in the above implementation of the roll-up operation does nothing, in this case, since the operation is applied to a minimal graphoid. ![The result of the operation $\mbox{\sf Roll-Up}(G, {\allowbreak}\{ \#\mbox{\sf Phone}\}, {\allowbreak}\mbox{Time}.(\mbox{Day}\rightarrow\mbox{Year}); {\allowbreak}\#\mbox{\sf Call}, \mbox{Duration}, \mbox{\sc Sum})$ applied to the graphoid of Figure \[fig:fig-phone-RU-company\].[]{data-label="fig:fig-phone-RU-company+Agg"}](fig-phone-RU-company+Agg.pdf) \[remark:roll-up\] To apply the climbing in the roll-up operation to the nodes and edges of all possible types, the shorthand “$\ast$” is used as follows: $\mbox{\sf Roll-Up}(G,{\allowbreak}\ast, {\allowbreak}D_c.(\ell_c\rightarrow\ell'_c);{\allowbreak}\#\mbox{\sf e}, {\allowbreak}M_1,..., {\allowbreak}M_k, {\allowbreak}F_1,..., {\allowbreak}F_k)$. To aggregate over all edge types, the notation is $\mbox{\sf Roll-Up}(G,\ast, D_c.(\ell_c\rightarrow\ell'_c); \ast, {\allowbreak}M_1,..., M_k, {\allowbreak}F_1,..., F_k).$ Drill-Down ---------- \[sec:drill-down\] The $\mbox{\sf Drill-Down}$-operation does the opposite of $\mbox{\sf Roll-Up}$,[^7] taking a graphoid to a finer granularity level, along a dimension $D_d$, call it a descending dimension, and also operating over a collection of measures, using the same aggregate functions associated with such measures. Note also that, descending from a level $\ell_d$ down to a level $\ell'_d$ along a dimension $D_d$ is equivalent to climbing from the bottom level of $D_d$, $D_d.\mbox{Bottom}$, to the level $\ell'_d$ along $D_d$. Thus, the drill-down of $G$ over the dimensions $M_1,..., M_k$ (using the functions $F_1,..., F_k$) in hyperedges of type $\#\mbox{\sf e}$, and over the descending dimension $D_d$ from level $\ell_d$ to level $\ell'_d$ in nodes of types $\#\mbox{\sf n}_1,..., \#\mbox{\sf n}_r$ and edges of types $\#\mbox{\sf e}_1,..., \#\mbox{\sf e}_s$, denoted $$\displaylines{\quad \mbox{\sf Drill-Down}(G, \{ \#\mbox{\sf n}_1,..., \#\mbox{\sf n}_r, \#\mbox{\sf e}_1,..., \#\mbox{\sf e}_s\}, \hfill{} \cr \hfill{} D_d.(\ell_d\rightarrow\ell'_d); \#\mbox{\sf e}, M_1,..., M_k, F_1,..., F_k),\quad}$$ is defined as $$\displaylines{\quad\mbox{\sf Aggr}(\mbox{\sf Minimize}(\mbox{\sf Climb}(G, \{\#\mbox{\sf n}_1,..., \#\mbox{\sf n}_r, \#\mbox{\sf e}_1,..., \#\mbox{\sf e}_s\}, \hfill{} \cr \hfill{} D_d.(\mbox{Bottom}\rightarrow\ell'_d))),\#\mbox{\sf e}, M_1,..., M_k, F_1,..., F_k).\quad}$$ Given the above, in what follows the discussion is limited to the $\mbox{\sf Roll-Up}$-operation. Dice {#subsec:dice} ---- The $\mbox{\sf Dice}$-operation over a graphoid, produces a subgraphoid that satisfies a Boolean condition $\varphi$ over the available dimension levels. A “strong” version is also defined, called the $\mbox{\sf s-Dice}$-operation. In this context, $\varphi$ is a Boolean combination of atomic conditions of the form $D.\ell<c$, $D.\ell=c$, and $D.\ell>c$, where $D$ is a dimension, $\ell$ is a level in that dimension, and $c\in dom(D.\ell)$. The expression $\varphi$ can be written in disjunctive normal form as $$\bigvee_k\bigwedge_l \varphi_{kl},$$ where all $\varphi_{kl}$ are atomic conditions. Before giving the definition of the $\mbox{\sf Dice}$-operation, it must be explained what does it mean that a hyperedge $e$ in a graphoid satisfies $\varphi$, denoted $e\models \varphi$. For this, interpreting conjunction and disjunction in the usual way, it suffices to define $e\models \varphi_{kl}$ for the atomic formulas that appear in $\varphi$. Thus, $\varphi_{kl}$ cannot be evaluated in $e$ if the label of $e$ does not contain information on dimension $D$ at level $\ell$. Otherwise, $\varphi_{kl}$ can be evaluated in $e.$ Let $\varphi_{kl}$ be $D.\ell<c$, $D.\ell=c$ or $D.\ell>c$; $\varphi_{kl}$ is not false in $e$ if it can be evaluated in $e$ and is true, or if it cannot be evaluated in $e$. The notion of $\varphi_{kl}$ being not false in a node $n$ adjacent to $e$ (that is, $n\in Adj(e)$) is defined analogously. Finally, $e\models \varphi_{kl}$ if $\varphi_{kl}$ is not false in $e$ and not false in all $n\in Adj(e)$. \[def:dice\] Assume a $(D_1.\ell_1,..., D_d.\ell_d)$-graphoid $G$ is given as $G=(N,\tau_N,\lambda_N, E, \tau_E, \lambda_E)$. Let $\varphi$ be a Boolean combination of equality and inequality constraints that involve, on the one hand dimension levels $\ell'_1,..., \ell'_d$ (equal or higher than $\ell_1,..., \ell_d$ in the dimension schemas $\sigma(D_1),{\allowbreak}..., {\allowbreak}\sigma(D_d)$, respectively), and on the other hand, constants from $dom(D_1.\ell'_1),..., dom(D_d.\ell'_d)$. The dice over $G$ on the condition $\varphi$, denoted $\mbox{\sf Dice}(G, \varphi),$ produces a subgraphoid of $G$, whose nodes are the nodes of $G$ and whose edges satisfy the conditions expressed by $\varphi$. When an hyperedge does not satisfy $\varphi$, the whole hyperedge is deleted from the graph and thus, it does not belong to $\mbox{\sf Dice}(G, \varphi).$ All other edges of $G$ belong to $\mbox{\sf Dice}(G, \varphi).$ If two edges in $G$ have the same set of adjacent nodes and one of them is deleted from $G$ in $\mbox{\sf Dice}(G, \varphi),$ then both of them are deleted in $G$ to obtain the strong dice over $G$ on the condition $\varphi$, denoted $\mbox{\sf s-Dice}(G, \varphi).$ Slice {#subsec:slice} ----- Intuitively, the $\mbox{\sf Slice}$ operation eliminates the references to a dimension in a graphoid. The formal definition follows. \[def:slice\] Assume a $(D_1.\ell_1,..., D_d.\ell_d)$-graphoid $G$ is given as $G=(N,\tau_N,\lambda_N, E, \tau_E, \lambda_E)$. Let $D_s$ be a dimension that appears in some nodes and/or hyperedges of $G$. Let $M_1,..., M_k$ be dimensions that appear in the hyperedges of $G$. These dimensions play the role of measure dimensions. It is assumed that aggregate functions $F_1,..., F_k$ are associated with them. The slice of the dimension $D_s$ from $G$ over the dimensions $M_1,..., M_k$ (using the functions $F_1,..., F_k$), denoted $\mbox{\sf Slice}(G, D_s; M_1,..., M_k, F_1,..., F_k),$ is defined as the roll-up operation up to the level $D_s.All$ over the dimensions $M_1,..., M_k$ (using the functions $F_1,..., F_k$). Formally, this slice operation is defined as $\mbox{\sf Roll-Up}(G, \ast, D_s.(\ell_s\rightarrow All); \ast, M_1,..., M_k, F_1,..., F_k). \quad$ Node-delete {#subsec:node-delete} ----------- The $\mbox{\sf n-Delete}$-operation over a graphoid, deletes all nodes of a certain type and delete, in the source and target set of all edges, the nodes of this type. Again, although this operation is not present in classic OLAP, it is needed to simulate the classic OLAP slice operation, as will become clear in Section \[sec:olap-graph-equiv\]. \[def:node-delete\] Assume a $(D_1.\ell_1,..., D_d.\ell_d)$-graphoid $G$ is given as $G=(N,\tau_N,\lambda_N, E, \tau_E, \lambda_E)$. Given a node type $\#\mbox{\sf n}$, the node-delete over $G$ operation, denoted $\mbox{\sf n-Delete}(G, \#\mbox{\sf n}),$ produces a subgraphoid of $G$, whose nodes of type $\#\mbox{\sf n}$ are deleted, and such that all edges $e=S\rightarrow T$ are replaced by edges $S^{\#\mbox{\sf n}}\rightarrow T^{\#\mbox{\sf n}}$, where $S^{\#\mbox{\sf n}}$ and $T^{\#\mbox{\sf n}}$ are $S$ and $T$, respectively, minus the nodes of type ${\#\mbox{\sf n}}$. The edges remain of the same type and they keep the same label. \[ex:node-delete\] When a graphoid contains only nodes of one type, as in Figure \[fig:fig-phone-as-graph\], the result of the deletion of a node is, obviously, the empty graph. In the graphoid of Figure \[fig:fig-star-flower\] (explained later), the result of $\mbox{\sf n-Delete}(G, \#\mbox{\sf Location})$ would be a graph with nodes 2 and 3, where a hyperedge containing only these nodes would remain, with label $[\mbox{\sf \#Sales}, 10]$. Classical OLAP Cubes as a Special Case of OLAP Graphs {#sec:classical-olap} ===================================================== This section explains how the classical cube-based OLAP model can be represented in the graphoid OLAP model. It is also shown that the classical OLAP-operations $\mbox{\sf Roll-Up}$, $\mbox{\sf Drill-Down}$, $\mbox{\sf Slice}$ and $\mbox{\sf Dice}$ can be simulated by the graphoid OLAP-operations defined in Section \[sec:olap-operations\]. A Discussion on Modelling Cubes as Graphoids -------------------------------------------- Figure \[fig:ex-cube\] illustrates a typical example of an OLAP cube with dimensions $(D_1,{\allowbreak}D_2,{\allowbreak}D_3){\allowbreak}={\allowbreak}(Product, \ Location,$ $\ Time).$ The cube represents sales amounts of products at certain stores locations (cities) on certain dates (at the lowest level of granularity). There are several ways for representing this cube in the graphoid model. Figure \[fig:fig-star-flower\] shows two ways of modelling the fact $(Lego, Antwerp, 1/1/2014; 10)$, which expresses that the sales of Lego in the Antwerp store on January 1st, 2014 amount to 10. ![An example of a [Sales]{} data cube with one measure: $\mu_1=sales$.[]{data-label="fig:ex-cube"}](cube.pdf) Figure \[fig:fig-star-flower\](a) shows nodes 1, 2 and 3, of types $\#\mbox{\sf Product}$, $\#\mbox{\sf Location}$ and $\#\mbox{\sf Time}$, respectively. All of them have only one attribute, to store the values $Lego$, $Antwerp$ and $1/1/2014$, call those attributes $\mbox{ProductVal}$, $\mbox{LocationVal}$ and $\mbox{TimeVal}$, respectively. Further, those attributes are dimensions, with an appropriate dimension schema. The measure information is stored in the hyperedge $\emptyset\rightarrow \{1,2,3\}$ with label $[\mbox{\sf \#Sales}, 10]$, which has one attribute, namely $\mbox{SalesVal}$, to store the sale amount (10, in this case). Thus, in this approach, each cell of a data cube is modelled by a “star”-shaped hyperedge. A more compact representation is shown in Figure \[fig:fig-star-flower\](b). Here, there is only one node, of type $\#\mbox{\sf Cube}$ in the graphoid, which represents the data cube. This node is labelled $[\#\mbox{\sf Cube},11]$, and has no attribute values (apart from an identifier value). Cell-coordinates and cell-content are stored in hyperedges that form loops around the node. The fact $(Lego, Antwerp, \mbox{\textit{1/1/2014}}; 10)$ is modelled by a unique hyperedge with label $[\mbox{\sf \#InCube}, {\allowbreak}\mbox{Lego}, {\allowbreak}\mbox{Antwerp}, {\allowbreak}\mbox{1/1/2014}, {\allowbreak}10]$. Thus, cube facts are represented by a hyperedge of type $\#\mbox{\sf InCube}$ that has four attributes: $\mbox{ProductVal}$, $\mbox{LocationVal}$, $\mbox{TimeVal}$ and $\mbox{SalesVal}$. ![Star-representation of the fact $(Lego, Antwerp, 1/1/2014; 10)$ (a). Petal-representation of the fact $(Lego, Antwerp, 1/1/2014; 10)$ (b). []{data-label="fig:fig-star-flower"}](fig-star-flower.pdf) In between the two alternatives above, there are, obviously, more modelling possibilities. The next section will show that the graphoid OLAP-operations presented in Section \[sec:olap-operations\], are at least as powerful as the classical OLAP-operations of the classical cube model. The proof will assume the star-representation of data cubes in the graphoid model (Figure \[fig:fig-star-flower\](a)). Graph- and Classic- OLAP Operations Equivalence {#sec:olap-graph-equiv} ----------------------------------------------- A (classical) data cube $C$ over dimensions $D_1,..., D_d$ with measures $\mu_1,..., \mu_m$, can then be seen as a partial function $\mu: dom(D_1)\times\cdots\times dom(D_d)\rightarrow dom(\mu_1)\times\cdots\times dom(\mu_m).$ This function maps each “cell” of the cube to $m$ values for the measures. A cell of the cube with coordinates $(a_1,..., a_d)\in dom(D_1)\times\cdots\times dom(D_d)$, that contains values $(c_1,..., c_m)\in dom(\mu_1)\times\cdots\times dom(\mu_m)$, is denoted by $(a_1,..., a_d;c_1,..., c_m) .$ Below, the “star-representation” of a data cube in the graphoid model is formally defined. \[def:star-of-cube\] Let $C$ be a data cube over dimensions $D_1,..., D_d$, with measures $\mu_1,..., \mu_m$. The star-graphoid of $C$, denoted $\mbox{\sf Star}(C)$, is defined as follows. - For $i=1,..., d$, for each $a_i\in dom(D_i)$, there is a node of type $\#D_i$ with label $[\#D_i, id, a_i]$, where $id$ is a unique node identifier. - For each cell $(a_1,..., a_d;c_1,..., c_m) \in dom(D_1)\times\cdots\times dom(D_d)\rightarrow dom(\mu_1)\times\cdots\times dom(\mu_m)$, there are $m$ hyperedges: for each $j=1,..., m$, there is a hyperedge of type $\#\mu_j$ with an empty source node set and with a target node set consisting of all nodes labelled $[\#D_i, id, a_i]$, for $i=1,..., d$, which is labelled $[\#\mu_j, c_j]$. Now, the main theorem of this section is stated. \[theorem:stronger\] The cube OLAP-operations $\mbox{\sf Roll-Up}$, $\mbox{\sf Drill-Down}$, $\mbox{\sf Slice}$ and $\mbox{\sf Dice}$ can be expressed (or simulated) by OLAP-operations on graphoids. Let $C$ be a data cube, and let $\mbox{\sf Star}(C)$ be its star-graphoid. The proof is based on showing that each of the classical OLAP operations $\mbox{\sf Roll-Up}$, $\mbox{\sf Drill-Down}$, $\mbox{\sf Slice}$ and $\mbox{\sf Dice}$, over $C$, can be equivalently applied on $\mbox{\sf Star}(C)$. The semantics for the classical OLAP operations is the one given in [@KV17]. [Roll-Up.]{} For cube data, a roll-up operation takes as input a data cube $C$, a dimension $D_c$ and a level $\ell_i$ in $\sigma(D_c)$ and returns the aggregation of the original cube along $D_c$ up to level $\ell_c$ for all of the input measures $\mu_1,..., \mu_m$, using aggregate functions $F_1,...,F_m$. Assume, without loss of generality, that the roll-up starts at the $Bottom$ level, that is, at $dom(D_c)$. Also assume, for the sake of clarity of exposition, that $m=1$, that is, that there is only one measure, call it $\mu$, with associated aggregate function $F$. Now, it will be shown that the roll-up $\mbox{\sf Roll-Up}(C,D_c.\ell_c; \mu, F)$ on the cube $C$ can be simulated on $\mbox{\sf Star}(C)$ by the graphoid OLAP-operation $\mbox{\sf Roll-Up}(\mbox{\sf Star}(C), \{ \#\mbox{D}_c \}, D_c.(Bottom\rightarrow\ell_c);\#\mbox{\sf e}_\mu; \mu , F), $ where $\#\mbox{D}_c$ is the unique node type in $\mbox{\sf Star}(C)$ that contains information on $D_c$ and where $\#\mbox{\sf e}_\mu$ is the unique edge type that contains measure information on $\mu$. Let $(a_1,..., a_{c-1}, a_{c+1},..., a_d)$ be an element of $dom(D_1)\times\cdots dom(D_{c-1})\times dom(D_{c+1})\times\cdots \times dom(D_{d})$ and suppose that there are $r$ values $a_{c,i}$ from $dom(D_c)$ (for $i=1,...,r$) such that $(a_1,..., a_{c-1}, a_{c,i}, a_{c+1},$ $..., a_d; m_i)$ appear in the cube $C$, and such that all $a_{c,i}$ roll-up to the same element, call it $a_{ru}$, that means $\rho_{D_c.Bottom_k\rightarrow\ell_c}(a)=a_{ru}$. The roll-up on $C$ will replace these $r$ cells by one “new” cell which has coordinates $(a_1,..., {\allowbreak}a_{c-1}, {\allowbreak}a_{ru}, {\allowbreak}a_{c+1},{\allowbreak}..., {\allowbreak}a_d)$ in $dom(D_1)\times{\allowbreak}\cdots {\allowbreak}dom(D_{c-1}){\allowbreak}\times {\allowbreak}dom(D_c.\ell_c){\allowbreak}\times {\allowbreak}dom(D_{c+1}){\allowbreak}\times\cdots \times dom(D_{d})$, and which contains the aggregated measure $F(\{m_1,..., m_r\})$. In $\mbox{\sf Star}(C)$, each one of these “new” cells will be represented by a hyperedge. To achieve this, the following graphoid OLAP-operation is performed: $$\mbox{\sf Roll-Up}(\mbox{\sf Star}(C), \#\mbox{D}_c, D_c.(Bottom\rightarrow\ell_c); \#\mbox{\sf e}_\mu, \mu, F).$$ To see the correctness of this claim, the substeps in the above graphoid roll-up are analysed. First, $\mbox{\sf Climb}(\mbox{\sf Star}(C), \#\mbox{D}_c, D_c.(Bottom\rightarrow\ell_c))$ is performed; a graphoid called $G_1$ is obtained. Compared against $\mbox{\sf Star}(C)$, in $G_1$ all nodes and edges remain the same, except for the nodes of type $\#\mbox{D}_c$, which now contain values at level $\ell_c$. Next, a minimisation is performed (to obtain a grouping on $D_c$), which may contract some nodes in $G_1$ into “roll-up” nodes. Call the resulting graphoid $G_2$. These roll-up nodes of $G_2$ simulate the “new” cells in the cube that store the aggregate information. Finally, $\mbox{\sf Aggr}(G_2, \#\mbox{e}_\mu, \mu, F)$ contracts edges that have the same adjacency set and gives them the aggregated value of $\mu$ as attribute value. [Drill-Down.]{} As mentioned above, the drill-down to level $\ell$ can be seen as a roll-up from the $Bottom$ level to level $\ell$. Therefore, no proof is needed. [Slice.]{} On data cubes, the $\mbox{\sf Slice}$-operation takes as input a cube $C$, a dimension $D_s$ and returns a cube in which the dimension $D_s$ is dropped, and all measures are aggregated over the dropped dimension. To drop the dimension $D_s$, a roll-up to the level $All$ in this dimension is needed first, such that its domain becomes a singleton. Thus, to simulate this on $\mbox{\sf Star}(C)$ using graphoid OLAP-operations, a climb to the level $All$ in the dimension $D_s$ is performed, and therefore the proof of the roll-up case holds, taking into account that all nodes representing $D_s$ will contain the value “$all$”. Thus, the slice of the cube $C$ is simulated by $ \mbox{\sf Slice}({\sf Star}(C), D_s; \mu, F).$ There one step missing, however. When slicing a dimension from a cube $C$, this dimension is deleted. In the case of the graphoid ${\sf Star}(C)$, the nodes of type $\# D_s$ are still present in $ G_1=\mbox{\sf Slice}({\sf Star}(C), D_s; \mu, F).$ So, $\mbox{\sf n-Delete}(G_1, \#\mbox{D}_s)$ is needed to delete these nodes. [Dice.]{} Intuitively, the $\mbox{\sf Dice}(C, \varphi)$ operation, where $\varphi$ is a Boolean condition over level values and measures, selects the cells in a cube $C$ that satisfy $\varphi$. The resulting cube has the same dimensionality as the original cube. It must be shown that $\mbox{\sf Dice}(C, \varphi)$ can be simulated by $\mbox{\sf s-Dice}(\mbox{\sf Star}(C),\varphi).$ As in Section \[subsec:dice\], take $$\varphi=\bigvee_k\bigwedge_l \varphi_{kl},$$ with $\varphi_{kl}$ of the form $D.\ell<c$, $D.\ell=c$ or $D.\ell>c$, where $D$ is a dimension, $\ell$ is a level in that dimension and $c\in dom(D.\ell)$; or $\mu<c$, $\mu=c$ or $\mu>c$, where $\mu$ is a measure and $c$ belongs to the domain of that measure. Let $(a_1,..., a_d;c_1,..., c_m) \in dom(D_1)\times\cdots\times dom(D_d)\rightarrow dom(\mu_1)\times\cdots\times dom(\mu_m)$ be a cell of $C$ that satisfies $\varphi$. Denote this by $(a_1,..., a_d;c_1,..., c_m)\models \varphi$. The proof here requires showing that the edges $e_j$, labelled $[\#\mu_j, c_j]$ (that are adjacent to the nodes $[\#D_i, id, a_i]$, for $i=1,..., d$), for $j=1,..., m$, also satisfy $\varphi$. From $(a_1,..., a_d;c_1,..., c_m)\models \varphi$ it follows that there exists a $k$ such that for all $l$, $(a_1,..., a_d;c_1,..., c_m)\models \varphi_{kl}$ holds. If $\varphi_{kl}$ is of the form $D.\ell<c$, $D.\ell=c$ or $D.\ell>c$, then $\varphi_{kl}$ is undefined in the edge label and thus, it is not false in it. Furthermore, because of the particular definition of stars in star-graphoids, where all nodes that are adjacent to an edge $e_j$ carry information on unique dimensions, $\varphi_{kl}$ is not false in all adjacent nodes that do not contain information on $D.\ell$ and it is true in the unique adjacent node that contains information on $D.\ell$. Therefore, the edge $e_j$ satisfies $\varphi_{kl}$. If $\varphi_{kl}$ is of the form $\mu<c$, $\mu=c$ or $\mu>c$, then $\varphi_{kl}$ evaluates to true on one of the edges $e_j$ (that contains information on that measure $\mu$) and is undefined on the other edges (that contain information on other measures). On the adjacent nodes to these edges, the condition $\varphi_{kl}$ is not false (since these nodes do not contain information on any measures). In both cases, all these edges satisfy $\varphi_{kl}$. This means that the strong dice-operation will keep all these edges. By a similar reasoning, it can be shown that when $(a_1,..., a_d;c_1,..., c_m)\not\models \varphi_{kl}$, $e_j\not\models\varphi_{kl}$ holds. This shows that exactly the edges (labelled $[\#\mu_j, c_j]$) corresponding to cells $(a_1,..., a_d;{\allowbreak}c_1,{\allowbreak}...,{\allowbreak}c_m)$, where $\varphi$ is not satisfied are deleted from the graphoid $\mbox{\sf Star}(C)$ by the strong dice-operation. This completes the proof. Case Study and Discussion {#sec:casestudy} ========================= The running example followed so far in this paper will also be used as a case study, in order to evaluate the hypergraph model against the traditional relational OLAP alternative. The example case has many interesting characteristics, such as: (a) Normally it involves huge volumes of data facts (i.e., calls); (b) The number of dimensions involved in facts is variable, since calls may differ from one another in the number of participants; (c) It allows performing not only the typical OLAP operations described in Section \[sec:olap-operations\], over the fact measures, but also to aggregate the graph elements using graph measures like shortest paths, centrality, and so on. Therefore, the case study is appropriate for illustrating and discussing the graphoid model usefulness in two situations: (a) The classic OLAP scenario, where the relational model is normally used; and (b) A Graph OLAP scenario, where graph metrics are aggregated. The hypothesis to be tested here is that, although the relational OLAP alternative works better in scenario (a), when facts have a fixed dimensionality (e.g., when all calls in the database involve the same number of participants), the graphoid model is competitive when the number of dimensions is variable, and definitely better for scenario (b), where queries compute aggregations over graph metrics. The dataset to analyse consists of group calls between phone lines, where a line cannot call itself, and the analyst also needs to identify the line who started the call. The schemas of the background dimensions are the ones in Figure \[fig:dimension-schema\], with small changes that will be explained below. Facts are similar to the ones in Figure \[fig:fig-phone-as-graph\]. Although performing an exhaustive experimental study is beyond the scope of this paper, and will be part of future work, this section aims at analysing the plausibility of the graph model to become a better solution that the relational model for the kinds of problems where factual data are naturally represented as graphs. For this, the graphoid model are compared against the relational alternative containing exactly the same data. First, two alternative relational OLAP representations are implemented on a PostgreSQL database, and three synthetic datasets of different sizes are produced and loaded into both representations. Then, the same datasets are loaded into a graph database. Neo4j is used for this purpose, and queries are written in Cypher, Neo4j’s high level query language.[^8] Relational Representation {#sec:rolapcase} ------------------------- Since the relational design may impact in query performance, two alternative designs for the fact table are implemented in order to provide a fair comparison. In both cases, the fact table schema is the following: ${\sf Calls}\mbox{(CallId, CallerId, Participant,StartTime, EndTime, Duration)}.$ The meaning of the attributes is: - CallId: Call identifier; - CallerId: The identifier of the line which initiated the call; - StartTime, EndTime: Initial and final instants of the call; - Duration: Attribute precomputed as (StartTime - EndTime). Although the schemas are the same in both cases, the instances differ from each other. In one case, a call between phone $Ph_1, Ph_2,$ and $Ph_3$, initiated by $Ph_1$, contains the tuples $(\mbox{\textit{1}},Ph_1,Ph_2)$ and $(\mbox{\textit{1}},Ph_1,Ph_3).$ In the other case, a tuple $(\mbox{\textit{1}},Ph_1,Ph_1)$ is added to the other two to indicate that $Ph_1$ started the call. This makes a difference for queries where the user is not interested in who did initiate the call. In what follows, both relational representations are denoted [Calls]{} and [Calls-alt]{}, respectively. As expressed above, the background dimensions are the same of Figure \[fig:dimension-schema\]. There are two slight differences, however, for practical reasons. First, for the Time dimension, the bottom level has granularity [Timestamp]{}, since the StartTime and EndTime attributes in the fact tables have that granularity. That means, a new level is added to the dimension. Second, in the Phone dimension the bottom level is the phone identifier, denoted Id, which rolls up to the line number, denoted Number. This is because the caller and the callee are represented as integers, as usual in real world data warehouses. The Phone dimension is represented in a single table, keeping the constraints indicated by the hierarchies. This representation (i.e., Star) was chosen to provide a fair comparison. In summary, the dimension table schema is ${\sf Phone}\mbox{(Id, Number, Customer, City, Country, Operator)}.$ Graphoid-OLAP Representation ---------------------------- The logical model for the graphoid representing the calls (i.e., the base graphoid), is similar to the one depicted in Figure \[fig:fig-phone-as-graph\]. There are two main entity nodes, namely $\#\mbox{{\sf Phone}}$ and $\#\mbox{{\sf Call}}$, to represent call facts. These are linked through edges labelled $\#\mbox{{\sf creator}}$ and $\#\mbox{{\sf receiver}},$ the former going from the phone that initiated the call, to the node representing such call. Background dimensions are represented in the same graph, using the entity nodes $\#\mbox{{\sf Operator}},$ $\#\mbox{{\sf User}},$ $\#\mbox{{\sf City}}$ and $\#\mbox{{\sf Country}}$ for the dimension levels. Finally, dimension levels are linked using the edges of types $\#\mbox{{\sf provided\_by}},$ $\#\mbox{{\sf has\_phone}},$ $\#\mbox{{\sf belongs\_to}}$ and $\#\mbox{{\sf lives\_in}}.$ It can be observed that nodes are not duplicated. Datasets -------- For the relational representation, synthetic datasets of two different sizes are generated and loaded into a PostgreSQL database. Table \[tab:rolapdata\] depicts the sizes of the datasets. The first column shows the number of tuples in the [Calls]{} fact table. The second column shows the number of tuples in the [Calls-alt]{} fact table. The third column indicates the number of calls (only one column, since the number of calls is the same in both versions), and the fourth column tells the number of tuples in the [Phone]{} dimension table. Dataset tuples [Calls]{} tuples [Calls-alt]{} calls tuples [Phone]{} --------- ------------------ ---------------------- --------- ------------------ D1 293,817 420,517 126,700 793 D2 528,408 756,117 227,709 4,689 : Dataset sizes for the relational representation \[tab:rolapdata\] For the graph representation, Table \[tab:graphdata\] depicts the main numbers of elements in the Neo4j graph. Dataset Phone nodes User nodes Call nodes creator edges receiver edges --------- ------------- ------------ ------------ --------------- ---------------- D1 793 500 126,700 126,700 293,817 D2 4,689 3,000 227,710 227,709 528,408 : Dataset sizes for the graph representation \[tab:graphdata\] Queries ------- This section shows how different kinds of complex analytical queries can be expressed and executed over the three representations described above. Four kinds of OLAP queries are discussed: (a) Queries where the aggregations are performed for pairs of objects (e.g., phone lines, persons, etc.); (b) Queries where aggregations are performed in groups of $\mbox{N}$ objects, where $\mbox{N}>2$; (c) For (a) and (b), rollups to different dimension levels are performed.; (d) Graph OLAP-style aggregations performed over graph metrics. The idea of these experiments is to study if, when the queries can take advantage of the graph structure, graphoid-OLAP queries are more concisely expressed, and more efficiently executed. The impact of $\mbox{N}$ in the relational and the graph representation is also studied. The queries are described next. For the sake of space, only some of the SQL and Neo4j queries are shown. Average duration of the calls between groups of N phone lines. This query computes all the $N$-subsets of lines that participated in some call. That means, if a call involves 3 lines, say $Ph_1, Ph_2$ and $Ph_3$, and $N=2$, the groups will be $(Ph_1, Ph_2),$ $(Ph_1, Ph_3),$ and $(Ph_2, Ph_3).$ Figure \[fig:q11\] shows the recursive SQL query for the first representation alternative. Average duration of the calls between groups of $\mbox{N}$ users. Average duration of the calls between groups of $\mbox{N}$ operators. This analyses a roll-up to the level Operator, which has less instance members than the level User addressed in Query 2. For each pair of Phones in the Calls graph, compute the shortest path between them. This query aims at analysing the connections between phone line users, and has many real-world applications (for example, to investigate calls made between two persons who use a third one as an intermediary). From a technical point of view, this is an aggregation over the whole graph, using as a metric the shortest path between every pair of nodes. Finally, the following queries combine the computation of graph metrics together with roll-up and dice operations. Compute the shortest path between pairs $(p_1,p_2)$ of phone lines, such that $p_1$ corresponds to operator “Claro” and $p_2$ corresponds to operator “Movistar”. Compute the shortest path between pairs $(p_1,p_2)$ of phone lines, such that $p_1$ corresponds to a user from the city of Buenos Aires and $p_2$ corresponds to a user from the city of Salta. Compute the shortest path between pairs $(p_1,p_2)$ of phone lines, such that $p_1$ corresponds to a user from the city of Buenos Aires. Results ------- Table \[tab:results\] shows the results of the experiments. The tests were ran on machine with a i7-6700 processor and 12 GB of RAM, and 250GB disk (actually, a virtual node in a cluster). The execution times are depicted, and are the averages of five runs of each experiment, expressed in seconds. The winning alternatives are marked in boldface, for clarity. --------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------- ---------- ------- Dataset [Calls]{} [Calls]{} [Calls]{} [Calls-alt]{} [Calls-alt]{} [Calls-alt]{} Neo4j Neo4j Neo4j $N=2$ $N=3$ $N=4$ $N=2$ $N=3$ $N=4$ $N=2$ $N=3$ $N=4$ D1-Q1 4.9 7.6 9.5 5.4 8.7 10.6 7.3 11.2 12.5 D1-Q2 4.6 11.7 12.9 4.4 12.3 14.5 7 11.7 14.8 D1-Q3 6.6 7.3 11.5 12.8 12.6 14.7 3.7 10.8 15.5 D1-Q4 $\infty$ N/A N/A $\infty$ N/A N/A 185 N/A N/A D1-Q5 $\infty$ N/A N/A $\infty$ N/A N/A 21 N/A N/A D1-Q6 $\infty$ N/A N/A $\infty$ N/A N/A 6 N/A N/A D1-Q7 $\infty$ N/A N/A $\infty$ N/A N/A 34 N/A N/A D2-Q1 9.3 14.1 15.1 10.4 16.2 17.7 15.6 17.5 21.6 D2-Q2 12.9 19 20.7 14.5 24 26.8 20.2 21.6 24.8 D2-Q3 12.5 19.4 22.2 14.3 14.6 22.8 9.3 18.7 28.4 D2-Q4 $\infty$ N/A N/A $\infty$ N/A N/A $\infty$ N/A N/A D2-Q5 $\infty$ N/A N/A $\infty$ N/A N/A 677 N/A N/A D2-Q6 $\infty$ N/A N/A $\infty$ N/A N/A 123 N/A N/A D2-Q7 $\infty$ N/A N/A $\infty$ N/A N/A 924 N/A N/A --------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------- ---------- ------- : Experimental results (running times in seconds). \[tab:results\] Discussion of Results --------------------- In Table \[tab:results\] it can be seen that running traditional OLAP queries, like Query 1, Query 2 and Query 3, takes approximately the same time in the relational and graphoid models, with a slight advantage for the former. Further, it can be seen that for Queries 2 and 3, which include a roll-up, results are very similar, and even Neo4j wins here in some cases. In Query 1, which is an aggregation over the fact graph, the relational alternatives work better.[^9] However, for typical Graph OLAP queries (Queries 4 through 7), which aggregate graph metrics, the graph model shows a dramatical advantage over the relational alternative. For Neo4j, Query 4 does not finish within a reasonable time for the largest of the two datasets (D2) but performance is acceptable for D1. On the other hand, the relational alternatives do not terminate successfully neither for D1 nor for D2. It is important to make it clear that with an ad-hoc relational design, specifically for graph representation, it is possible that the performance of the relational alternative for shortest path aggregations could be improved, although it will hardly be close to the graph alternative, given the results presented here. However, the intention of this paper is to present a flexible model that can perform efficiently on a variety of situations. In this sense, the tests presented here suggest that the graphoid data model can be competitive with the relational model for classic OLAP queries, but is much better for typical Graph OLAP ones. Conclusion and Open Problems {#sec:conclu} ============================ This paper presented a data model for graph analysis based on node- and edge-labelled directed multi-hypergraphs, called graphoids. A collection of OLAP operations, analogous to the ones that apply to data cubes, was formally defined over graphoids. It was also formally proved that the classic data cube model is a particular case of the graphoid data model. As far as the authors are aware of, this is the first proposal that formally addresses the problem of defining OLAP operations over hypergraphs. Supported by this proof, it was shown that the graphoid model can be competitive with the relational implementation of OLAP, but clearly much better when graph operations are used to aggregate graphs. This feature allows devising a general OLAP framework that may cope with the flexible needs of modern data analysis, where data may arrive in different forms. It is worth to remark, once more, that the experiments presented do not pretend to be exhaustive, but a good general indication of the plausibility of the approach, and it is clear that the graph data model provides OLAP with a machinery of more powerful tools than the classic cube data model, which is already good news for the OLAP practitioners. Building on the results in this paper, future work includes looking for further graph metrics that can be applied to the graphoid model, new case studies, and the study of query optimization strategies. Moreover, the approach can also benefit from tools supporting parallel computation with columnar databases as backends. This can further improve the relational OLAP computation, while keeping the properties of the graphoid model for Graph OLAP queries. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== Alejandro Vaisman was supported by a travel grant from Hasselt University (Korte verblijven–inkomende mobiliteit, BOF16KV09). He was also partially supported by PICT-2014 Project 0787 and PICT-2017 Project 1054. The authors also thank T. Colloca, S. Ocamica, J. Perez Bodean, and N. Castaño, for their collaboration in the data preparation for the experiments. [10]{} R. Angles. . In [Proceedings of [ICDE]{} Workshops]{}, pages 171–177, Arlington, VA, USA, 2012. R. Angles, M. Arenas, P. Barcel[ó]{}, A. Hogan, J. L. Reutter, and D. Vrgoc. Foundations of modern query languages for graph databases. , 50(5):68:1–68:40, 2017. C. Chen, X. Yan, F. Zhu, J. Han, and P. Yu. : a multi-dimensional framework for graph data analysis. , 21(1):41–63, 2009. J. Cohen, B. Dolan, M. Dunlap, J.M. Hellerstein, and C. Welton. : New analysis practices for big data. , 2(2):1481–1492, 2009. Alfredo Cuzzocrea, Ladjel Bellatreche, and Il-Yeol Song. . In [Proceedings of DOLAP]{}, pages 67–70, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM. Leticia I. G[ó]{}mez, Bart Kuijpers, and Alejandro A. Vaisman. Performing [OLAP]{} over graph data: Query language, implementation, and a case study. In [Proceedings of BIRTE, Munich, Germany, August 28, 2017]{}, pages 6:1–6:8, 2017. Leticia I. G[ó]{}mez, Bart Kuijpers, and Alejandro A. Vaisman. Analytical queries on semantic trajectories using graph databases. , 23(5), 2019. O. Hartig. Reconciliation of [RDF\]{} and property graphs. , abs/1409.3288, 2014. Ralph Kimball. . J. Wiley and Sons, 1996. M. B. Kraiem, J. Feki, K. Khrouf, F. Ravat, and O. Teste. Modeling and [OLAP]{}ing social media: the case of twitter. , 5(1):47:1–47:15, 2015. Bart Kuijpers and Alejandro A. Vaisman. An algebra for [OLAP]{}. , 21(5), 2017. N. U. Rehman, A. Weiler, and M. H. Scholl. social media: the case of twitter. In [Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2013, [ASONAM]{} ’13]{}, pages 1139–1146, Niagara, ON, Canada, 2013. I. Robinson, J. Webber, and Emil Eifrém. . O’Reilly Media, 2013. Bo Tang, Shi Han, Man Lung Yiu, Rui Ding, and Dongmei Zhang. Extracting top-k insights from multi-dimensional data. In [Proceedings of [ACM SIGMOD]{}, Chicago, IL, USA, May 14-19, 2017]{}, pages 1509–1524, 2017. A. A. Vaisman and E. Zimányi. . Springer, 2014. Alejandro Vaisman, Florencia Besteiro, and Maximiliano Valverde. “modelling and querying star and snowflake warehouses using graph databases. In [Proceedings of [ADBIS]{} Conference 2019, Bled, Slovenia, Sept. 8-11, 2019]{}, 2017. Z. Wang, Q. Fan, H. Wang, K-L. Tan, D. Agrawal, and A. El Abbadi. Pagrol: Parallel graph [OLAP]{} over large-scale attributed graphs. In [Proceeding of [IEEE ICDE]{}]{}, pages 496–507, 2014. Peixiang Zhao, Xiaolei Li, Dong Xin, and Jiawei Han. : on warehousing and [OLAP]{} multidimensional networks. In [Proceedings of [ACM SIGMOD]{}]{}, pages 853–864. ACM, 2011. [^1]: This is a draft version of the work that will appear in Volume 24(2) of the Intelligent Data Analysis Journal, in early 2020. [^2]: [http:// www.neo4j.com](http:// www.neo4j.com) [^3]: <http://janusgraph.org/> [^4]: <https://graphframes.github.io/> [^5]: Let $A$ and $B$ be bags (or sets). If the number of occurrences of each element $a$ in $A$ is less than or equal to the number of occurrences of $a$ in $B$, then $A$ is called a subbag* of $B$, also denoted $A\subseteq B$. [^6]: The nodes of $S$ are called the source nodes of $e$ and the nodes of $T$ are called the target nodes of $e$. The source and target nodes of $e$ are called adjacent to $e$, and the set of the adjacent nodes to $e$ is denoted by $Adj(e)$. Thus, $Adj(e)=S\cup T$. [^7]: Actually, this is true for a sequence of roll-up and drill-down operations such that there are no slicing or dicing operations (explained in Sections \[subsec:dice\] and \[subsec:slice\]) in-between. However, for the sake of simplicity, and without loss of generality, in this paper it is assumed that roll-up and drill-down are the inverse of each other. [^8]: <https://neo4j.com/developer/cypher-query-language/> [^9]: It is worth noting that Neo4j (and graph databases in general) is a novel database, whose query optimization strategy is still very basic. On the contrary, relational databases are mature technologies, and query optimization is very efficient indeed. Further, for the experiments presented here, the PostgreSQL databases have been tuned to perform in the best possible way. In this sense, Neo4j’s performance for typical OLAP queries is, in some sense, penalized.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We study the generation of strong large scale magnetic fields in dense quark matter. The magnetic field growth is owing to the magnetic field instability driven by the electroweak interaction of quarks. We discuss the situation when the chiral symmetry is unbroken in the degenerate quark matter. In this case we predict the amplification of the seed magnetic field $10^{12}\,\text{G}$ to the strengths $(10^{14}-10^{15})\,\text{G}$. In our analysis we use the typical parameters of the quark matter in the core of a hybrid star or in a quark star. We also discuss the application of the obtained results to describe the magnetic fields generation in magnetars.' author: - \| Maxim Dvornikov$^{a,b,c}$[^1]\ $^{a}$\ \ \ $^{b}$\ \ $^{c}$\ title: 'Generation of strong magnetic fields in dense quark matter driven by the electroweak interaction of quarks' --- Introduction ============ The origin of strong magnetic fields $B\sim10^{15}\,\text{G}$ in some compact stars, called magnetars [@MerPonMel15], remains an open problem of modern astrophysics. Despite the popularity of some models describing the generation of such magnetic fields, which are based on magnetohydrodynamics of stellar plasmas, none of them can satisfactory describe the observational data. These models are reviewed in Ref. [@MerPonMel15]. Recently, the methods of elementary particle physics, mainly the chiral magnetic effect (CME) [@MirSho15], were applied in Ref. [@ChaZhi10] to generate toroidal magnetic fields in a neutron star (NS), and in particular to solve the problem of magnetars [@SigLei16]. The major motivation to apply CME to produce magnetic fields in NS is that the nonzero chiral imbalance of electrons $\mu_{5}=\left(\mu_{\mathrm{R}}-\mu_{\mathrm{L}}\right)/2$ is created in nonequilibrium Urca processes, which are parity violating. It happens since ultrarelativistic left electrons are washed out from the system producing $\mu_{5}>0$. The nonzero $\mu_{5}$ generates the electric current of ultrarelativistic electrons along the magnetic field. This current, in its turn, leads to the magnetic field instability resulting in the growth of a magnetic field. Another possibility to utilize the electroweak interaction for the production of the magnetic field instability was proposed in Refs. [@BoyRucSha12; @DvoSem04]. It consists in the fact that the induced anomalous electric current along the magnetic field gets the contribution proportional to the difference of the effective potentials of the effective electroweak interaction of left and right electrons with background matter. Thus the electroweak interaction becomes a constant driver of the magnetic field instability. Then in Refs. [@DvoSem15a; @DvoSem15b; @DvoSem15c; @Dvo16] this idea was applied to generate strong large scale magnetic fields in NS due to the electroweak electron-nucleon interaction. The key issue in the application of CME to generate a stellar magnetic field is the presence of left and right charged fermions in a star. Strictly speaking, the possibility to separate a fermionic field into left and right chiral projections is only possible if this particle is massless, i.e. when the chiral symmetry in unbroken. Despite the typical energy of an electron in the NS matter is much greater than its mass, one cannot claim these electrons are chiral particles there. Thus we can expect that CME for electrons is unlikely to appear in NS. This claim is also true with respect to the model in Refs. [@DvoSem15a; @DvoSem15b; @DvoSem15c; @Dvo16]. Note that, for the first time the fact that a nonzero particle mass destroys CME was noticed in Ref. [@Vil80]. Recently, in Ref. [@Dvo16b], this result of Ref. [@Vil80] was confirmed in the presence of the electroweak interaction. Despite of the above disappointing observation, we can still expect the existence of astrophysical media where the chiral symmetry is unbroken. It is the quark matter in the core of a hybrid star (HS) or in a hypothetical quark star (QS). HS is a NS having the quark core. QS is based on the strange matter hypothesis. The properties of these compact stars are reviewed in Ref. [@Gle00]. Note that, despite of the sporadic claims of the observations of HS/QS (see, e.g., Ref. [@Dai16]), there is a certain skepticism on the existence of these compact stars. The present work is devoted to the application of the methods of Refs. [@DvoSem15a; @DvoSem15b; @DvoSem15c; @Dvo16] to describe the magnetic field instability, leading to its growth, in quark matter in HS/QS. In Sec. \[sec:BFIELDEVOL\], we derive the kinetic equations describing the evolution of the magnetic field and chiral imbalances in quark matter. We also formulate the initial conditions corresponding to a typical astrophysical medium. Then, in Sec. \[sec:RES\], we present the results of the numeric solutions of these kinetic equations. Finally, in Sec. \[sec:DISC\], we discuss the obtained results and their applicability for modeling magnetic fields in magnetars. The computation of the helicity flip rates of quarks in their mutual collisions is provided in Appendix \[sec:HELFLR\]. Basic equations for the magnetic field evolution in quark matter\[sec:BFIELDEVOL\] ================================================================================== In this section we shall derive the equations for the evolution of the spectra of the magnetic helicity density and the magnetic energy density as well chiral imbalances in degenerate matter containing $u$ and $d$ quarks interacting by the parity violating electroweak forces. Let us consider a dense quark matter consisting of $u$ and $d$ quarks. The density of this matter is supposed to be high enough for the chiral symmetry to be restored. In this case we can take that the quarks are effectively massless. Recently, in Ref. [@Bra16], it was shown with help of lattice simulations that the chiral symmetry has a tendency to restore in a quark matter at high density. Therefore we can decompose the quark wave functions into left and right chiral components, which evolve independently, and attribute different chemical potentials $\mu_{q\mathrm{L,R}}$, where $q=u,d$, for each chiral component. Generalizing the results of Refs. [@DvoSem15a; @DvoSem15b], we get that, in the external magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$, there is the induced electric current $$\label{eq:Jind} \mathbf{J} = \Pi\mathbf{B}, \quad \Pi = \frac{1}{2\pi^{2}} \sum_{q=u,d} e_{q}^{2} \left( \mu_{q5}+V_{q5} \right),$$ where $e_{u}=2e/3$ and $e_{d}=-e/3$ are the electric charges of quarks, $e>0$ is the elementary charge, $\mu_{5q}=\left(\mu_{q\mathrm{R}}-\mu_{q\mathrm{L}}\right)/2$ is the chiral imbalance, $V_{5q}=\left(V_{q\mathrm{L}}-V_{q\mathrm{R}}\right)/2$, and $V_{q\mathrm{L,R}}$ are the effective potentials of the electroweak interaction of left and right quarks with background fermions. The potentials $V_{q\mathrm{L,R}}$ were found in Ref. [@Dvo15] on the basis of the effective Lagrangian for the $ud$ electroweak interaction, $$\label{eq:Leff} \mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{eff}} = -\sum_{q=u,d} \bar{q} \left( \gamma_{0}^{\mathrm{L}}V_{q\mathrm{L}} + \gamma_{0}^{\mathrm{R}}V_{q\mathrm{R}} \right)q,$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:VudLR} V_{u\mathrm{L}} = & -\frac{G_{\mathrm{F}}}{\sqrt{2}}n_{d} \left( 1-\frac{8}{3}\xi+\frac{16}{9}\xi^{2}-2\|V_{ud}\|^{2} \right), \quad V_{u\mathrm{R}}=\frac{G_{\mathrm{F}}}{\sqrt{2}}n_{d} \left( \frac{4}{3}\xi-\frac{16}{9}\xi^{2} \right), \nonumber \\ V_{d\mathrm{L}} = & -\frac{G_{\mathrm{F}}}{\sqrt{2}}n_{u} \left( 1-\frac{10}{3}\xi+\frac{16}{9}\xi^{2}-2\|V_{ud}\|^{2} \right), \quad V_{d\mathrm{R}}=\frac{G_{\mathrm{F}}}{\sqrt{2}}n_{u} \left( \frac{2}{3}\xi-\frac{16}{9}\xi^{2} \right).\end{aligned}$$ Here $\gamma_{0}^{\mathrm{L,R}} = \gamma_{0} \left( 1\mp\gamma^{5} \right) /2$, $\gamma^{5} = \mathrm{i}\gamma^{0}\gamma^{1}\gamma^{2}\gamma^{3}$, $\gamma^{\mu} = \left( \gamma^{0},\bm{\gamma} \right)$ are the Dirac matrices, $G_{\mathrm{F}}=1.17\times10^{-5}\,\text{GeV}^{-2}$ is the Fermi constant, $\xi=\sin^{2}\theta_{\mathrm{W}}=0.23$ is the Weinberg parameter, $n_{u,d}$ are the number densities of $u$ and $d$ quarks, and $V_{ud}=0.97$ is the element of the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix. The matter of the star is supposed to be electrically neutral. Thus we should have $n_{u}=n_{0}/3$ and $n_{d}=2n_{0}/3$, where $n_{0}=n_{u}+n_{d}$ is the total number density of quarks in the star. Using Eq. one obtains that $$V_{5u} = \frac{G_{\mathrm{F}}}{2\sqrt{2}}\frac{2n_{0}}{3} \left( 2\|V_{ud}\|^{2}+\frac{4}{3}\xi-1 \right), \quad V_{5d} = \frac{G_{\mathrm{F}}}{2\sqrt{2}}\frac{n_{0}}{3} \left( 2\|V_{ud}\|^{2}+\frac{8}{3}\xi-1 \right).$$ Assuming that $n_{0}=1.8\times10^{38}\thinspace\text{cm}^{-3}$, we get that $V_{5u}=4.5\thinspace\text{eV}$ and $V_{5d}=2.9\thinspace\text{eV}$. Note that in Eqs. (\[eq:Jind\]) and (\[eq:Leff\]) we do not account for the $uu$ and $dd$ interactions. However as shown in Ref. [@Dvo14], basing on the direct calculation of the two loops contribution to the photon polarization operator, that such contributions to the induced current in Eq. (\[eq:Jind\]) are vanishing. Using Eq. (\[eq:Jind\]) and the results of Refs. [@DvoSem15b], we can obtain the system of kinetic equations for the spectra of the density of the magnetic helicity $h(k,t)$ and of the magnetic energy density $\rho_{\mathrm{B}}(k,t)$, as well as the chiral imbalances $\mu_{5u}(t)$ and $\mu_{5d}(t)$, in the form, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:systgen} \frac{\partial h(k,t)}{\partial t}= & -\frac{2k^{2}}{\sigma_{\mathrm{cond}}}h(k,t) + \frac{8\alpha_{\mathrm{em}}}{\pi\sigma_{\mathrm{cond}}} \left\{ \frac{4}{9} \left[ \mu_{5u}(t)+V_{5u} \right] + \frac{1}{9} \left[ \mu_{5d}(t)+V_{5d} \right] \right\} \rho_{\mathrm{B}}(k,t), \nonumber \displaybreak[1] \\ \frac{\partial\rho_{\mathrm{B}}(k,t)}{\partial t}= & -\frac{2k^{2}}{\sigma_{\mathrm{cond}}}\rho_{\mathrm{B}}(k,t) + \frac{2\alpha_{\mathrm{em}}}{\pi\sigma_{\mathrm{cond}}} \left\{ \frac{4}{9} \left[ \mu_{5u}(t)+V_{5u} \right] + \frac{1}{9} \left[ \mu_{5d}(t)+V_{5d} \right] \right\} k^{2}h(k,t), \nonumber \displaybreak[1] \\ \frac{\mathrm{d}\mu_{5u}(t)}{\mathrm{d}t}= & \frac{2\pi\alpha_{\mathrm{em}}}{\mu_{u}^{2}\sigma_{\mathrm{cond}}} \frac{4}{9} \int\mathrm{d}k \bigg[ k^{2}h(k,t) \notag \\ & - \frac{4\alpha_{\mathrm{em}}}{\pi} \left\{ \frac{4}{9} \left[ \mu_{5u}(t)+V_{5u} \right] + \frac{1}{9} \left[ \mu_{5d}(t)+V_{5d} \right] \right\} \rho_{\mathrm{B}}(k,t) \bigg] - % \nonumber % \\ % & - \Gamma_{u}\mu_{5u}(t), \nonumber \displaybreak[1] \\ \frac{\mathrm{d}\mu_{5d}(t)}{\mathrm{d}t} = & \frac{2\pi\alpha_{\mathrm{em}}}{\mu_{d}^{2}\sigma_{\mathrm{cond}}} \frac{1}{9} \int\mathrm{d}k \bigg[ k^{2}h(k,t) \notag \\ & - \frac{4\alpha_{\mathrm{em}}}{\pi} \left\{ \frac{4}{9} \left[ \mu_{5u}(t)+V_{5u} \right] + \frac{1}{9} \left[ \mu_{5d}(t)+V_{5d} \right] \right\} \rho_{\mathrm{B}}(k,t) \bigg] - % \nonumber % \\ % & - \Gamma_{d}\mu_{5d}(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma_{u,d}$ are the rates for the helicity flip in $ud$ plasma, $\alpha_{\mathrm{em}}=e^{2}/4\pi=7.3\times10^{-3}$ is the QED fine structure constant, $\sigma_{\mathrm{cond}}$ is the electric conductivity of $ud$ quark matter, and $\mu_{u,d}=\left(3\pi^{2}n_{u,d}\right)^{1/3}$ are the mean chemical potentials of $u$ and $d$ quarks. In the electroneutral $ud$ plasma, we get that $\mu_{u}=(1/3)^{1/3}\mu_{0}=0.69\mu_{0}$ and $\mu_{d}=(2/3)^{1/3}\mu_{0}=0.87\mu_{0}$, where $\mu_{0}=\left(3\pi^{2}n_{0}\right)^{1/3}=346\,\text{MeV}$. The functions $h(k,t)$ and $\rho_{\mathrm{B}}(k,t)$ in Eq. (\[eq:systgen\]) are related to the total magnetic helicity $H(t)$ and the magnetic field strength by $$\label{eq:hdef} H(t)= \int \mathrm{d}^3 x \left( \mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{B} \right) = V\int h(k,t)\mathrm{d}k, \quad B^{2}(t)=2\int\rho_{\mathrm{B}}(k,t)\mathrm{d}k,$$ where $V$ is the normalization volume. The integration in Eq. (\[eq:hdef\]) is over all the range of the wave number $k$ variation. Note that we assume the isotropic spectra in Eq. (\[eq:hdef\]). In our model for the magnetic field generation in magnetars, we suggest that background fermions are degenerate. Nevertheless there is a nonzero temperature $T$ of the quark matter, which is much less than the chemical potentials: $T\ll\mu_{q}$. The conductivity of the degenerate quark matter was estimated in Ref. [@HeiPet93] as $$\label{eq:sigmaQCD} \sigma_{\mathrm{cond}} = 4.64\times10^{20} \left( \alpha_{s}\frac{T}{T_{0}} \right)^{-5/3} \left( \frac{\mu_{0}}{300\,\text{MeV}} \right)^{8/3}\text{s}^{-1},$$ where $\alpha_{s}$ is the QCD fine structure constant, $T_{0} = (10^{8}-10^{9})\,\text{K}$ is the initial temperature corresponding to the time $t_{0}\sim 10^{2}\,\text{yr}$, when the star is already in a thermal equilibrium. Using Eq. (\[eq:sigmaQCD\]), we obtain that $$\label{eq:sigmaT} \sigma_{\mathrm{cond}} = \sigma_{0}\frac{T_{0}^{5/3}}{T^{5/3}}, \quad \sigma_{0}=3.15\times10^{22}\,\text{s}^{-1},$$ where we assume that $\alpha_{s}\sim0.1$. Note that $\sigma_{\mathrm{cond}}$ in quark matter is several orders of magnitude less than the conductivity of electrons in the nuclear matter in NS [@Kel73]. The volume density of the internal energy of degenerate background quarks is $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{T}}=\varepsilon_{0}+\delta\varepsilon_{\mathrm{T}}$ [@DvoSem15c], where $\varepsilon_{0}\sim\mu_{q}^{4}$ is the temperature independent part and $\delta\varepsilon_{\mathrm{T}}=\left[\mu_{u}^{2}+\mu_{d}^{2}\right]T^{2}/2$ is the temperature correction. In Ref. [@DvoSem15c] we suggested that the growth of the magnetic field is powered by the transmission of $\delta\varepsilon_{\mathrm{T}}$ to the magnetic energy density $\rho_{\mathrm{B}}=B^{2}/2$. The energy conservation law in the magnetized $ud$ plasma reads $\mathrm{d}\left(\delta\varepsilon_{\mathrm{T}}+\rho_{\mathrm{B}}\right)/\mathrm{d}t=0$ [@Dvo16]. Integrating this expression with the appropriate initial condition one gets $$\label{eq:TBT0rel} \left[ \mu_{u}^{2}+\mu_{d}^{2} \right] T^{2} + B^{2} = \left[ \mu_{u}^{2}+\mu_{d}^{2} \right] T_{0}^{2},$$ where we assume that initially the thermal energy is greater than the magnetic energy, which is the case for a young pulsar. Indeed, if one starts with a seed field $B_{0}=10^{12}\,\text{G}$, one gets that $\rho_{\mathrm{B}}(t_{0})=1.9\times10^{-4}\,\text{MeV}^{4}$ and $\delta\varepsilon_{\mathrm{T}}(t_{0})=5.5\,\text{MeV}^{4}$. It means that $$\label{eq:magcool} T^{2}=T_{0}^{2} \left( 1-\frac{B^{2}}{B_{\mathrm{eq}}^{2}} \right),$$ where the equipartition magnetic field can be found from the following expression [@DvoSem15c]: $$\label{eq:Beq} B_{\mathrm{eq}}^{2} = \left[ \mu_{u}^{2}+\mu_{d}^{2} \right] T_{0}^{2} = 1.23\mu_{0}^{2}T_{0}^{2}.$$ Note that Eq. (\[eq:magcool\]) describes the magnetic cooling, i.e. the temperature decreasing because of the magnetic field enhancement. As we will see later, other channels of the star cooling, such as the neutrino emission [@Yak01], are negligible on the time scale of the magnetic field growth in our model. The dependence of the temperature on the magnetic field is analogous to the quenching of the parameter $\Pi$ in Eq. (\[eq:Jind\]) introduced in Ref. [@DvoSem15c] (see also Ref. [@quenching]). Although we suppose that the chiral symmetry is restored in the star and quarks are effectively massless, there are induced quark masses due to the interaction with dense matter. The effective masses of $u$ and $d$ quarks were computed in Ref. [@Bra92], $$\label{eq:meff} m_{u,d}^{2} = \frac{e_{u,d}^{2}}{8\pi^{2}}\mu_{u,d}^{2}.$$ Note that the effective quark masses in Eq. (\[eq:meff\]) should be accounted for only in quarks collisions (see Appendix \[sec:HELFLR\]). It implies the transitions between left and right particles in their mutual collisions. The helicity flip rates $\Gamma_{u,d}$ for each quark types are computed in Appendix \[sec:HELFLR\], $$\label{eq:Gammaud} \Gamma_{u} = 2.98\times10^{-10}\mu_{0} = 1.59\times10^{14}\thinspace\text{s}^{-1}, \quad \Gamma_{d} = 5.88\times10^{-12}\mu_{0} = 3.13\times10^{12}\thinspace\text{s}^{-1},$$ where we use Eq. (\[eq:mu5identpart\]). Let us introduce the following dimensionless functions: $$\mathcal{H}(\kappa,\tau) = \frac{\alpha_{\mathrm{em}}^{2}}{2\mu_{0}^{2}}h(k,t), \quad \mathcal{R}(\kappa,\tau) = \frac{\alpha_{\mathrm{em}}^{2}}{k_{\mathrm{min}}\mu_{0}^{2}} \rho_{\mathrm{B}}(k,t), \quad \mathcal{M}_{u,d}(\tau) = \frac{\alpha_{\mathrm{em}}}{\pi k_{\mathrm{min}}} \mu_{5(u,d)}(t), % \quad % \mathcal{M}_{d}(\tau) = % \frac{\alpha_{\mathrm{em}}}{\pi k_{\mathrm{min}}} % \mu_{5d}(t),$$ where we assume $k_{\mathrm{min}}<k<k_{\mathrm{max}}$, $k_{\mathrm{min}}=1/R=2\times10^{-11}\,\text{eV}$, $R=10\,\text{km}$ is the star radius, $k_{\mathrm{max}}=1/\Lambda_{\mathrm{B}}^{(\mathrm{min})}$, and $\Lambda_{\mathrm{B}}^{(\mathrm{min})}$ is the minimal scale of the magnetic field, which is a free parameter. Using the dimensionless parameters, $$\kappa=\frac{k}{k_{\mathrm{min}}}, \quad \tau=\frac{2k_{\mathrm{min}}^{2}}{\sigma_{0}}t, \quad \mathcal{V}_{u,d} = \frac{\alpha_{\mathrm{em}}}{\pi k_{\mathrm{min}}}V_{5(u,d)}, \quad \mathcal{G}_{u,d} = \frac{\sigma_{0}\Gamma_{u,d}}{2k_{\mathrm{min}}^{2}},$$ as well as Eqs. (\[eq:sigmaT\]), (\[eq:magcool\]), and (\[eq:Gammaud\]), we can rewrite Eq. (\[eq:systgen\]) in the form, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:systdmls} \frac{\partial\mathcal{H}(\kappa,\tau)}{\partial\tau} = & \left( 1-\frac{B^{2}}{B_{\mathrm{eq}}^{2}} \right)^{5/6} \left[ -\kappa^{2}\mathcal{H}(\kappa,\tau) + 0.22 \left( 4 \left[ \mathcal{M}_{u}(\tau)+\mathcal{V}_{u} \right] + \mathcal{M}_{d}(\tau) + \mathcal{V}_{d} \right) \mathcal{R}(\kappa,\tau) \right], \nonumber \\ \frac{\partial\mathcal{R}(\kappa,\tau)}{\partial\tau}= & \left( 1-\frac{B^{2}}{B_{\mathrm{eq}}^{2}} \right)^{5/6} \left[ -\kappa^{2}\mathcal{R}(\kappa,\tau) + 0.22 \left( 4 \left[ \mathcal{M}_{u}(\tau)+\mathcal{V}_{u} \right] + \mathcal{M}_{d}(\tau)+\mathcal{V}_{d} \right) \kappa^{2}\mathcal{H}(\kappa,\tau) \right], \nonumber \\ \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathcal{M}_{u}(\tau)}{\mathrm{d}\tau}= & 1.85 \left( 1-\frac{B^{2}}{B_{\mathrm{eq}}^{2}} \right)^{5/6} \int_{1}^{\kappa_{\mathrm{max}}}\mathrm{d}\kappa \big[ \kappa^{2}\mathcal{H}(\kappa,\tau) \notag \\ & - 0.22 \left( 4 \left[ \mathcal{M}_{u}(\tau)+\mathcal{V}_{u} \right] + \mathcal{M}_{d}(\tau)+\mathcal{V}_{d} \right)\mathcal{R}(\kappa,\tau) \big] - % \nonumber % \\ % & - \mathcal{G}_{u}\mathcal{M}_{u}(\tau), \nonumber \\ \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathcal{M}_{d}(\tau)}{\mathrm{d}\tau}= & 0.29 \left( 1-\frac{B^{2}}{B_{\mathrm{eq}}^{2}} \right)^{5/6} \int_{1}^{\kappa_{\mathrm{max}}}\mathrm{d}\kappa \big[ \kappa^{2}\mathcal{H}(\kappa,\tau) \notag \\ & - 0.22 \left( 4 \left[ \mathcal{M}_{u}(\tau)+\mathcal{V}_{u} \right] + \mathcal{M}_{d}(\tau)+\mathcal{V}_{d} \right) \mathcal{R}(\kappa,\tau) \big] - % \nonumber % \\ % & - \mathcal{G}_{d}\mathcal{M}_{d}(\tau),\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa_{\mathrm{max}}=k_{\mathrm{max}}/k_{\mathrm{min}}$, $B^{2}$ and $B_{\mathrm{eq}}^{2}$ are given in Eqs. (\[eq:hdef\]) and (\[eq:Beq\]). While solving of Eq. (\[eq:systdmls\]) numerically, we use the initial Kolmogorov spectrum of the magnetic energy density, $\rho_{\mathrm{B}}(k,t_{0})=\mathcal{C}k^{-5/3}$, where the constant $\mathcal{C}$ can be obtained by equating the initial magnetic energy density, computed on the basis of Eq. (\[eq:hdef\]), to $B_{0}^{2}/2$ (see Ref. [@DvoSem15b]). The initial spectrum of the magnetic helicity density is $h(k,t_{0})=2r\rho_{\mathrm{B}}(k,t_{0})/k$, where the parameter $0\leq r\leq1$, corresponds to initially nonhelical, $r=0$, and maximally helical, $r=1$, fields. In Ref. [@DvoSem15a] we found that the evolution of the magnetic field is almost independent on the initial values of the chiral imbalances $\mu_{5(u,d)}(t_{0})$ because of the huge helicity flip rates $\Gamma_{u,d}$. Therefore we can take almost arbitrary values of $\mu_{5(u,d)}(t_{0})$ only requiring that $\mu_{5(u,d)}(t_{0})\ll\mu_{u,d}$. In our simulations we shall take that $\mu_{5u}(t_{0})=\mu_{5d}(t_{0})=1\,\text{MeV}$. Results of the numeric solution of the kinetic equations\[sec:RES\] =================================================================== In this section we present the results of the numerical solution of Eq. (\[eq:systdmls\]) with the initial conditions corresponding to a quark matter in a compact star. In Fig. \[fig:Bevol\] we show the amplification of the initial magnetic field $B_{0}=10^{12}\,\text{G}$ by two or three orders of magnitude. This result is obtained by numerically solving Eq. (\[eq:systdmls\]) with the initial conditions discussed in Sec. \[sec:BFIELDEVOL\]. These initial conditions are quite possible in a dense quark matter in a HS/QS. -.7cm\ -.7cm One can see in Fig. \[fig:Bevol\] that the magnetic field reaches the saturated strength $B_{\mathrm{sat}}$. This result is analogous to the findings of Refs. [@DvoSem15c; @Dvo16]. For $T_{0}=10^{8}\,\text{K}$ in Figs. \[1a\] and \[1b\], $B_{\mathrm{sat}}\approx1.1\times10^{14}\,\text{G}$; and for $T_{0}=10^{9}\,\text{K}$ in Figs. \[1c\] and \[1d\], $B_{\mathrm{sat}}\approx1.1\times10^{15}\,\text{G}$. However, unlike Refs. [@DvoSem15c; @Dvo16], $B_{\mathrm{sat}}$ in Fig. \[fig:Bevol\] is defined entirely by $T_{0}$. The obtained $B_{\mathrm{sat}}$ is close to the magnetic field strength predicted in magnetars [@MerPonMel15], especially for $T_{0}=10^{9}\,\text{K}$. The time of the magnetic field growth to $B_{\mathrm{sat}}$ is several orders of magnitude shorter than in Refs. [@DvoSem15c; @Dvo16]. This fact is due to the smaller value of the electric conductivity $\sigma_{\mathrm{cond}}$ in quark matter in Eq. (\[eq:sigmaQCD\]) compared to $\sigma_{\mathrm{cond}}$ for electrons in nuclear matter which we used in Refs. [@DvoSem15c; @Dvo16]. This fact can be understood with help of the Faraday equation, $$\label{FE} \frac{\partial\mathbf{B}}{\partial t} = \frac{\Pi}{\sigma_{\mathrm{cond}}} \left( \nabla\times\mathbf{B} \right) + \frac{1}{\sigma_{\mathrm{cond}}}\nabla^{2}\mathbf{B},$$ which is equivalent to the first two lines in Eq. (\[eq:systgen\]). Using Eq. one gets that the saturation time $t_{\mathrm{sat}}\sim\sigma_{\mathrm{cond}}/\Pi\Lambda_{\mathrm{B}}$, where $\Lambda_{\mathrm{B}}$ is the magnetic field scale. It means that the smaller $\sigma_{\mathrm{cond}}$ is, the faster the magnetic field reaches $B_{\mathrm{sat}}$. Moreover, we can see that short scale magnetic field should reach $B_{\mathrm{sat}}$ faster. The later fact, which was also established in Refs. [@DvoSem15b; @DvoSem15c; @Dvo16], is confirmed by the comparison of Figs. \[1a\] and \[1b\] as well as Figs. \[1c\] and \[1d\]. In our model of the magnetic field generation, the thermal energy of background fermions is converted to the magnetic energy. One can say that a star cools down magnetically. The typical values of $t_{\mathrm{sat}}$ are $\apprle10\,\text{h}$ in Figs. \[1a\] and \[1b\] and $\lesssim10^{2}\,\text{min}$ in Figs. \[1c\] and \[1d\]. At such short time scales, other cooling channels, such as that due to the neutrino emission [@Yak01], do not contribute to the temperature evolution significantly. Therefore, unlike Refs. [@DvoSem15b; @DvoSem15c; @Dvo16], we omit them in our present simulations. In Fig. \[fig:Bevol\] we can see that, although the initial magnetic helicity can be different (see solid and dashed lines there), the subsequent evolution of such magnetic fields is almost indistinguishable, especially at $t \sim t_{\mathrm{sat}}$. It means that, besides the generation of strong magnetic field, we also generate the magnetic helicity in quark matter. This result is in the agreement with Refs. [@DvoSem15b; @DvoSem15c; @Dvo16]. Discussion\[sec:DISC\] ====================== In the present work we have applied the mechanism for the magnetic field generation, proposed in Refs. [@DvoSem15a; @DvoSem15b; @DvoSem15c], to create strong large scale magnetic fields in dense quark matter. This mechanism is based on the magnetic field instability driven a parity violating electroweak interaction between particles in the system. We have established the system of kinetic equations for the spectra of the magnetic helicity density and the magnetic energy density, as well as for the chiral imbalances, and have solved it numerically. Although there is a one-to-one correspondence between the mechanisms for the magnetic field generation in Refs. [@DvoSem15a; @DvoSem15b; @DvoSem15c; @Dvo16] and in the present work, the scenario described here is likely to be more realistic. As mentioned in Ref. [@Dvo16b] the generation of the anomalous current in Eq. (\[eq:Jind\]) is impossible for massive particles. Electrons in NS are ultrarelativistic but have a nonzero mass. As found in Ref. [@Rub86], the chiral symmetry can be restored at densities $n\sim M_{\mathrm{W}}^{3}\sim10^{46}\,\text{cm}^{-3}$, that is much higher than one can expect in NS. Therefore the chiral magnetic effect for electrons as well as the results of Refs. [@DvoSem15a; @DvoSem15b; @DvoSem15c; @Dvo16] are unlikely to be applied in NS. Recently this fact was also mentioned in Ref. [@Dvo16b]. On the contrary, the chiral symmetry was found in Ref. [@DexSch10] to be restored for lightest $u$ and $d$ quarks even at densities corresponding to a core of HS or in QS. Accounting for the existence of the electroweak parity violating interaction between $u$ and $d$ quarks, we can conclude that the application of the methods of Refs. [@DvoSem15a; @DvoSem15b; @DvoSem15c; @Dvo16] to the quark matter in a compact star is quite plausible. We have obtained that, in quark matter, the seed magnetic field $B_{0}=10^{12}\,\text{G}$, which is typical in a young pulsar, is amplified up to $B_{\mathrm{sat}}\sim\left(10^{14}-10^{15}\right)\,\text{G}$, depending on the initial temperature. Such magnetic fields are predicted in magnetars [@MerPonMel15]. Therefore HS/QS can become a magnetar. The obtained growth time of the magnetic field to $B_{\mathrm{sat}}$ is much less than that in electron-nucleon case studied in Refs. [@DvoSem15a; @DvoSem15b; @DvoSem15c; @Dvo16]. It means that, in our model, strong magnetic fields are generated quite rapidly with $t_{\mathrm{sat}}\sim$ several hours after a star is in a thermal equilibrium. Note that, in the present work, instead of the quenching of the parameter $\Pi$ in Eq. (\[eq:Jind\]) suggested in Ref. [@DvoSem15c] to avoid the excessive growth of the magnetic field, we used the conservation of the total energy in Eq. (\[eq:magcool\]) and the dependence of the electric conductivity on the temperature in Eq. (\[eq:sigmaT\]); cf. Ref. [@Dvo16]. It results in a more explicit saturation of the magnetic field in Eq. (\[eq:systdmls\]); cf. Fig. \[fig:Bevol\]. Despite the plausibility of the results, several important assumptions were made. Firstly, while calculating the helicity flip rates in Appendix \[sec:HELFLR\], we have taken that quarks exchange by plasmons in their scattering. It is, however, known (see, e.g., Ref. [@KapToi88]) that modified effective interaction potentials can exist in a dense degenerate matter. If one takes into account these interactions it can somehow change the values of $\Gamma_{u,d}$. Nevertheless, since the present work is a qualitative study of the magnetic field generation in the degenerate quark matter, we shall restrict ourselves to the the plasmon interaction of quarks. Secondly, we have considered the simplest case of a compact star consisting of only $u$ and $d$ quarks. However, strange stars, having a certain fraction of $s$ quarks are also actively studied [@Gle00 pp. 414–440]. The nonzero fraction of $s$ quarks, which cannot exceed $1/3$, is also required by the beta equilibrium. Nonetheless $s$ quarks are unlikely to contribute significantly to the generation of magnetic fields in our model. Firstly, the mass of an $s$ quark $m_{s}=150\,\text{MeV}$ is quite great, i.e. the chiral symmetry will remain broken for these particles. Thus, $s$ quarks do not contribute to the induced current in Eq. (\[eq:Jind\]). Secondly, even if $s$ quarks contribute to the helicity flip rates of $u$ and $d$ quarks, it will not change the evolution of the magnetic field. Indeed, $\Gamma_{u,d}$ computed in Appendix \[sec:HELFLR\], is already great enough to wash out the initial chiral imbalances $\mu_{5(u,d)}(0)$. Any bigger contribution to $\Gamma_{u,d}$ will eliminate $\mu_{5(u,d)}(0)$ faster. However, the growth of the magnetic field is driven by $V_{5(u,d)}$, which is constant, rather than by $\mu_{5(u,d)}$. Summarizing, we have described the generation of strong large scale magnetic fields in dense quark matter driven by the magnetic field instability caused by the electroweak interaction of quarks. The described phenomenon may well exist in the core of HS or in QS. We suggest that the obtained results can have implication to the problem of magnetars since the generated magnetic fields have strength close to that predicted in these highly magnetized compact stars. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ I am thankful to S.I. Blinnikov, A.V. Borisov, V.V. Braguta, M.I. Krivoruchenko, N. Leite, A.E. Lobanov, B.V. Martemyanov, K.A. Postnov, V.B. Semikoz, G. Sigl, M.I. Vysotsky, V.I. Zakharov, and V.Ch. Zhukovsky for useful discussions, as well as to the Tomsk State University Competitiveness Improvement Program, RFBR (research project No. 15-02-00293), and DAAD (grant No. 91610946) for partial support. Helicity flip rates in degenerate quark matter {#sec:HELFLR} ============================================== In this Appendix we shall compute the helicity flip rates of $u$ and $d$ quarks in their collisions in dense matter as well as derive the kinetic equations for the chiral imbalances. As mentioned in Sec. \[sec:BFIELDEVOL\], quarks acquire effective masses in dense matter. Thus the helicity of quarks will change when the particles collide. There are three types of reactions: (a) scattering of identical quarks, with helicities of both particles being changed; (b) scattering of different quark flavors, with helicities of both particles being changed; and (c) scattering of different quark flavors, with helicity of only one particle being changed. We shall successively discuss all the cases. Quarks are supposed to interact by the plasmon exchange. #### Scattering of identical quarks There are four reactions in this group: $u_{\mathrm{L}}u_{\mathrm{L}}\to u_{\mathrm{R}}u_{\mathrm{R}}$, $d_{\mathrm{L}}d_{\mathrm{L}}\to d_{\mathrm{R}}d_{\mathrm{R}}$, $u_{\mathrm{R}}u_{\mathrm{R}}\to u_{\mathrm{L}}u_{\mathrm{L}}$, and $d_{\mathrm{R}}d_{\mathrm{R}}\to d_{\mathrm{L}}d_{\mathrm{L}}$. We study in details only the process $u_{\mathrm{L}}(p_{1})+u_{\mathrm{L}}(p_{2})\to u_{\mathrm{R}}(p'_{1})+u_{\mathrm{R}}(p'_{2})$, where $p_{1,2}^{\mu}=\left(E_{1,2},\mathbf{p}_{1,2}\right)$ are the momenta of incoming quarks and $p_{1,2}^{\prime\mu}=\left(E'_{1,2},\mathbf{p}'_{1,2}\right)$ are the momenta of outgoing quarks. In this reaction, the number of left particles is decreased by two units and the number of right particles is increased by two units. Other reactions in this group can be studied analogously. The matrix element has the form, $$\label{eq:MuLuLuRuR} \mathcal{M}=\mathrm{i}e_{u}^{2} \left[ \frac{1}{t} \bar{u}(p'_{1})\gamma^{\mu}u(p_{1}) \cdot \bar{u}(p'_{2})\gamma_{\mu}u(p_{2}) - \frac{1}{u} \bar{u}(p'_{2})\gamma^{\mu}u(p_{1}) \cdot \bar{u}(p'_{1})\gamma_{\mu}u(p_{2}) \right].$$ where $t=\left(p'_{1}-p_{1}\right)^{2}$ and $u=\left(p'_{2}-p_{1}\right)^{2}$ are the Mandelstam variables. The square of the matrix element in Eq. (\[eq:MuLuLuRuR\]) is $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:M2uLuLuRuR} \|\mathcal{M}\|^{2}= & e_{u}^{4} \bigg[ \frac{1}{t^{2}} \text{tr} \left( \rho'_{2}\gamma_{\mu}\rho_{2}\gamma_{\nu} \right) \cdot \text{tr} \left( \rho'_{1}\gamma^{\mu}\rho_{1}\gamma^{\nu} \right) + \frac{1}{u^{2}} \text{tr} \left( \rho'_{1}\gamma_{\mu}\rho_{2}\gamma_{\nu} \right) \cdot \text{tr} \left( \rho'_{2}\gamma^{\mu}\rho_{1}\gamma^{\nu} \right) \nonumber \\ & -\frac{1}{tu} \text{tr} \left( \rho'_{2}\gamma_{\mu}\rho_{2}\gamma_{\nu} \rho'_{1}\gamma^{\mu}\rho_{1}\gamma^{\nu} \right) - \frac{1}{tu} \text{tr} \left( \rho'_{1}\gamma_{\mu}\rho_{2}\gamma_{\nu} \rho'_{2}\gamma^{\mu}\rho_{1}\gamma^{\nu} \right) \bigg],\end{aligned}$$ where the density matrices are [@BerLifPit82 pp. 106–111] $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:densmatr} \rho_{1,2} = & \frac{1}{2} \left[ \left( \gamma\cdot p_{1,2} \right) + m_{u} \right] \left[ 1+\gamma^{5} \left( \gamma\cdot a_{1,2} \right) \right], \notag \\ \rho'_{1,2} = & \frac{1}{2} \left[ \left( \gamma\cdot p'_{1,2} \right) + m_{u} \right] \left[ 1+\gamma^{5} \left( \gamma\cdot a'_{1,2} \right) \right].\end{aligned}$$ Here $m_{u}$ is the effective mass given in Eq. (\[eq:meff\]) and the polarization vectors are [@Dvo16] $$\label{eq:4dpolar} a_{1,2}^{\mu} = \frac{1}{m_{u}} \left( -p_{1,2},-E_{1,2}\mathbf{n}_{1,2} \right), \quad a_{1,2}^{\prime\mu}=\frac{1}{m_{u}} \left( p'_{1,2},E'_{1,2}\mathbf{n}'_{1,2} \right),$$ which correspond to left and right particles. Here $\mathbf{n}_{1,2}$ and $\mathbf{n}'_{1,2}$ are the unit vectors along $\mathbf{p}_{1,2}$ and $\mathbf{p}'_{1,2}$. Choosing the center-of-mass frame of colliding quarks and assuming the elastic scattering, one gets that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:truLuLuRuR} & \text{tr} \left( \rho'_{2}\gamma_{\mu}\rho_{2}\gamma_{\nu} \right) \cdot \text{tr} \left( \rho'_{1}\gamma^{\mu}\rho_{1}\gamma^{\nu} \right) = 16m_{u}^{4}\sin^{4}\frac{\theta_{\mathrm{cm}}}{2}, \notag \\ & \text{tr} \left( \rho'_{1}\gamma_{\mu}\rho_{2}\gamma_{\nu} \right) \cdot \text{tr} \left( \rho'_{2}\gamma^{\mu}\rho_{1}\gamma^{\nu} \right) = 16m_{u}^{4}\cos^{4}\frac{\theta_{\mathrm{cm}}}{2}, \nonumber \\ & \text{tr} \left( \rho'_{2}\gamma_{\mu}\rho_{2}\gamma_{\nu} \rho'_{1}\gamma^{\mu}\rho_{1}\gamma^{\nu} \right) = \text{tr} \left( \rho'_{1}\gamma_{\mu}\rho_{2}\gamma_{\nu} \rho'_{2}\gamma^{\mu}\rho_{1}\gamma^{\nu} \right) = -4m_{u}^{4}\sin^{2}\theta_{\mathrm{cm}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta_{\mathrm{cm}}$ is the scattering angle, i.e. the angle between $\mathbf{p}_{1}$ and $\mathbf{p}'_{1}$ in the center-of-mass frame. In the same frame one has $$\label{eq:tucm} t=-2E_{\mathrm{cm}}^{2} \left( 1-\cos\theta_{\mathrm{cm}} \right), \quad u=-2E_{\mathrm{cm}}^{2} \left( 1+\cos\theta_{\mathrm{cm}} \right),$$ where $E_{\mathrm{cm}}$ is the energy of colliding quarks in the center-of-mass frame. In Eq. (\[eq:tucm\]), we also assume that the scattering is elastic. We can express $E_{\mathrm{cm}}$ in term of the variables in the laboratory frame, i.e. where the star is at rest, as $E_{\mathrm{cm}}^{2} \approx \left\{ m_{u}^{2}+E_{1}E_{2} \left[ 1- \left( \mathbf{n}_{1}\cdot\mathbf{n}_{2} \right) \right] \right\} /2$. Since we study the probability in the lowest order in the effective mass and traces in Eq. (\[eq:truLuLuRuR\]) are proportional to $m_{u}^{4}$, we neglect $m_{u}$ in Eq. (\[eq:tucm\]) as well as in the following calculations. Finally, Eq. (\[eq:M2uLuLuRuR\]) takes the form $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:M2ushort} \|\mathcal{M}\|^{2}= & \frac{16m_{u}^{4}e_{u}^{4}}{ \left\{ m_{u}^{2}+E_{1}E_{2} \left[ 1 - \left( \mathbf{n}_{1}\cdot\mathbf{n}_{2} \right) \right] \right\} ^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ The total probability of the process has the form [@BerLifPit82 pp. 247–252], $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:WuLuLuRuR} W= & \frac{V}{64(2\pi)^{8}} \int \frac{\mathrm{d}^{3}p_{1}\mathrm{d}^{3}p_{2} \mathrm{d}^{3}p'_{1}\mathrm{d}^{3}p'_{2}} {E_{1}E_{2}E'_{1}E'_{2}} \delta^{4} \left( p_{1}+p_{2}-p'_{1}-p'_{2} \right) \|\mathcal{M}\|^{2} \nonumber \\ & \times f \left( E_{1}-\mu_{u\mathrm{L}} \right) f \left( E_{2}-\mu_{u\mathrm{L}} \right) \left[ 1-f \left( E'_{1}-\mu_{u\mathrm{R}} \right) \right] \left[ 1-f \left( E'_{2}-\mu_{u\mathrm{R}} \right) \right],\end{aligned}$$ where $f(E) = \left[ \exp \left (\beta E \right) + 1 \right]^{-1}$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution of quarks, $\beta=1/T$ is the reciprocal temperature, $\mu_{\mathrm{L,R}}$ are the chemical potentials of left and right quarks, and $\|\mathcal{M}\|^{2}$ is given in Eq. (\[eq:M2ushort\]). Here we assume that quarks are degenerate, i.e. $f(E-\mu)=\Theta(\mu-E)$, where $\Theta(z)$ is the Heaviside step function. In Eq. (\[eq:WuLuLuRuR\]) we introduce the additional factor $4=2!\times2!$ in the denominator to take into account identical particles in the initial and final states. The direct calculation of the integrals over the phase space in Eq. (\[eq:WuLuLuRuR\]) accounting for $\|\mathcal{M}\|^{2}$ in Eq. (\[eq:M2ushort\]) gives $$\label{eq:WuLuLuRuRfin} W(u_{\mathrm{L}}u_{\mathrm{L}} \to u_{\mathrm{R}}u_{\mathrm{R}}) = \frac{e_{u}^{4}m_{u}^{2}\mu_{u}V}{8\pi^{5}} \left( \mu_{u\mathrm{L}}-\mu_{u\mathrm{R}} \right) \Theta \left( \mu_{u\mathrm{L}}-\mu_{u\mathrm{R}} \right).$$ Analogously we can compute the probabilities of other reactions in this group. The kinetic equations for the evolution of the total number of left and right $u$ quarks $N_{u\mathrm{L,R}}$ are $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\mathrm{d}N_{u\mathrm{L}}}{\mathrm{d}t} & = -2W(u_{\mathrm{L}}u_{\mathrm{L}} \to u_{\mathrm{R}}u_{\mathrm{R}}) + 2W(u_{\mathrm{R}}u_{\mathrm{R}} \to u_{\mathrm{L}}u_{\mathrm{L}}), \nonumber \\ \frac{\mathrm{d}N_{u\mathrm{R}}}{\mathrm{d}t} & = +2W(u_{\mathrm{L}}u_{\mathrm{L}}\to u_{\mathrm{R}}u_{\mathrm{R}}) - 2W(u_{\mathrm{R}}u_{\mathrm{R}}\to u_{\mathrm{L}}u_{\mathrm{L}}),\end{aligned}$$ Accounting for Eq. (\[eq:WuLuLuRuRfin\]) and the analogous expression for $d$ quarks, one gets the evolution of the chiral imbalances $\mu_{5(u,d)}=\left(\mu_{(u,d)\mathrm{R}}-\mu_{(u,d)\mathrm{L}}\right)/2$ in the form, $$\label{eq:mu5identpart} \dot{\mu}_{5(u,d)} = -\Gamma_{u,d}\mu_{5(u,d)}, \quad \Gamma_{u,d} = \frac{e_{u,d}^{4}}{\pi^{3}}\frac{m_{u,d}^{2}}{\mu_{u,d}}.$$ In Eq. (\[eq:mu5identpart\]) we take into account the relation between the number densities $n_{\mathrm{L,R}}=N_{\mathrm{L,R}}/V$ and chemical potentials of left and right quarks $$\label{eq:nmurel} n_{\mathrm{L,R}} = \int\frac{d^{3}p}{(2\pi)^{3}} \frac{1}{\exp \left[ \beta \left( p-\mu_{\mathrm{L,R}} \right) \right]+1} \approx \frac{\mu_{\mathrm{L,R}}^{3}}{6\pi^{2}},$$ where we assume that massless quarks have only one polarization. In particular we get from Eq. (\[eq:nmurel\]) that$\mathrm{d}(n_{(u,d)\mathrm{R}}-n_{(u,d)\mathrm{L}})/\mathrm{d}t \approx \dot{\mu}_{5(u,d)}\mu_{u,d}^{2}/\pi^{2}$. #### Scattering of $ud$ quarks: both particles change helicity There are also four reactions: $u_{\mathrm{L}}d_{\mathrm{L}} \to u_{\mathrm{R}}d_{\mathrm{R}}$, $u_{\mathrm{R}}d_{\mathrm{R}} \to u_{\mathrm{L}}d_{\mathrm{L}}$, $u_{\mathrm{L}}d_{\mathrm{R}} \to u_{\mathrm{R}}d_{\mathrm{L}}$, and $u_{\mathrm{R}}d_{\mathrm{L}} \to u_{\mathrm{L}}d_{\mathrm{R}}$ in this group. Let us first study the following process: $u_{\mathrm{L}}(p_{1}) + d_{\mathrm{L}}(p_{2}) \to u_{\mathrm{R}}(p'_{1}) + d_{\mathrm{R}}(p'_{2})$. The matrix element has the form, $$\mathcal{M}=\mathrm{i}e_{u}e_{d} \frac{\bar{u}(p'_{1})\gamma^{\mu}u(p_{1}) \cdot \bar{d}(p'_{2})\gamma_{\mu}d(p_{2})}{ \left( p'_{1}-p_{1} \right)^{2}}.$$ Instead of using Eqs. (\[eq:densmatr\]) and (\[eq:4dpolar\]) to compute $\|\mathcal{M}\|^{2}$, we can utilize the solution of the Dirac equation, corresponding to left and right particles $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:solDireq} u_{\mathrm{L}}(p_{1}) = & \sqrt{E_{1}+p_{1}} \left( \begin{array}{c} -\frac{m_{u}}{E_{1}+p_{1}}w_{-}(\mathbf{p}_{1}) \\ w_{-}(\mathbf{p}_{1}) \end{array} \right), \notag \\ u_{\mathrm{R}}(p'_{1}) = & \sqrt{E'_{1}+p'_{1}} \left( \begin{array}{c} w_{+}(\mathbf{p}'_{1}) \\ -\frac{m_{u}}{E'_{1}+p'_{1}}w_{+}(\mathbf{p}'_{1}) \end{array} \right)\end{aligned}$$ where $w_{\pm}(\mathbf{p})$ are the helicity amplitudes which can be found in Ref. [@BerLifPit82 p. 86]. The spinors in Eq. are normalized as $\bar{u}u=2m_{u}$. Analogous spinors are valid for $d$ quarks. The direct calculation of $\|\mathcal{M}\|^{2}$ with help of Eq. (\[eq:solDireq\]) gives $$\|\mathcal{M}\|^{2} = \frac{e_{u}^{2}e_{d}^{2}m_{u}^{2}m_{d}^{2}} {16E_{1}E_{2}E'_{1}E'_{2}} \frac{ \left( E'_{1}+p'_{1}+E{}_{1}+p_{1} \right)^{2} \left( E'_{2}+p'_{2}+E{}_{2}+p_{2} \right)^{2}}{ \left( E'_{1}+p'_{1} \right) \left( E_{1}+p_{1} \right) \left( E'_{2}+p'_{2} \right) \left( E_{2}+p_{2} \right)},$$ where we keep the leading term in the effective quark masses and assume the elastic scattering. Analogously to Eq. one obtains the total probability for the reaction $u_{\mathrm{L}}d_{\mathrm{L}}\to u_{\mathrm{R}}d_{\mathrm{R}}$ in the form, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:WuLdLuRdR} W= & \frac{V}{16(2\pi)^{8}} \int \frac{\mathrm{d}^{3}p_{1}\mathrm{d}^{3}p_{2} \mathrm{d}^{3}p'_{1}\mathrm{d}^{3}p'_{2}} {E_{1}E_{2}E'_{1}E'_{2}} \delta^{4} \left( p_{1}+p_{2}-p'_{1}-p'_{2} \right) \|\mathcal{M}\|^{2} \nonumber \\ & \times \Theta \left( \mu_{u\mathrm{L}}-E_{1} \right) \Theta \left( \mu_{d\mathrm{L}}-E{}_{2} \right) \Theta \left( E'_{1}-\mu_{u\mathrm{R}} \right) \Theta \left( E'_{2}-\mu_{d\mathrm{R}} \right).\end{aligned}$$ After the computation of the integrals over the quark momenta in Eq. (\[eq:WuLdLuRdR\]) one has $$W(u_{\mathrm{L}}d_{\mathrm{L}} \to u_{\mathrm{R}}d_{\mathrm{R}}) = W_{0} \left( \mu_{u\mathrm{L}} + \mu_{d\mathrm{L}} - \mu_{u\mathrm{R}} - \mu_{d\mathrm{R}} \right) \Theta \left( \mu_{u\mathrm{L}} + \mu_{d\mathrm{L}} - \mu_{u\mathrm{R}} - \mu_{d\mathrm{R}} \right),$$ where $W_{0}\sim e_{u}^{2}e_{d}^{2}m_{u}^{2}m_{d}^{2}V / \sqrt{\mu_{u}\mu_{d}}$. Comparing $W(u_{\mathrm{L}}d_{\mathrm{L}}\to u_{\mathrm{R}}d_{\mathrm{R}})$ with, e.g., $W(u_{\mathrm{L}}u_{\mathrm{L}}\to u_{\mathrm{R}}u_{\mathrm{R}})$ in Eq. (\[eq:WuLuLuRuRfin\]), one gets that $W(u_{\mathrm{L}}d_{\mathrm{L}}\to u_{\mathrm{R}}d_{\mathrm{R}})\ll W(u_{\mathrm{L}}u_{\mathrm{L}}\to u_{\mathrm{R}}u_{\mathrm{R}})$ since $m^2_{u,d} \sim \alpha_\mathrm{em} \mu^2_{u,d} \ll \mu^2_{u,d}$ (see Eq. and Ref. [@Bra92]). It means that the contribution of the reactions in the considered group to the helicity flip rates is negligible. #### Scattering of $ud$ quarks: only one particle changes helicity One has eight reactions $u_{\mathrm{L}}d_{\mathrm{L,R}}\to u_{\mathrm{R}}d_{\mathrm{L,R}}$, $u_{\mathrm{R}}d_{\mathrm{L,R}}\to u_{\mathrm{L}}d_{\mathrm{L,R}}$, $d_{\mathrm{L}}u_{\mathrm{L,R}}\to d_{\mathrm{R}}u_{\mathrm{L,R}}$, and $d_{\mathrm{R}}u_{\mathrm{L,R}}\to d_{\mathrm{L}}u_{\mathrm{L,R}}$ present in this group. Let us first study the process $u_{\mathrm{L}}(p_{1})+d_{\mathrm{L}}(p_{2})\to u_{\mathrm{R}}(p'_{1})+d_{\mathrm{L}}(p'_{2})$. The matrix element for this reaction is $$\mathcal{M} = \mathrm{i}e_{u}e_{d} \frac{\bar{u}(p'_{1})\gamma^{\mu}u(p_{1}) \cdot \bar{d}(p'_{2})\gamma_{\mu}d(p_{2})}{ \left( p'_{1}-p_{1} \right)^{2}}.$$ The calculation of $\|\mathcal{M}\|^{2}$ can be made with help of Eq. (\[eq:solDireq\]). Here we present only the final result, $$\label{eq:M2uLdLuRdL} \|\mathcal{M}\|^{2} = m_{u}^{2}e_{u}^{2}e_{d}^{2} \frac{E_{2}E'_{2}}{E_{1}^{2}E_{1}^{\prime2}} \frac{ \left[ 1+ \left( \mathbf{n}_{2}\cdot\mathbf{n}'_{2} \right) \right]}{ \left[ 1- \left( \mathbf{n}_{1}\cdot\mathbf{n}'_{1} \right) \right]},$$ where as usual we assume that quarks are ultrarelativistic and the scattering is elastic. The total probability of the process $u_{\mathrm{L}}d_{\mathrm{L}}\to u_{\mathrm{R}}d_{\mathrm{L}}$ is $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:WuLdLuRdL} W= & \frac{V}{16(2\pi)^{8}} \int \frac{\mathrm{d}^{3}p_{1}\mathrm{d}^{3}p_{2} \mathrm{d}^{3}p'_{1}\mathrm{d}^{3}p'_{2}} {E_{1}E_{2}E'_{1}E'_{2}} \delta^{4} \left( p_{1}+p_{2}-p'_{1}-p'_{2} \right) \|\mathcal{M}\|^{2} \nonumber \\ & \times \Theta \left( \mu_{u\mathrm{L}}-E_{1} \right) \Theta \left( E'_{1}-\mu_{u\mathrm{R}} \right) f \left( E_{2}-\mu_{d\mathrm{L}} \right) \left[ 1-f \left( E'_{2}-\mu_{d\mathrm{L}} \right) \right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\|\mathcal{M}\|^{2}$ is given in Eq. (\[eq:M2uLdLuRdL\]). Note that, in Eq. (\[eq:WuLdLuRdL\]) we do not replace the initial and final distributions of $d$ quarks with step functions since $d$ quark does not change the helicity. The integration over the particles momenta can be made as in Ref. [@Dvo16]. Here we present only the final result, $$\label{eq:WuLdLuRdLfin} W(u_{\mathrm{L}}d_{\mathrm{L}}\to u_{\mathrm{R}}d_{\mathrm{L}}) = \frac{e_{u}^{2}e_{d}^{2}}{16\pi^{5}} V\mu_{d\mathrm{L}}^{3} \frac{T}{\omega_{p}} \left( \frac{m_{u}}{\mu_{u}} \right)^{2} \left( \mu_{u\mathrm{L}}-\mu_{u\mathrm{R}} \right) \Theta \left( \mu_{u\mathrm{L}}-\mu_{u\mathrm{R}} \right).$$ We just mention that, to get Eq. (\[eq:WuLdLuRdLfin\]) we have to avoid the infrared divergence. For this purpose we introduce the plasma frequency $$\omega_{p} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}\pi}\sqrt{e_{u}^{2}\mu_{u}^{2}+e_{d}^{2}\mu_{d}^{2}} = 3.04\times10^{-2}\mu_{0},$$ in the degenerate $ud$ quark matter [@BraSeg93]. Comparing Eq. (\[eq:WuLdLuRdLfin\]) with Eq. (\[eq:WuLuLuRuRfin\]) one can see that $W(u_{\mathrm{L}}d_{\mathrm{L}}\to u_{\mathrm{R}}d_{\mathrm{L}})\ll W(u_{\mathrm{L}}u_{\mathrm{L}}\to u_{\mathrm{R}}u_{\mathrm{R}})$ since $T\ll\omega_{p}$ in the degenerate matter. That is why the reactions in this group can be omitted as well. At the end of this Appendix we mention that we do not study the influence of the electroweak interaction between quarks on the helicity flip in quark collisions. The contribution of the electroweak interaction to the scattering probability of electrons off protons was studied in Ref. [@Dvo16], where it was found that $V_{5}$ does not enter to the analog of Eq. (\[eq:mu5identpart\]) for the evolution of the chiral imbalance $\mu_5$. [100]{} R. Turolla, S. Zane, A.L. Watts, Magnetars: the physics behind observations. A review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 78 (2015) 116901, arXiv:1507.02924. V.A. Miransky, I.A. Shovkovy, Quantum field theory in a magnetic field: From quantum chromodynamics to graphene and Dirac semimetals, Phys. Rept. 576 1 (2015) 1–209, arXiv:1503.00732. J. Charbonneau, A. Zhitnitsky, Topological currents in neutron stars: Kicks, precession, toroidal fields and magnetic helicity, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2010) 010, arXiv:0903.4450. G. Sigl, N. Leite, Chiral magnetic effect in protoneutron stars and magnetic field spectral evolution, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2016) 025, arXiv:1507.04983. A. Boyarsky, O. Ruchayskiy, M. Shaposhnikov, Long-range magnetic fields in the ground state of the Standard Model plasma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 111602, arXiv:1204.3604. M. Dvornikov, V.B. Semikoz, Instability of magnetic fields in electroweak plasma driven by neutrino asymmetries, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2015) 002, arXiv:1311.5267. M. Dvornikov, V.B. Semikoz, Magnetic field instability in a neutron star driven by the electroweak electron-nucleon interaction versus the chiral magnetic effect, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 061301, arXiv:1410.6676. M. Dvornikov, V.B. Semikoz, Generation of the magnetic helicity in a neutron star driven by the electroweak electron-nucleon interaction, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2015) 032, arXiv:1503.04162. M. Dvornikov, V. B. Semikoz, Energy source for the magnetic field growth in magnetars driven by the electron-nucleon interaction, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 083007, arXiv:1507.03948. M. Dvornikov, Relaxation of the chiral imbalance and the generation of magnetic fields in magnetars, to be published in J. Exp. Theor. Phys. (2016), arXiv:1510.06228. A. Vilenkin, Equilibrium parity violating current in a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 3080–3084. M. Dvornikov, Role of particle masses in the magnetic field generation driven by the parity violating interaction, Phys. Lett. B 760 (2016) 406–410, arXiv:1608.04940. N. K. Glendenning, Compact Stars: Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics, and General Relativity, 2nd ed., Springer, New York, 2000. Z.G. Dai, S.Q. Wang, J.S. Wang, L.J. Wang, Y.W. Yu, The most luminous supernova ASASSN-15LH: Signature of a newborn rapidly rotating strange quark star, Astrophys. J. 817 (2016) 132–137, arXiv:1508.07745. V.V. Braguta, E.-M. Ilgenfritz, A.Yu. Kotov, A.V. Molochkov, A.A. Nikolaev, Study of the phase diagram of dense two-color QCD within lattice simulation, arXiv:1605.04090. M. Dvornikov, Galvano-rotational effect induced by electroweak interactions in pulsars, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2015) 037, arXiv:1503.00608. M. Dvornikov, Impossibility of the strong magnetic fields generation in an electron-positron plasma, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 041702, arXiv:1405.3059. H. Heiselberg, C.J. Pethick, Transport and relaxation in degenerate quark plasmas, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 2916–2928. D.C. Kelly, Electrical and thermal conductivities of a relativistic degenerate plasma, Astrophys. J. 179 (1973) 599–606. D.G. Yakovlev, A.D. Kaminker, O.Y. Gnedin, P. Haensel, Neutrino emission from neutron stars, Phys. Rept. 354 (2001) 1–155, astro-ph/0012122. If we suppose that $B^{2}\ll B_{\mathrm{eq}}^{2}$ in Eq. (\[eq:magcool\]), we can rewrite Eq. (\[eq:magcool\]) as $T^{2}\sim\left(1+B^{2}/B_{\mathrm{eq}}^{2}\right)^{-1}$. Then, we account for that $\sigma_{\mathrm{cond}}\sim T^{-2}$ in a nuclear matter in NS [@Kel73]. The instability of the magnetic field in Eq. (\[eq:systgen\]) proceeds from the terms containing $\mu_{5q}$ and $V_{5q}$. Thus, to avoid the excessive growth of the magnetic field, it is sufficient to replace $T^{2}\to T^{2}\left(1+B^{2}/B_{\mathrm{eq}}^{2}\right)^{-1}$ or $\Pi\to\Pi\left[1+B^{2}/B_{\mathrm{eq}}^{2}(T)\right]^{-1}$ only in these terms [@DvoSem15c]. E. Braaten, Neutrino emissivity of an ultrarelativistic plasma from positron and plasmino annihilation, Astrophys. J. 392 (1992) 70–73. V. A. Rubakov, On the electroweak theory at high fermion density, Prog. Theor. Phys. 75 (1986) 366–385. V. Dexheimer, S. Schramm, A Novel approach to model hybrid stars, Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 045201, arXiv:0901.1748. J. Kapusta, T. Toimela, Friedel oscillations in relativistic QED and QCD, Phys. Rev. D 37 (1988) 3731–3736. V. B. Berestetskii, E. M. Lifschitz, L. P. Pitaevskii, Quantum Electrodynamics, 2nd ed., Pergamon, Oxford, 1982. E. Braaten, D. Segel, Neutrino energy loss from the plasma process at all temperatures and densities, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 1478–1491, hep-ph/9302213. [^1]: [email protected]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Wind plants can increase annual energy production with advanced control algorithms by coordinating the operating points of individual turbine controllers across the farm. It remains a challenge to achieve performance improvements in practice because of the difficulty of utilizing models that capture pertinent complex aerodynamic phenomena while remaining amenable to control design. We formulate a multi-stage stochastic optimal control problem for wind farm power maximization and show that it can be solved analytically via dynamic programming. In particular, our model incorporates state- and input-dependent multiplicative noise whose distributions capture stochastic wind fluctuations. The optimal control policies and value functions explicitly incorporate the moments of these distributions, establishing a connection between wind flow data and optimal feedback control. We illustrate the results with numerical experiments.' author: - 'Yi Guo, Mario Rotea, Tyler Summers [^1] [^2]' bibliography: - 'refs.bib' title: Stochastic Dynamic Programming for Wind Farm Power Maximization --- Introduction ============ Wind energy is an important component of future energy systems to meet growing energy demands. As wind power continues to account for a larger portion of the world-wide energy portfolio, the optimal operation of wind farms offers both challenges and opportunities to further improve performance at the levels of single turbines, wind farms, and power grids. Due to nonlinear aerodynamic interaction through wakes and unpredictable wind variations, future optimal control strategies for wind farms will require sophisticated models to capture and manage stochastic wind fluctuations. Maximizing the wind power capture has been discussed in the scope of wind turbines [@pao2009tutorial; @xiao2018cart3; @pao2011control; @munteanu2008optimal] and wind farms [@schepers2007improved; @johnson2009wind; @knudsen2009distributed; @spudic2010hierarchical; @madjidian2011distributed; @soleimanzadeh2011controller; @kristalny2011decentralized; @horvat2012quasi; @biegel2013distributed; @bitar2013coordinated; @buccafusca2018maximizing; @buccafusca2017modeling; @ciri2017model; @santhanagopalan2018performance; @gebraad2016wind; @goit2015optimal; @gebraad2015maximum; @rotea2014dynamic; @johnson2012assessment; @yang2013maximizing; @marden2013model; @park2013wind]. In Region 2 operation (below-rated wind speed), the wind plant is operated to maximize the power output. In this regime, there are inherent tradeoffs between the wake of upstream turbines and the power extracted from downstream turbines. Due to this aerodynamic coupling, maximizing total power of wind farms cannot be achieved by myopically maximizing the power output for each individual wind turbine in the array [@steinbuch1988optimal]. Therefore, depending on layout and wind conditions, it may be essential to have a coordinated control framework for wind farms to determine the optimal control strategy for each wind turbine to improve annual energy production. Many challenges and related solutions for wind farm power maximization have been highlighted and discussed in [@pao2009tutorial]. Recent control strategies for optimal operation have been proposed using both model-based [@bitar2013coordinated; @gebraad2016wind; @goit2015optimal; @rotea2014dynamic; @johnson2009wind; @knudsen2009distributed; @spudic2010hierarchical; @madjidian2011distributed; @soleimanzadeh2011controller; @kristalny2011decentralized; @horvat2012quasi; @biegel2013distributed], and model-free strategies [@ciri2017model; @marden2013model; @park2013wind; @gebraad2015maximum; @yang2013maximizing]. Model-based strategies provide solutions that typically have faster response times than model-free approaches. However, the models used for control design can deviate from actual wind field and turbine characteristics in practice, which can limit the effectiveness of model-based control strategies. The reader is referred to the introduction in [@ciri2017model], and the references therein, for further discussion on model-based and model-free strategies for wind plant power maximization. In this paper, we focus on wind power maximization in Region 2. The work presented here generalizes the simple actuator disk model (ADM) utilized in [@rotea2014dynamic] to a stochastic version and pose a multi-stage stochastic optimal control problem for wind farm power maximization. The stochastic actuator disk model balances complexity and tractability by incorporating unsteady aerodynamic phenomena into the distributions of random variables in the model. Estimates of the statistics of these distributions can then be exploited in the control algorithm to improve overall efficiency of the farm in the presence of stochastic wind flow. Our main contributions are as follows: - We formulate a multi-stage stochastic optimal control problem for wind farm power maximization and show that it can be analytically solved via dynamic programming. In particular, our model generalizes that of [@rotea2014dynamic] by incorporating state- and input-dependent multiplicative noises to capture the uncertain wake effects of wind turbines. The stochastic version of the ADM relaxes a strong assumption of a deterministic ADM, such as steady wind over the rotor disk. In contrast to existing work, the proposed stochastic multi-stage formulation allows us to maximize the wind farm power by explicitly incorporating information about the probability distributions of wind fluctuations into control decisions. - By solving the proposed multi-stage stochastic optimization, we show that the optimal feedback control policies for the turbines are linear with respect to upstream wind velocity, but in contrast to [@rotea2014dynamic], the optimal gain coefficients depend explicitly on the statistics of the multiplicative noises, which can be estimated from high-fidelity wind flow simulations or experimental data. This provides a direct connection between statistical properties of the unsteady wind flow physics and the optimal feedback control of wind farms. We also show that for the stochastic ADM with both multiplicative and additive noise, the optimal policies are nonlinear. The framework, while elementary for real-world applications, illustrates a rigorous process for incorporating flow statistics into the wind farm power maximization problem. The dependence of control solutions on the statistics of the wind fluctuations makes intuitive sense, as one cannot expect a single control algorithm to be optimal under a range of unsteady wind conditions. In future work, we will extend the stochastic approach presented in this paper to more representative, yet tractable, models of the flow physics and loads as done in [@santhanagopalan2018performance]. Problem Formulation =================== Our model is a generalization of the one in [@rotea2014dynamic], which utilizes the actuator disk model (ADM) [@burton2001handbook; @manwell2010wind]. Let $P$ denote the power extracted by an ideal turbine rotor, let $F$ denote the force done by the wind on the rotor, let $V_0$ denote the free stream upwind velocity, let $V$ denote the wind velocity at the disk, and let $V_1$ denote the far wake velocity. The ADM model is then \[physicalModels\] $$P=FV,\label{Power_def}$$ $$F = \rho A(V_0-V_1)V,\label{forces_def}$$ $$V = V_0 - u, \label{y_def}$$ $$V_1 = V_0 - 2u, \label{xk1_def}$$ where $\rho$ is the air density, $A$ is the rotor swept area, and $u\geq 0$ is the reduction in air velocity between the free stream and the rotor plane, which can be interpreted as a control input. In practice, $u$ can be controlled by adjusting the angular rotor speed or the collective blade pitch angle. ![A cascade of $N$ wind turbines; $k=0$ indicates the most upstream location.[]{data-label="fig:wind_farm_array"}](wind_farm_array.png) Deterministic Model: We consider a one-dimensional cascade of wind turbines, illustrated in Fig. 1. We assume that the wind direction is along the row of turbines and is not varying. The ADM model given in can be written in state-space form by letting $x_k$ and $x_{k+1}$ denote the wind velocity upstream and downstream of the $k$-th turbine (i.e., $x_k = V_k$ in , for $k=0,1$). The scalar control input for the $k$-th turbine is denoted by $u_k$, which is the controllable wind velocity deficit at the rotor disk, and $y_k$ is an output to estimate the power extraction of turbine $k$ (i.e., $y_k = V_k - u_k$ in ). Then the velocity $V_{k+1}$ in the far wake of the rotor and the rotor effect at the disk in velocity can be written as below in and . The power extraction of the $k$-th wind turbine using ADM model in state-space expression is given in $$\begin{aligned} x_{k+1} & = x_k - 2u_k, \label{SS_Velocity}\\ y_k & = x_k - u_k, \label{SS_output}\\ p_k(y_k, u_k) & = 2\rho A y_k^2 u_k, \label{SS_power} \end{aligned}$$ where the control input is constrained by $u_k\in[0,\frac{1}{2}x_k]$ so that the wind velocity in the far wake remains positive. To simplify the notation, we eliminate the constant in and come to the constant-free turbine power function $\ell(x_k, u_k)$, which will serve as a stage cost in our subsequent multi-stage optimal control problem $$\label{SS_togofunctions} \ell(x_k, u_k) = (x_k - u_k)^2 u_k.$$ Note that this function is jointly cubic in the state and control input. Further details of this model may be found in [@rotea2014dynamic]. Stochastic Model: The simple model described above captures basic wind farm turbine interactions. But it fails to capture stochastic wind fluctuations that are also relevant to optimizing the total power output. High fidelity computational fluid dynamic models offer extreme detail of flows but are cumbersome to incorporate into high-level operational decision making. Therefore, we consider here a stochastic extension of the deterministic actuator disk model above that can capture more complex phenomena, such as stochastic wind fluctuations, while remaining computationally tractable. ![Stochastic actuator disk model and stream-tube diagram for wind power extraction. The solid and dashed lines indicate the wind field mean and associated stochastic variations, respectively, which relate to the moments of the multiplicative variations parameters $a_k$ and $b_k$.[]{data-label="fig:stochasticADM"}](StochasticADM_V4.png) $$\begin{aligned} \psi_k & = -\frac{3Q_{k+1}\Sigma_{b,k}\mu_{a,k} -2 + \sqrt{(3Q_{k+1}\Sigma_{b,k}\mu_{a,k} -2 )^2 - 3(Q_{k+1}\Gamma_{b,k}+1)(3Q_{k+1}\Sigma_{a,k}\mu_{b,k}+1)}} {3(Q_{k+1}\Gamma_{b,k}+1)},\label{optimal_feedback_policies_raw}\\ Q_k & = (1-\psi_k)^2\psi_k + Q_{k+1}\left(\Gamma_{a,k} + \Gamma_{b,k}\psi_k^3 + 3\Sigma_{b,k}\mu_{a,k}\psi_k^2 + 3\Sigma_{a,k}\mu_{b,k}\psi_k \right).\label{back_recursion_raw}\end{aligned}$$ The stochastic actuator disk model is given by $$\label{stochmodel} x_{k+1} = a_k x_k + b_k u_k,$$ where $a_k \sim \mathcal{P}_{a,k}$ is a state multiplicative random variable and $b_k \sim \mathcal{P}_{b,k}$ is an input multiplicative random variable. The model is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:stochasticADM\]. We assume that the random variables $a_k$ and $b_k$ are independent for all $k$ and independent of each other. This model captures stochastic wind fluctuations. In particular, the multiplicative noises $a_k$ and $b_k$ provide a simple model for the inherent stochasticity of far wake recovery. We assume that moments up to order three of each of the distributions $\mathcal{P}_{a,k}, \mathcal{P}_{b,k}$ are known (or can be estimated from high-fidelity simulation or experimental data). For the state mean dynamics to match the deterministic model , we can set $\mathbf{E} [a_k] = 1$, $\mathbf{E} [b_k] = -2$. Stochastic Optimal Control for Wind Power Maximization ====================================================== The objective of the operator is to select control inputs $u_0,...,u_{N-1}$ to maximize the aggregate power of the wind turbine cascade given by the sum of over all turbines. However, since in the stochastic model the states (and therefore the power outputs) are random variables, we maximize the expected aggregate power and search for closed-loop feedback control policies that specify control inputs as a function of the state $x_k$. In particular, we seek to solve the multi-stage stochastic optimal control problem $$\label{stochcost} \max_{\pi_0, ..., \pi_{N-1}} \quad \mathbf{E} \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} (x_k - u_k)^2 u_k,$$ where the decision variables $\pi_k(\cdot)$ are the control policies (i.e., $u_k = \pi_k(x_k)$), and the expectation is taken with respect to the random variable sequences $a_k$, $b_k$. As in [@rotea2014dynamic], we will show that the optimal policies are linear and the optimal value functions are cubic. In contrast to [@rotea2014dynamic], the parameters of both the optimal policies and value functions depend on the moments of the distribution of the random variables in the model. We have the following main result. Consider the wind farm power maximization problem for a cascade of $N$ identical turbines modeled with the stochastic actuator disk model , . Let $x_0$ denote the free stream velocity entering the cascade. The distributions of $a_k$ and $b_k$ are described by their raw moments up to third order, namely their means $\mu_{a,k}$, $\mu_{b,k}$, second (raw) moments $\Sigma_{a,k}$, $\Sigma_{b,k}$ and third (raw) moments $\Gamma_{a,k}$, $\Gamma_{b,k}$. Under these assumptions, the optimal feedback control policies are linear in the state and given by $$\label{optimal_linear_policies_theorem} u_k^* = \pi^(x_k) = \psi_k x_k, \quad k = 1,...,N-1,$$ where the gain coefficients $\psi_k$ are given in and the backwards recursion for $k = N-1,...,0$ with initialization $Q_N = 0$. The maximum power produced by the wind farm as a function of initial upstream wind velocity is given by $$\label{maximum_wind_farm_power} P_0^(x_0) = 2\rho A Q_0 x_0^3,$$ where $\rho$ is the air density, $A$ is the rotor swept area, and $Q_0$ is the initial value of the backwards recursion with $Q_N = 0$. The dynamic programming algorithm [@bellman1954theory; @bertsekas2005dynamic] for solving stochastic optimal control problems is given by the recursion $$\label{DP_algorithm} \begin{aligned} G_k^(x_k) &= \max_{u_k \in [0, \frac{1}{2}x_k]} \mathbf{E}\left\{ \ell(x_k, u_k) + G_{k+1}^\left(x_{k+1})\right) \right\}, \\ \pi^(x_k) &= \arg \max_{u_k \in [0, \frac{1}{2}x_k]} \mathbf{E}\left\{ \ell(x_k, u_k) + G_{k+1}^\left(x_{k+1})\right) \right\}, \end{aligned}$$ where $G_k^(x_k)$ represents the optimal (normalized) wind farm power from turbine $k$ as a function of the state $x_k$, with initialization $G_N^(x_k) = 0$. We first solve the last tail sub-problem at $k=N-1$ with $G_N^(x) = 0$. We have $$\nonumber \frac{\partial \ell(x_{N-1}, u_{N-1})}{\partial u_{N-1}} = (x_{N-1} - u_{N_1})(x_{N-1} - 3u_{N-1}) = 0,$$ for which the policy $u_{N-1}^ = \frac{1}{3}x_{N-1}$ is the unique maximizer and satisfies the constraint $u_{N-1} \in [0,\frac{1}{2}x_{N-1}]$. Substituting this optimal policy back into the value expression yields the optimal power function $$G_{N-1}^(x_{N-1}) = \frac{4}{27}x_{N-1}^3.$$ Note that this function is a cubic in the state. Accordingly, we parameterize the optimal power functions as $G_{k}^(x_{k}) = Q_{k}x_{k}^3$ and consider a general step in the backward recursion. To obtain the optimal policy, we define the function inside the maximization operation $$\label{cost-to-go function} G_k(x_k,u_k):= (x_k - u_k)^2u_k + Q_{k+1}\mathbf{E}\left[(a_kx_k + b_ku_k)^3\right].$$ Expanding the second term and taking the expectation by utilizing the (raw) moment information from the distributions of $a_k$ and $b_k$, and then taking the partial derivative of $G_k(x_k,u_k)$ with respect to $u_k$ gives a quadratic polynomial in $u_k$. As above, one of the roots of this polynomial corresponds to the unique maximizing input, which is a linear function of the state. Carrying out the algebra yields $$\label{state_feedback_control_policies} \begin{aligned} u_k^* = \pi^(x_k) = \psi_k x_k, \end{aligned}$$ where the gain parameters $\psi_k$ are given in . Note that the optimal policies all satisfy the constraints on $u_k$. To obtain a backwards recursion for the value function coefficients $Q_{k}$, we substitute $u_k^ = \psi_kx_k$ back into $$\begin{aligned}\label{optimal_recursion} G_k^(x_k,u_k^) = & ~ Q_{k}x_k^3\\ = & (x_k - u_k^)^2u_k^ + Q_{k+1}\mathbf{E}\left[(a_kx_k + b_ku_k^)^3\right]. \end{aligned}$$ Since $u_k^$ is linear in $x_k$, the optimal value functions are cubic in the state. Matching the coefficients on both sides of , we come to . Eq. follows from for $k=0$, and , which concludes the proof. $$\label{nonlinear_control_policies} \begin{aligned} &\pi_{N-2}^(x) = -\frac{\Delta_k + \sqrt{\Delta_{N-2}^2 - 3(Q_{N-1}\Gamma_{b,N-2}+1)\big[\left(3Q_{N-1}\Sigma_{a,N-2}\mu_{b,N-2}+1\right)x^2 + 3Q_{N-1}\Sigma_{c,N-2}\mu_{b,N-2}\big]}} {3(Q_{N-1}\Gamma_{b,N-2}+1)},\\ & \textrm{where,}\quad\Delta_{N-2} = (3Q_{N-1}\Sigma_{b,N-2}\mu_{a,N-2} - 2) x. \end{aligned}$$ (Optimal policies and value functions with central moments.) The random variables $a_k$ and $b_k$ can also be described by their higher-order central moments, namely their variances $\sigma_{a,k}^2$, $\sigma_{b,k}^2$ and skewnesses $\gamma_{a,k}$, $\gamma_{b,k}$. The optimal linear state feedback control policies can also be written in terms of central moments instead of raw moments by using $$\label{raw_central_moments} \Sigma = \sigma^2 + \mu^2, \quad \Gamma = \sigma^3\gamma + 3\sigma^2\mu + \mu^3.$$ Under the assumptions of Theorem 1, we define the efficiency $\eta_\ell$ of the $\ell$-th sub-array[^3] by $$\label{definition of efficiency} \eta_\ell := \mathbf{E}\left[ \frac{P_\ell}{\frac{1}{2}\rho Ax_\ell^3} \right],$$ where $x_\ell$ is the free stream velocity entering the subarray cascaded turbines from $\ell$ to $N-1$ and $P_{\ell}$ denotes the aggregated power from the $\ell$-th subarray of wind turbines. The optimal efficiency $\eta_\ell^$ of the $l$-th sub-array has the form $$\label{subarray_optimal_efficiency} \eta_\ell^* = 4Q_\ell, \quad \forall \ell \in \{0,\ldots, N-1\},$$ which is achieved with the optimal control sequence $u_\ell^,\ldots,u_{N-1}^$ , where $Q_\ell$ is calculated from . The maximum power produced by the $N-\ell$ turbines is $$\label{optimal_subarray_power} P_{\ell}^* = 2\rho AQ_{\ell}x_\ell^3,$$ under the optimal control sequence $u_\ell^,\ldots,u_{N-1}^$ with $Q_\ell$ computed via . We substitute the optimal power into and obtain , which concludes the proof. Next, we consider a stochastic actuator disk model with both multiplicative and additive noise, which allows a more general description of uncertainty in wind fluctuations. Interestingly, in contrast to classical linear quadratic problems, when additive noise is included the optimal policies are no longer linear in general, and so the optimal value functions are no longer cubic. This highlights a computational limitation with this more general model that makes the approach more difficult to implement in practice. (Stochastic actuator disk model with additive noise.) Consider the stochastic ADM with additive noise $$\label{generalized_ADM} x_{k+1} = a_kx_k + b_ku_k + c_k,$$ where $c_k \sim \mathcal{P}_c$ is a zero-mean additive random variable with second moment $\Sigma_{c,k}$ and third moment $\Gamma_{c,k}$. In the penultimate tail subproblem, the optimal policy has the nonlinear form $$\pi_{N-2}^(x) = \delta x + \sqrt{\alpha + \beta x^2}$$ for some constants $\delta$, $\alpha$, and $\beta$; the exact expression is given in . As a result, the corresponding optimal value function at turbine location $N-2$ is non-cubic, and so the remaining optimal policies and value functions are nonlinear and non-cubic, respectively. Consider again the dynamic programming recursion . Since $G_N^(x) = 0$, the last tail subproblem is identical to that in Theorem 1, so that $G_{N-1}^(x_{N-1}) = \frac{4}{27}x_{N-1}^3$. Consider now the penultimate tail subproblem for $k=N-2$ $$\label{cost-to-go function_additive} G_{N-2}(x,u) = (x - u)^2 u + \frac{4}{27}\mathbf{E}\left[(a_k x + b_k u +c_k)^3\right].$$ Taking the expectation of the second term by utilizing the (raw) moments of $a_k$, $b_k$ and $c_k$, and then taking the partial derivative with respect to $u$ and setting to zero yields a quadratic optimality condition in $u$. Carrying out some algebra as above, it turns out that the roots of this polynomial are no longer linear in the state, in contrast to the results in Theorem 1. The optimal control policy is thus a nonlinear* function of state of the form $\pi_{N-2}^(x) = \delta x + \sqrt{\alpha + \beta x^2}$ for some constants $\delta$, $\alpha$, and $\beta$. The exact expression for the maximizing control input derived from the quadratic optimality condition is given in . It can also be seen that when the additive noise variance $\Sigma_{c,k}$ is zero (i.e., the additive noise is absent since it also has zero mean), then $\alpha = 0$ and we recover the linear policy of of Theorem 1 since $x\geq0$. Finally, these observations also lead to the conclusion that none of the remaining optimal policies and value functions are linear and cubic, respectively, and will in fact become increasingly complicated as the recursion proceeds backward toward the beginning of the array. Numerical Experiments ===================== To illustrate our results, we consider a cascade with $N=10$ identical turbines to analyze the performance of the optimal gain sequence $\{\psi_0,\ldots,\psi_9\}$ for the proposed stochastic actuator disk model. As is commonly done in the literature [@burton2001handbook; @manwell2010wind], we refer to these gains as [induction factors]{}. The stochastic model parameters $a_k$ and $b_k$ are all independent of each other and spatially homogeneous ($\mu_{a,k} = \mu_a$, $\mu_{b,k} = \mu_b$, $\sigma_{a,k} = \sigma_{a}$, $\sigma_{b,k} = \sigma_b$, $\gamma_{a,k} = \gamma_a$ and $\gamma_{b,k} = \gamma_b$, $\forall k$)[^4]. \[fig:magnitude\_vb\] ![Normalized induction factors defined as $\frac{\psi_k}{1/3}$ for deterministic model ($\mu_a = 1, \mu_b = -2$) and stochastic model with various values of [input-dependent]{} multiplicative noise standard deviation ($\mu_a = 1, \sigma_a = 0, \mu_b = -2, \sigma_b > 0, \gamma_a = 0$ and $\gamma_b = 0$).](vb_induction_V11.eps "fig:") \[fig:efficiency\_vb\] ![Comparison of optimal efficiency $\eta_\ell$ for deterministic model ($\mu_a = 1, \mu_b = -2$) and stochastic model with various values of [input-dependent]{} multiplicative noise standard deviation ($\mu_a = 1, \sigma_a = 0, \mu_b = -2, \sigma_b > 0, \gamma_a = 0$ and $\gamma_b = 0$).](vb_efficiency_V11.eps "fig:") Fig. 3 illustrates the optimal induction factor sequence $\{\psi_0,\ldots,\psi_9\}$ and Fig. 4 depicts the optimal efficiency $\eta_\ell^$ under different standard deviation values of the input-dependent multiplicative noise $b_k$. The induction factors in Fig. 3 are normalized by $1/3$, which is the value achieving the Betz limit for a single isolated turbine [@burton2001handbook]. We set the mean value $\mu_a$ to 1, and the skewness to zero. Fig. 4 demonstrates that the optimal array efficiency improves with increasing variance on $b_k$. This result is intuitively reasonable, in the sense that higher variability of the velocity deficits in the far wake may lead to increased power extraction. We speculate that this multiplicative stochastic perturbation on the velocity deficit may provide a mathematically simple way of capturing physical phenomena such as mixing or entrainment, which are known to promote energy extraction [@verhulst2014large; @santoni2015development] Note also that the case $\sigma_b=0$ reproduces the results for the deterministic ADM model in [@rotea2014dynamic]. It should be noted that as the standard deviation $\sigma_b$ is increased, the induction factors increase. That is, the leading upstream turbines are working more as the multiplicative noise is increased; which again is consistent with the conventional wisdom that the more turbulent the wind is the closer the turbines should be to their isolated optimum set point [@ciri2017large] Figures 5 and 6 provide the optimal induction factor sequence and efficiency under different standard deviation values of the state-dependent noise on $a_k$, and without input-dependent noise (i.e., $b_k$ is fixed and constant for all $k$). Both figures demonstrate that the optimal induction factor sequence from the stochastic actuator disk model also increases the efficiency and improves performance under larger variations. To match the expected wind velocity of the conventional deterministic ADM, the mean value of the state-dependent noise should be set to unity (i.e., $\mu_a = 1$) [@rotea2014dynamic]. However, having $\mu_a = 1$ together with a non-zero variance in the state-dependent multiplicative noise $a_k$ leads to null optimal induction factors for leading upstream turbines, since in this case the model essentially predicts that additional energy will be injected into the wake further downstream. This indicates that the parameters in the stochastic ADM should be carefully calibrated based on measured data in order to capture appropriate (possibly heterogeneous) spatio-temporal flow variations and obtain reasonable control policies for the array. To appropriately incorporate stochasticity of the wind flow, we set the mean value of $a_k$ to $\mu_a = 0.99$, and vary the standard deviation $\sigma_a$ to describe statistical fluctuations. The key observation is that regardless of the value of $\mu_a$, the proposed approach improves efficiency with increasing variance by exploiting statistical knowledge of wind field fluctuations and incorporating this information into optimal control policies for wind farm power maximization. \[fig:magnitude\_va\] ![Normalized induction factor defined as $\frac{\psi_k}{1/3}$ for deterministic model ($\mu_a = 0.99, \mu_b = -2$) and for stochastic model with various values of state-dependent multiplicative noise standard deviation ($\mu_a = 0.99, \sigma_a > 0, \mu_b = -2, \sigma_b = 0, \gamma_a = 0$ and $\gamma_b = 0$).](va_induction_V11.eps "fig:") \[fig:efficiency\_va\] ![Comparison of optimal efficiency $\eta_\ell$ for deterministic model ($\mu_a = 0.99, \mu_b = -2$) and stochastic model with various values of state-dependent multiplicative noise standard deviation ($\mu_a = 0.99, \sigma_a > 0, \mu_b = -2, \sigma_b = 0, \gamma_a = 0$ and $\gamma_b = 0$).](va_efficiency_V11.eps "fig:") The stochastic actuator disk model of a wind farm with cascaded wind turbines captures stochastic wind fluctuations. By definition, the optimal control laws derived from stochastic dynamic programming achieve superior performance to laws derived from a deterministic model of the same complexity, allowing the turbines to recognize and react to the particular wind field characteristics. Data derived directly from measurements or simulations can be incorporated directly into the control law to improve the aerodynamic efficiency a wind farm for specific wind fluctuation statistics. It is worth emphasizing that more work is necessary to incorporate tractable noise models that are consistent with the flow physics; this conference paper is a first step in this direction. Conclusions and Outlooks ======================== We have formulated a multi-stage stochastic optimal control problem for maximizing the power output of a one dimensional wind farm array and shown that it can be solved analytically via dynamic programming. The optimal control policies depend explicitly on the statistics of multiplicative noise, which can be related to stochastic wind fluctuations. Our results provide an initial step toward defining a wind farm control strategy that tractably incorporates statistical knowledge of stochastic wind fluctuations. However, there remain several lines of future work that can extend the present results in various ways to more fully understand the possibilities and limits for maximizing annual energy production. Our future work will involve - utilizing more realistic wake models; - estimating necessary statistics from high-fidelity numerical simulations and experimental data; - performance evaluation of the policies on high-fidelity models, which may improve the results in [@santoni2015development]; - considering more realistic array geometries; - exploring computationally efficient approximation of nonlinear optimal control strategies; if needed. [^1]: This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant CMMI-1728605. [This project was partially funded by The University of Texas at Dallas Office of Research through the SCI program]{}. [^2]: Y. Guo, M. Rotea and T. Summers are with the Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, 75080, USA, email: {yi.guo2, rotea, tyler.summers}@utdallas.edu. [^3]: The efficiency $\eta_\ell$ defined here quantifies the energy extraction of sub-array $\ell$ compared to energy in the wind entering the sub-array. Note that due to aerodynamic wake coupling, it is possible for the optimal efficiency of the sub-array to exceed the efficiency obtained by independently setting individual turbine induction factors to achieve the single-turbine Betz limits. [^4]: To have clearer interpretation of our results, we discuss the results in the terms of central moments. No additive noise is considered in this section.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'This software performs the combination of $m$ correlated estimates of $n$ physics observables ($m\ge n$) using the Best Linear Unbiased Estimate () method. It is implemented as a `C++` class, to be used within the ROOT analysis package. It features easy disabling of specific estimates or uncertainty sources, the investigation of different correlation assumptions, and allows performing combinations according to the importance of the estimates. This enables systematic investigations of the combination on details of the measurements from within the software, without touching the input.' address: 'Max-Planck-Institut für Physik (Werner-Heisenberg-Institut), Föhringer Ring 6, D-80805 München, Germany' author: - Richard Nisius bibliography: - 'BlueSoft.bib' title: ': combining correlated estimates of physics observables within ROOT using the Best Linear Unbiased Estimate method' --- combination ,correlation ,estimate ,uncertainty Code Metadata {#sec:meta .unnumbered} ============= ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Current code version 2.3.0 Permanent link to code/repository used for this code version [<https://blue.hepforge.org>]{} Code Ocean compute capsule Legal Code License LGPL Code versioning system used none Software code languages, tools, and services used `C++` Compilation requirements, operating environments & dependencies depends on [<https://root.cern.ch>]{} If available Link to developer documentation/manual [<https://blue.hepforge.org>]{} Support email for questions [email protected] ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- : Metadata of the software.[]{data-label="tab:meta"} Motivation and significance {#sec:moti} =========================== The combination of a number of correlated estimates for a single observable is discussed in Ref. [@LYO-1988]. Here, the term estimate denotes a particular outcome (measurement) of an experiment based on an experimental estimator (an algorithm for a measurement) of the observable, which follows a probability density function (pdf). The particular estimate obtained by the experiment may be a likely or unlikely outcome for that pdf. Repeating the measurement numerous times under identical conditions, the estimates will follow the underlying pdf of the estimator. The software listed in Table \[tab:meta\] makes use of a minimisation to obtain the combined value, i.e. it uses the Gaussian approximation for the uncertainties. In Ref. [@LYO-1988], this minimisation is expressed in the mathematically equivalent language. Provided the estimators are unbiased, when applying this formalism the [Best Linear Unbiased Estimate]{} of the observable is obtained with the following meaning: [Best:]{} the combined result for the observable obtained this way has the smallest variance; [Linear:]{} the result is constructed as a linear combination of the individual estimates; [Unbiased Estimate:]{} when the procedure is repeated for a large number of cases consistent with the underlying multi-dimensional pdf, the mean of all combined results equals the true value of the observable. The formulas for more than one observable [@VAL-0301] are implemented in the software, which is programmed as a separate class of the ROOT analysis framework [@BRU-9701]. The easiest case of two correlated estimates of the same observable is briefly illustrated here. Already for this case, the main features of the combination can easily be understood. For further information and the derivation of the formulas the reader is refereed to Ref. [@NIS-1401]. Let and with variances and be two estimates from two unbiased estimators and of the true value of the observable and the total correlation of the two estimators. Without loss of generality it is assumed that the estimate stems from an estimator of that is as least as precise as the estimator yielding the estimate , such that $z\equiv \st/\so\geq 1$. In this situation the $x$ of is: $$\begin{aligned} x &=\,& (1-\bet)\,\xo + \bet\,\xt\, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where is the weight of the less precise estimate and the sum of weights is unity by construction. The variable $x$ is the combined result and is its variance, i.e. the uncertainty assigned to the combined value is . For a number of $z$ values the two quantities and / as functions of are shown in Figure \[fig:para\]. Their functional forms are also written in the figures. The functions are valid for $-1 \leq \rhof \leq 1$ and $z \geq 1$, except for $\rhof = z = 1$. Figure \[fig:para\] displays the strong dependence of the uncertainty in the combined value on $z$ and . For the special situation of $\rhof = 1/z$ the uncertainty equals , i.e. the precision in the observable is not improved by adding the second measurement. For $\rhof=\pm1$ the uncertainty in the combined result vanishes, i.e. $\sx=0$, a mere consequence of the conditional probability for given the measured value of , see Ref. [@NIS-1401] for details. It is worth noticing that in most regions of the (, $z$)-plane the sensitivity of / to is stronger than to $z$. This means, reducing the correlation of the estimates in most cases gives a larger improvement in precision in the combined value than reducing $z$. Software description {#sec:desc} ==================== To use the software, a working installation of the ROOT package [@BRU-9701] is needed. The mandatory input to the software are the measured values, their uncertainties for the various statistical and systematic effects relevant to the measurements, and the estimator correlations for each of those uncertainties. Software Architecture {#sec:arch} --------------------- ![image](fig_02){width="44.00000%"} The flowchart of the software is shown in Figure \[fig:work\]. The relations of the ([Keywords]{}) to the various steps are as follows. After creating the object (New), the measurements together with their uncertainties and correlations are passed to the software ([ Fill]{}). Afterwards, combinations can be performed by fixing ([Fix]{}) and solving ([Solve]{}), i.e. combining the potentially altered ([Set…]{}) measurements, as often as wanted. Before altering the measurements for the next combination, they have to be [ Released]{} (the alteration continues from the status at the last fix) or [ Reset]{} (the alteration starts from the original measurements). Finally, the object is deleted ([Delete]{}). Software Functionalities {#sec:func} ------------------------ One main quality of this software is the built-in flexibility for easy and thorough investigations of the impact of details of the input measurements and their correlation. With single function calls estimates or uncertainty sources can be removed from the combination, different uncertainty models (e.g. absolute or relative uncertainties) and correlation assumptions can be investigated. Another strength is the large number of different solving methods implemented, ranging from only using measurements with positive weights in the combination to a successive combination method in which the input measurements are included one at a time according to their importance, allowing an in-depth investigation of their impact on the combination. Illustrative Examples {#sec:exam} ===================== ---------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- \[GeV\] \[GeV\] \[GeV\] \[GeV\] Value 175.16 172.63 173.25 173.82 Stat 0.35 0.54 0.24 0.20 Syst$_1$ 0.16 $\pm$ 0.06 0.33 $\pm$ 0.04 0.21 $\pm$ 0.06 $+1.00$ $+1.00$ $+1.00$ 0.19 Syst$_2$ 0.26 $\pm$ 0.06 0.66 $\pm$ 0.12 0.43 $\pm$ 0.12 $+1.00$ $+1.00$ $+1.00$ 0.38 Syst$_3$ 0.48 $\pm$ 0.09 0.53 $\pm$ 0.08 0.12 $\pm$ 0.05 $+0.50$ $+0.60$ $+0.30$ 0.20 Syst$_4$ 0.12 $\pm$ 0.14 0.47 $\pm$ 0.09 0.23 $\pm$ 0.11 $-1.00$ $-1.00$ $-1.00$ 0.14 Syst$_5$ 0.17 $\pm$ 0.09 0.35 $\pm$ 0.14 0.08 $\pm$ 0.11 $+1.00$ $+1.00$ $+1.00$ 0.10 Syst$_6$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.05 0.64 $\pm$ 0.06 0.23 $\pm$ 0.08 $+1.00$ $+1.00$ $+1.00$ 0.18 Syst$_7$ 0.45 $\pm$ 0.06 0.43 $\pm$ 0.08 0.11 $\pm$ 0.10 $+1.00$ $+1.00$ $-1.00$ 0.21 Syst$_8$ 0.18 $\pm$ 0.08 0.24 $\pm$ 0.05 0.10 $\pm$ 0.08 $-1.00$ $-1.00$ $-1.00$ 0.04 Syst$_9$ 0.19 $\pm$ 0.00 0.53 $\pm$ 0.00 0.00 $\pm$ 0.00 $+0.20$ $+0.40$ $-0.80$ 0.05 Syst 0.80 $\pm$ 0.08 1.45 $\pm$ 0.09 0.61 $\pm$ 0.10 0.58 Total 0.88 $\pm$ 0.08 1.55 $\pm$ 0.09 0.66 $\pm$ 0.10 $+0.43$ $+0.38$ $+0.32$ 0.61 3.21 4.75 0.18 Weight 0.29 -0.01 0.72 Pull 2.14 -0.83 -2.28 ---------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- : Combination of one observable from three correlated estimates , and using the software. Shown on the left are the individual results, their uncertainties and the statistical precision in the systematic uncertainties. The central part reports the estimator correlations $\rho_{ijk}$ for the pair of estimates ($i, j$) for all sources $k$ of uncertainty. The rightmost column shows the combined result. The lower part of the table reports the estimator consistencies expressed as pairwise values, the weights of the estimates within the combination and the pulls of the estimates. Details on the calculation of , the weights and pulls are given in Ref. [@NIS-1401]. \[tab:exam\] A compact example of three estimates of a single observable is listed in Table \[tab:exam\]. Although the values chosen are similar to what is obtained in measurements of the top quark mass, this example is purely artificial. The estimate deliberately was chosen such as to have large values in the compatibility evaluations with the other two estimates. Since the three measurements should come from the same underlying , this indicates either an unlikely outcome or a potential systematic problem with this result. Only after a careful investigation of this measurement, resulting in a low probability for the second possibility, should this measurement be included in the combination. The systematic uncertainties are shown together with the statistical precisions at which they are known. Those statistical precisions allow evaluating whether two estimators have a significantly different sensitivity for a source of uncertainty. In addition, they indicate which systematic effect should be evaluated with higher statistical precision. The sources of systematic uncertainties with estimator correlations $\rhof=\pm1$ are shown in Figure \[fig:corr\]. The case $\rhof=+1$ corresponds to the situation where simultaneously applying a systematic effect to both estimates (e.g. increasing a jet energy scale by $+1\sigJES$) leads to both measured values moving into the same direction, either both get larger or both get smaller than the original result. The case $\rhof=-1$ means the two measurements move in opposite directions. The points for which the bars cross one of the coordinate axis indicate sources for which, within uncertainties, the correlation may be $\rhof=+1$ or $\rhof=-1$. This will be exploited in the stability evaluation discussed below. Without combining, the precision of the knowledge about the observable is defined by the most precise result, here . The impact that an additional estimate has can be digested by performing pairwise combinations with the most precise result. An example of such a pairwise combination of and is shown in Figure \[fig:comb\]. Apart from the range $\rhof>0.8$, the combined value is almost independent of . In contrast, the uncertainty in the combined value has a very strong dependence on . The combination of all estimates is shown in Figure \[fig:sola\]. The input measurements are listed in the first three lines, the combined result is listed in red in the last line. Figure \[fig:sols\] reveals that not all results significantly contribute to the combined value. In this figure, the lines show the results of successive combinations, always adding the estimate listed to the previous list of estimates. Also here the suggested combined result is shown in red. The estimate does not improve the already accumulated result obtained from combining and . Figure \[fig:stab\] shows the stability of the combination of all three results, taking into account the statistical precisions at which the systematic uncertainties are known, see Table \[tab:exam\]. For this figure all systematic uncertainties are altered within their statistical precisions, the correlations are re-evaluated and they also may change sign, see Figure \[fig:corr\]. The varied input measurements are combined. The resulting combined values and uncertainties in the combined values are shown in the histograms. For the statistical precision at which the uncertainties are known, the combined result is uncertain by $0.22$ GeV and the related uncertainty by $0.07$ GeV. These uncertainties exist on top of what is quoted in Table \[tab:exam\]. Frequently those are not provided, or even not evaluated. This is only justified if they are much smaller than the quoted uncertainties. Impact {#sec:impa} ====== The software can be used for an in-depth analysis of the impact of various assumptions made in the combination. Provided that appropriate input is provided, it also allows assessing the stability of the combination. Because of the large reduction in the uncertainty in the combined result obtained by lowering the estimator correlations, it is advisable to use this software already in the design stage of the various analyses performed for obtaining the same observable within a single experiment. Usually, the uncertainties in the various systematic effects (e.g. the uncertainty in jet energy scales for experiments at hadron collider) are determined by the actual level of understanding of the detector and have to be taken into account at face value. In contrast, the sensitivity of the estimators to those effects can be influenced by the estimator design. This way their correlation can be reduced, thereby improving the gain obtained in the combination. Generally speaking, the strategy should not be to take over an aspect of the analysis that has worked for one estimator to another estimator. Instead, alternative approaches should be pursuit, such as to potentially lower the estimator correlations, even at the expense of a larger uncertainty. This is because achieving an anti-correlated pair of estimates with the same sensitivity to a specific source of uncertainty, renders this a significantly smaller uncertainty in the combined result. Some indications can be seen for the sources and , which exhibit the largest fractional gain in uncertainty when comparing with . An example of such an optimisation is explained in Ref. [@TOPQ-2013-02]. This software can be of significant help in this process. According to the knowledge of the author, by now the software was used in a number of combinations, mostly in the context of high energy physics, especially at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Examples from the ALICE, ATLAS, CMS and LHCb collaborations are detailed in Refs. [@ALIC-2018-01; @TOPQ-2017-03; @CMS-2017-01; @LHCB-2018-01]. The first world combination of the top quark mass [@CONF-2014-008] has also been performed with this software. In addition to the LHC collaborations, the software has been used by the PHENIX [@PHENIX-2018-01] and STAR [@STAR-2016-01] collaborations and in a combination of the strong coupling constant from many results in Ref. [@ENT-2019-01]. Further examples of the software usage are described in the manual listed in Table \[tab:meta\]. To assist the users in developing their own combination code, the corresponding `C++` routines to reproduce those published results are included in the software package. Although the above examples are all particle physics applications, the use of this software is not confined to a specific area of research. Any set of correlated measurements of one or more observables can be combined. Conclusions {#sec:conc} =========== The software performs the combination of $m$ correlated estimates of $n$ physics observables ($m\ge n$) using the Best Linear Unbiased Estimate () method. The large flexibility, together with the several implemented correlation models and combination methods makes it a useful tool to assess details on the combination in question. Exploring the combination of various estimators of the same observable within a single experiment allows a design of estimators with low correlation. This enhances the gain achieved in combinations of estimates obtained from those estimators. Conflict of Interest {#conflict-of-interest .unnumbered} ==================== I wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The implementation of a Cloud Radio Access Network (C-RAN) with Full Dimensional (FD)-MIMO is faced with the challenge of controlling the fronthaul overhead for the transmission of baseband signals as the number of horizontal and vertical antennas grows larger. This work proposes to leverage the special low-rank structure of FD-MIMO channel, which is characterized by a time-invariant elevation component and a time-varying azimuth component, by means of a layered precoding approach, so as to reduce the fronthaul overhead. According to this scheme, separate precoding matrices are applied for the azimuth and elevation channel components, with different rates of adaptation to the channel variations and correspondingly different impacts on the fronthaul capacity. Moreover, we consider two different Central Unit (CU) - Radio Unit (RU) functional splits at the physical layer, namely the conventional C-RAN implementation and an alternative one in which coding and precoding are performed at the RUs. Via numerical results, it is shown that the layered schemes significantly outperform conventional non-layered schemes, especially in the regime of low fronthaul capacity and large number of vertical antennas.' author: - 'Jinkyu Kang, Osvaldo Simeone, Joonhyuk Kang and Shlomo Shamai (Shitz) [^1]' bibliography: - 'refKJK.bib' title: 'Layered Downlink Precoding for C-RAN Systems with Full Dimensional MIMO' --- Cloud-Radio Access Networks (C-RAN), Full Dimensional (FD)-MIMO, fronthaul compression, layered precoding. Introduction ============ The cloud radio access network (C-RAN) architecture consists of multiple radio units (RUs) connected via fronthaul links to a central unit (CU) that implements the protocol stack of the RUs, including baseband processing [@ChinaMobile; @Checko]. C-RAN enables a significant reduction in capital and operating expenses, as well as an enhanced spectral efficiency by means of joint interference management at the physical layer across all connected RUs. Nevertheless, it is well recognized that the performance of this architecture is limited by the capacity and latency constraints of the fronthaul network connecting RUs and CU [@ChinaMobile; @Checko; @Samardzija12TWC; @Park14SPMAG]. In a standard C-RAN implementation, the fronthaul links carry digitized baseband signals. Hence, the bit rate required for a fronthaul link is determined by the quantization and compression operations applied to the baseband signals prior to transmission on the fronthaul links. As such, the fronthaul rate is proportional to the signal bandwidth, to the oversampling factor, to the resolution of the quantizer/compressor, and to the number of antennas [@Dotsch13Bell]. The fronthaul bit rate can be reduced by implementing alternative functional splits between CU and RU, whereby some baseband functionalities are implemented at the RU [@Wubben14SPMAG; @Rost2015WC; @DeLaOliva2015WC]. As a concurrent trend in the evolution of wireless networks, in the 3rd generation partnership project (3GPP) long term evolution (LTE) Release-13, three-dimensional (3D)-MIMO, where base stations are equipped with two-dimensional rectangular antenna arrays, has been intensely discussed as a promising tool to boost spectral efficiency [@Kuo15WC; @Nam13COMMAG]. 3D-MIMO technology is classified into three categories, namely, vertical sectorization (VS), elevation beamforming (EB), and Full-Dimensional MIMO (FD-MIMO) in order of complexity. The VS scheme splits a sector of cellular coverage into multiple sectors by means of different electrical downtilt angles. With the EB approach, instead, users are supported by predetermined or adaptive beams in the elevation direction. Finally, in FD-MIMO, the spatial diversity provided by vertical and horizontal antennas is leveraged jointly to serve multiple users using multiuser-MIMO techniques. Endowing RUs with two-dimensional arrays in a C-RAN system (see Fig. \[fig:fig1\]), while promising from a spectral efficiency perspective, creates significant challenges in terms of fronthaul overhead as the number of antennas grows larger [@Xu14CTW]. In this paper, we focus on the design of downlink precoding for C-RANs with FD-MIMO RUs by accounting for the impact of fronthaul capacity limitations. Previous works [@Simeone09EURADVSP; @Marsch09GLOBECOM; @Yu14ITA; @Park14SPMAG; @Kang14arXiv] on precoding design for the downlink of C-RAN systems either assume fixed channel matrices with full channel state information (CSI), see [@Simeone09EURADVSP; @Marsch09GLOBECOM; @Yu14ITA; @Park14SPMAG], or considers ergodic channels with generic correlation structure and possibly imperfect CSI [@Kang14arXiv]. Importantly, these works do not account for the special features of FD channel models [@Ying14ICC; @Alkhateeb14ASILOMAR] and hence do not bring insights into the feasibility of a C-RAN deployment based on FD-MIMO. In particular, the FD-MIMO channel is understood to be characterized by time variability at different time scales for elevation and azimuth components; elevation component changes significantly more slowly than the rate of change of the more conventional azimuth component [@Ying14ICC]. In order to address the design and performance of C-RAN system with FD-MIMO, this paper puts forth the following contributions. - A layered precoding scheme is proposed whereby separate precoding matrices are applied for the azimuth and elevation channel components with a different rate of adaptation to the channel variations. Specifically, a single precoding matrix is designed for the elevation channel across all coherence times based on stochastic CSI, while precoding matrices are optimized for the azimuth channel by adapting instantaneous CSI. This layered approach, considered in[@Alkhateeb14ASILOMAR] for a conventional cellular architecture, has the unique advantage in a C-RAN of potentially reducing the fronthaul transmission rate, due to the opportunity to amortize the overhead related to the elevation channel component across multiple coherence times. - We study layered precoding in a C-RAN system by considering two different CU-RU functional splits at the physical layer, namely the conventional C-RAN implementation, referred to as Compress-After-Precoding (CAP) as in [@Simeone09EURADVSP; @Marsch09GLOBECOM; @Yu14ITA; @Park14SPMAG; @Kang14arXiv], whereby all baseband processing is done at the CU, and an alternative split, known as Compress-Before-Precoding (CBP) [@Kang14arXiv; @Chae13ICC], in which channel encoding and precoding are instead performed at the RUs. - We carry out a performance comparison between standard non-layered precoding strategies and layered precoding for C-RAN systems with FD-MIMO under different functional splits as a function of system parameters such as the fronthaul capacity and the duration of the coherence period. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. We describe the system model in Section II. In Section III, we review the conventional non-layered precoding schemes corresponding to the mentioned functional splits, namely CAP and CBP [@Kang14arXiv]. Then, we propose and optimize the layered precoding strategy for fronthaul compression in Section IV. In Section V, numerical results are presented. Concluding remarks are summarized in Section VI. Notation: $E[ \cdot ]$ and $\textrm{tr}( \cdot )$ denote the expectation and trace of the argument matrix, respectively. We use the standard notation for mutual information [@GamalBook]. ${\bf{\nu}}_{\textrm{max}} ({\bf{A}})$ is the eigenvector corresponding to the largest eigenvalue of the semi-positive definite matrix ${\bf{A}}$. We reserve the superscript ${\bf{A}}^{T}$ for the transpose of ${\bf{A}}$, ${\bf{A}}^{\dagger}$ for the conjugate transpose of ${\bf{A}}$, and ${\bf{A}}^{-1} = ({\bf{A}}^\dagger {\bf{A}})^{-1} {\bf{A}}^\dagger$, which reduces to the usual inverse if the number of columns and rows are same. The identity matrix is denoted as ${\bf{I}}$. ${\bf{A}} \otimes {\bf{B}}$ is the Kronecker product of ${\bf{A}}$ and ${\bf{B}}$. ![Downlink of a C-RAN system with FD-MIMO.](SystemModel_FDMIMO.eps){width="14cm"} \[fig:fig1\] System Model {#Sec:SM} ============ We consider the downlink of a C-RAN in which a cluster of $N_R$ RUs provides wireless service to $N_M$ mobile stations (MSs) as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:fig1\]. Each RU $i$ has a FD, or two-dimensional (2D), antenna array of $N_{A,i}$ horizontal antennas by $N_{E,i}$ vertical antennas and each MS has a single antenna. RU $i$ is connected to the CU via fronthaul link of capacity $\bar C_i$ bit per downlink symbol, where the downlink symbol rate equals the baud rate, i.e., no oversampling is performed. Signal Model ------------ Each coded transmission block spans multiple coherence periods, e.g., multiple distinct resource blocks in an LTE system, of the downlink channel that contain $T$ symbols each. The $T \times 1$ signal ${\bf{y}}_j$ received by the MS $j$ in a given coherence interval is given by $$\label{RS;MS} {\bf{y}}_{j} = {\bf{X}}^T {\bf{h}}_j + {\bf{z}}_{j},$$ where ${\bf{z}}_{j}$ is the $T \times 1$ noise vector with i.i.d. $\mathcal{CN}(0,1)$ components; ${\bf{h}}_j = [{\bf{h}}_{j 1}^T, \dots, {\bf{h}}_{j N_R}^T]^T$ denotes the $\sum_{i=1}^{N_R} N_{A,i} N_{E,i} \times 1$ channel vector for MS $j$, where ${\bf{h}}_{ji}$ is the $N_{A,i} N_{E,i} \times 1$ channel vector from the $i$-th RU to the MS $j$ as further discussed below; and $ {\bf{X}}$ is an $\sum_{i=1}^{N_R} N_{A,i} N_{E,i} \times T$ matrix that stacks the signals transmitted by all the RUs, i.e., $ {\bf{X}} = [ {\bf{X}}_{1}^T, \dots, {\bf{X}}_{N_R}^T]^T$, where ${\bf{X}}_i$ is a $N_{A,i} N_{E,i} \times T$ complex baseband signal matrix transmitted by the $i$-th RU with each channel coherence period of duration $T$ channel uses. Note that each column of the signal matrix ${\bf{X}}_i$ corresponds to the signal transmitted from the $N_{A,i} N_{E,i}$ antennas in a channel use. The transmit signal ${\bf{X}}_i$ has a power constraint given as $E [ \| {\bf{X}}_i \|^2 ] = T \bar P_i$. The channel vector ${\bf{h}}_j$ is assumed to be constant during each channel coherence block and to change according to a stationary ergodic process from block to block. We assume that the CU has perfect instantaneous information about the channel matrix ${\bf{H}} = [{\bf{h}}_1, \dots, {\bf{h}}_{N_M}]$ and MSs have full CSI about their respective channel matrices. FD Channel Model {#Sec:Ch_Model} ---------------- As in, e.g., [@Ying14ICC; @Alkhateeb14ASILOMAR], we assume that each RU is equipped with a uniform rectangular array (URA). Furthermore, the channel vector ${\bf{h}}_{ji}$ from RU $i$ to MS $j$ is modeled by means of a Kronecker product spatial correlation model [@Ying14ICC; @Alkhateeb14ASILOMAR]. This was shown to provide a good modeling choice under the condition that the MS is sufficiently far away from the RUs [@Ying14ICC]. According to this model, the covariance of the 3D channel ${\bf{h}}_{ji}$ which is defined as ${\bf{R}}_{ji} = E[{\bf{h}}_{ji} {\bf{h}}_{ji}^\dagger] $, is written as $${\bf{R}}_{ji} = {\bf{R}}_{ji}^A \otimes {\bf{R}}_{ji}^E,$$ where ${\bf{R}}_{ji}^A$ and ${\bf{R}}_{ji}^E$ represent the covariance matrices in the azimuth and elevation directions, respectively. Since the elevation direction is typically subject to negligible scattering [@Seifi14TWC; @Zhong13VTC], the elevation covariance matrix ${\bf{R}}_{ji}^E$ may be assumed to be a rank-1 matrix, i.e., ${\bf{R}}_{ji}^E = {\bf{u}}^E_{ji} {\bf{u}}_{ji}^{E \, \dagger}$, where ${\bf{u}}^E_{ji}$ is a $N_{E,i} \times 1$ unit-norm vector [@Alkhateeb14ASILOMAR]. Under this assumption, the channel vector ${\bf{h}}_{ji}$ can be written as $$\label{CH_Model} {\bf{h}}_{ji} = \sqrt{\alpha_{ji}} {\bf{h}}_{ji}^A \otimes {\bf{u}}_{ji}^E,$$ where $\alpha_{ji}$ denotes the path loss coefficient between MS $j$ and RU $i$ as $$\label{PL_coef} \alpha_{ji} = \frac{1}{1 + \left (\frac{d_{ji}}{d_0}\right )^{\eta}},$$ with $d_{ji}$ being the distance between the $j$-th MS and the $i$-th RU, $d_0$ being a reference distance, and $\eta$ being the path loss exponent; and ${\bf{h}}_{ji}^A \sim \mathcal{CN} (0, {\bf{R}}_{ji}^A)$ with ${\bf{R}}_{ji}^A$ having diagonal elements equal to one. This model entails that the elevation components ${\bf{h}}_{ji}^E$ remains constant over coherence interval, while the azimuth component changes independent across coherence interval as ${\bf{h}}_{ji}^A \sim \mathcal{CN}(0,{\bf{R}}_{ji}^A)$, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:CHmodel\]. ![Illustration of time variability of the azimuth component $\{{\bf{h}}_{ji}^A (t)\}$ and of the elevation component ${\bf{u}}_{ji}^E$ in the FD channel model (\[CH\_Model\]). The notation ${\bf{h}}_{ji}^A (t)$ emphasizes the dependence on the coherence block $t$ of the azimuth component of the channel.](SystemModel_CHmodel.eps){width="8cm"} \[fig:CHmodel\] Background ========== In this section, we briefly recall in an informal fashion two baseline strategies for downlink transmission in the C-RAN system introduced above. The strategies correspond to two different functional splits at the physical layer between CU and RUs [@Dotsch13Bell; @Wubben14SPMAG] as detailed in [@Kang14arXiv]. We note that these schemes were previously proposed and studied without specific reference to FD-MIMO and hence do not leverage the special structure of the channel model (\[CH\_Model\]). ![Block diagram of the (non-layered) Compression-After-Precoding (CAP) scheme (“${\text{Q}}$" represents fronthaul compression).](SystemModel_CAP.eps){height="5cm"} \[fig:SM\_CAP\] Standard C-RAN Processing: Precoding at the CU {#CAP} ---------------------------------------------- In the standard C-RAN approach, all baseband processing is done at the CU. Specifically, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:SM\_CAP\], the CU performs channel coding and precoding, and then compresses the resulting baseband signals so that they can be forwarded on the fronthaul links to the corresponding RUs. The RUs upconvert the received quantized baseband signal prior to transmission on the wireless channel. Following [@Kang14arXiv], we refer to this strategy as Compression-After-Precoding (CAP). Analysis and optimization of the CAP strategy can be found in [@Kang14arXiv]. Alternative Functional Split: Precoding at the RUs {#CBP} -------------------------------------------------- As an alternative to the standard C-RAN approach just described, one can instead implement channel encoding and precoding at the RUs. This is referred to as Compression-Before-Precoding (CBP) in [@Chae13ICC; @Kang14arXiv]. According to this solution, as seen in Fig. \[fig:SM\_CBP\], the CU calculates the precoding matrices based on the available CSI, but does not perform precoding. Instead, it uses the fronthaul links to communicate the downlink information streams to each RU, along with the compressed precoding matrix. Each RU can then encode and precode the messages of the MSs based on the information received from the fronthaul link. As elaborated on in [@Kang14arXiv], this alternative functional split is generally advantageous when the number of MSs is not too large and when the coherence period $T$ is large enough. This is because, when the number of MSs is small, a lower fronthaul overhead is needed to communicate the data streams of the MSs on the fronthaul link; and, when the coherence period $T$ is large, the compressed precoding information can be amortized over a longer period, hence reducing the fronthaul rate. ![Block diagram of the (non-layered) Compression-Before-Precoding (CBP) scheme (“${\text{Q}}$" represents fronthaul compression).](SystemModel_CBP.eps){height="5cm"} \[fig:SM\_CBP\] Layered Precoding for Reduced Fronthaul Overhead {#Hybrid_Strategy} ================================================ The baseline state-of-the-art fronthaul transmission strategies mentioned above do not make any provision to exploit the special structure of the FD channel model (\[CH\_Model\]), and can hence be inefficient if the number of vertical antennas is large. In this section, we propose a layered precoding that instead leverages the different dynamic characteristic of the elevation and azimuth channels as per channel model (\[CH\_Model\]). We recall that, according to this model, the elevation channel has a constant direction across the coherence periods in its elevation component due to the rank-1 covariance matrix, while its azimuth component changes in each coherence period due to the generally larger rank of its covariance matrix (see Fig. \[fig:CHmodel\]). In order to exploit this channel decomposition, we propose that the CU designs separate precoding matrices for the elevation and azimuth channels following a layered precoding approach. The key idea is that of designing a single precoding matrix for the elevation channel across all coherence times based on long-term CSI, while adapting only the azimuth precoding matrix to the instantaneous channel conditions. This allows the CU to accurately describe the elevation precoding matrix through the fronthaul links via quantization with negligible overhead given that the latter is amortized across all coherence periods. Precoding on the azimuth channel can instead be handled via either a CAP or CBP-like scheme, as detailed below. In the following, we first describe the layered precoding approach in Section \[LP:HS\]; then introduce the precoding and fronthaul compression strategy based on CAP in Section \[PFC:HS\]; and, finally, we introduce CBP-based fronthaul compression and layered precoding design in Section \[CBP\_FC:HS\]. ![Illustration of time variability of the azimuth and elevation components of beamforming in the layered precoding scheme (\[LP\_Model\]).](SystemModel_LayeredPrecoding.eps){width="8cm"} \[fig:LPmodel\] Layered Precoding {#LP:HS} ----------------- Leveraging the channel decomposition resulting from the Kronecker channel model (\[CH\_Model\]), we propose to factorize the $N_{t,i} \times 1$ precoding vector ${\bf{w}}_{ji}$ for RU $i$ toward MS $j$ as $$\label{LP_Model} {\bf{w}}_{ji} = {\bf{w}}_{ji}^A \otimes {\bf{w}}_{ji}^E,$$ where ${\bf{w}}_{ji}^A$ denotes the $N_{A,i} \times 1$ azimuth component and ${\bf{w}}_{ji}^E$ is the $N_{E,i} \times 1$ elevation component of the precoding vector for MS $j$ and RU $i$ designed based on the elevation channels. A similar model was proposed in [@Alkhateeb14ASILOMAR] for co-located antenna arrays. The corresponding $N_{A,i} \times N_M$ azimuth precoding matrix ${\bf{W}}_i^A$ and the $N_{E,i} \times N_M$ elevation precoding matrix ${\bf{W}}_i^E$ for RU $i$ are defined as ${\bf{W}}_i^A = [{\bf{w}}_{1i}^A, \dots, {\bf{w}}_{N_M i}^A]$ and ${\bf{W}}_i^E = [{\bf{w}}_{1i}^E, \dots, {\bf{w}}_{N_M i}^E]$, respectively. In the proposed solutions, each elevation component ${\bf{w}}_{ji}^E$ is quantized by the CU and sent to the $j$-th RU via the corresponding fronthaul links. Since this vector is to be used for all coherence times, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:LPmodel\], its fronthaul overhead can be amortized across multiple coherence interval. As a result, it can be assumed to be known accurately at the RUs. Moreover, the corresponding fronthaul overhead for the transfer of elevation precoding information on the fronthaul links can be assumed to be negligible. For the azimuth components, we may adopt either a CAP or CBP approach, as discussed next. CAP-based Fronthaul Compression for Layered Precoding {#PFC:HS} ----------------------------------------------------- In the proposed CAP-based solution, the CU applies precoding only for the azimuth component. Accordingly, the azimuth-precoded baseband signals, as well as the precoding matrix for the elevation component, are separately compressed at the CU and forwarded over the fronthaul links to each RU. In order to perform precoding over both elevation and azimuth channels, each RU finally performs the Kronecker product of the compressed baseband signal ${\bf{X}}_{ji}^A$ and the precoding vector ${\bf{w}}_{ji}^E$ for elevation channel. A block diagram can be found in Fig. \[fig:fig2\] and details are provided next. ![Block diagram of the Layered Compression-After-Precoding (CAP) scheme (“${\text{Q}}$" represents fronthaul compression).](SystemModel_LayeredCAP.eps){height="6.3cm"} \[fig:fig2\] ### Details and Analysis Let $\widetilde {\bf{X}}_{ji}^A$ be the $N_{A,i} \times T$ precoded signal only for the azimuth channel between RU $i$ and MS $j$ in a given coherence period. This is defined as $\widetilde {\bf{X}}_{ji}^A = {\bf{w}}_{ji}^A {\bf{s}}_j^T$, where ${\bf{s}}_j$ is the $T \times 1$ vector containing the encoded data stream for MS $j$ in the given coherence period. Note that all the entries of vector ${\bf{s}}_{j}$ are assumed to have i.i.d. $\mathcal{CN} (0,1)$ from standard random coding arguments. Adopting a CAP-like approach, the CU quantizes each sequence of baseband signals $\{ \widetilde {\bf{X}}_{ji}^A \}$, for all $j \in \mathcal{N}_M$, across all coherence periods intended for RU $i$ for transfer on $i$-th fronthaul. The compressed signal ${\bf{X}}_{ji}^A$ is modeled as $$\label{Compress;LCAP} {\bf{X}}_{ji}^A = \widetilde {\bf{X}}_{ji}^A + {\bf{Q}}_{x,ji}^A = {\bf{w}}_{ji}^A {\bf{s}}_j^T + {\bf{Q}}_{x,ji}^A,$$ where ${\bf{Q}}_{x,ji}^A$ is the quantization noise matrix, which is assumed to have i.i.d. $\mathcal{CN} (0, \sigma_{x,ji}^{2})$ entries. From standard rate-distortion arguments [@GamalBook; @CoverBook], the required rate for transfer of the precoded data signals $\{ \widetilde {\bf{X}}^A_{ji} \}_{j \in \mathcal{N}_M}$ on fronthaul link between the CU and RU $i$ is given as $$\label{FCConstraint;CAP} C_{x,i} ({\bf{W}}_i^A, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x,i}^2) = \sum_{j=1}^{N_M} I \left( {\bf{X}}_{ji}^A; \widetilde {\bf{X}}_{ji}^A \right) = \sum_{j=1}^{N_M} \left \{ \log \left( \|\|{\bf{w}}_{ji}^A\|\|^2 + \sigma_{x,ji}^{2} \right) - \log \sigma_{x,ji}^{2} \right \},$$ where we have used the assumption that the data signal ${\bf{X}}_{ji}^A$ are independent across the MS index $j$ and we have defined ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x,i}^2 = [{{\sigma}}_{x,1i}^2, \dots, {{\sigma}}_{x,N_M i}^2 ]^T$. Note that, unlike the standard CAP scheme, here the signals for different MSs are separately compressed as per (\[Compress;LCAP\]). Considering also the elevation component, the resulting signal ${\bf{X}}_{i}$ computed and transmitted by RU $i$ is obtained as ${\bf{X}}_i = \sum_{j=1}^{N_M} {\bf{X}}_{ji}$, with $${\bf{X}}_{ji} = {\bf{X}}_{ji}^A \otimes {\bf{w}}_{ji}^E = ({\bf{w}}_{ji}^A {\bf{s}}_j^T + {\bf{Q}}_{x,ji}^A) \otimes {\bf{w}}_{ji}^E = ({\bf{w}}_{ji}^A \otimes {\bf{w}}_{ji}^E) {\bf{s}}_j^T + {\bf{Q}}_{x,ji}^A \otimes {\bf{w}}_{ji}^E.$$ The power transmitted at RU $i$ is then computed as $$\begin{aligned} \label{PowerConst} P_i ({\bf{W}}_i^A, {\bf{W}}_i^E, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x,i}^2) = \textrm{tr} \left ({\bf{X}}_{i}{\bf{X}}_{i}^\dagger \right) &=& \textrm{tr} \left (\sum_{j=1}^{N_M} \left( \left( {\bf{w}}_{ji}^A {\bf{s}}_j^T + {\bf{Q}}^A_{x,ji} \right) \otimes {\bf{w}}_{ji}^E \right) \left( \left( {\bf{w}}_{ji}^A {\bf{s}}_j^T + {\bf{Q}}_{x,ji}^A \right) \otimes {\bf{w}}_{ji}^E \right)^\dagger \right) \\ \nonumber &=& \sum_{j=1}^{N_M} \left ( \|\|{\bf{w}}_{ji}^A\|\|^2 \|\|{\bf{w}}_{ji}^E\|\|^2 + N_{A,i} \sigma_{x,ji}^2 \|\|{\bf{w}}_{ji}^E\|\|^2 \right ),\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the property of the Kronecker product that $({\bf{A}} \otimes {\bf{B}}) ({\bf{C}} \otimes {\bf{D}}) = ({\bf{A}}{\bf{C}} \otimes {\bf{B}} {\bf{D}})$ and ${\textrm{tr}} ({\bf{A}} \otimes {\bf{B}}) = {\textrm{tr}} ( {\bf{A}}) {\textrm{tr}} ({\bf{B}})$ [@BrookesOnline]. The ergodic achievable rate for MS $j$ is evaluated as $E [ R_j ({\bf{H}}, {\bf{W}}^A, {\bf{W}}^E, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^2)]$, with $R_j ({\bf{H}}, {\bf{W}}^A, {\bf{W}}^E, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^2) = I_{\bf{H}} ({\bf{s}}_j; {\bf{y}}_j) /T$, where $I_{\bf{H}} ({\bf{s}}_j; {\bf{y}}_j)$ is the mutual information conditioned on the value of channel matrix ${\bf{H}}$, the expectation is taken with respect to ${\bf{H}}$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{ASR_HS} && \hspace{-1cm} R_j ({\bf{H}}, {\bf{W}}^A, {\bf{W}}^E, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^2) = \log \left( 1 + \sum_{k=1}^{N_M} \sum_{i=1}^{N_R} \lambda_{ji}^E \| {\bf{u}}_{ji}^E {\bf{w}}_{ki}^E \|^2 \left( \| {\bf{w}}_{ki}^{A \, \dagger} {\bf{h}}_{ji}^{A} \|^2 + \sigma_{x,ki}^2 \|\|{\bf{h}}_{ji}^{A}\|\|^2 \right ) \right ) \\ \nonumber&& \hspace{5cm} - \log \left ( 1 + \sum_{k=1,k \neq j}^{N_M} \sum_{i=1}^{N_R} \lambda_{ji}^E \| {\bf{u}}_{ji}^E {\bf{w}}_{ki}^E \|^2 \left( \| {\bf{w}}_{ki}^{A \, \dagger} {\bf{h}}_{ji}^{A} \|^2 + \sigma_{x,ki}^2 \|\|{\bf{h}}_{ji}^{A}\|\|^2 \right ) \right ),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf{W}}^A = [({\bf{W}}^{A}_1)^T, \dots, ({\bf{W}}^{A}_{N_R})^T]^T$, ${\bf{W}}^E = [({\bf{W}}^{E}_1)^T, \dots, ({\bf{W}}^{E}_{N_R})^T]^T$, and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_x^2 = [{\pmb{\sigma}}_{x,1}^2, \dots, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x,N_R}^2 ]$. \[t\] Long-term statistics of the channel Elevation precoding ${{\bf{W}}^{E}}^{{\pmb{}}}$ : Initialize the covariance matrix ${\bf{V}}^{E \, (n)} \succeq 0$ subject to ${\textrm{tr}} ({\bf{V}}^{E \, (n)}) = 1$ and set $n=0$. $n \gets n+1$ Generate a channel matrix realization ${\bf{H}}^{(n)}$ using the available stochastic CSI. : Obtain ${\bf{V}}^{\hspace{-0.05cm} A (n)}\hspace{-0.05cm}(\hspace{-0.05cm}{\bf{H}}^{(n)}\hspace{-0.05cm})$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2 (n)}\hspace{-0.05cm}(\hspace{-0.05cm}{\bf{H}}^{(n)}\hspace{-0.05cm})$ with ${\bf{V}}^{\hspace{-0.05cm} E} \gets {\bf{V}}^{\hspace{-0.05cm} E (n-1)}$ using Algorithm \[Algorithm\_DC\]. Update ${\bf{V}}^{E \, (n)}$ by solving problem (\[OP\_wSSUM\_HS\]), which depends on ${\bf{V}}^{A \, (m)}({\bf{H}}^{(m)})$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2 \, (m)}({\bf{H}}^{(m)})$ for all $m \le n$. a convergence criterion is satisfied. Set ${\bf{V}}^{E} \gets {\bf{V}}^{E \, (n)}$. : Calculate the precoding matrix ${{\bf{W}}^E}^{{\pmb{}}}$ for elevation channel from the covariance matrix ${\bf{V}}^{E}$ via rank reduction as ${{\bf{w}}^E_{ji}}^{{\pmb{}}} = {\mathbf{\nu}}_{\textrm{max}} ({\bf{V}}_{ji}^{E})$ for all $j \in \mathcal{N}_M$ and $i \in \mathcal{N}_R$. Channel ${\bf{H}}$ and elevation precoding ${{\bf{W}}^E}^{{\pmb{}}}$ Azimuth precoding ${{\bf{W}}^{A}}^{{\pmb{}}} ({\bf{H}})$ and quantization noise vector ${{\pmb{\sigma}}_x^2}^{{\pmb{}}} ({\bf{H}})$ Obtain ${\bf{V}}^{A}({\bf{H}})$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2} ({\bf{H}})$ with ${\bf{W}}^E \gets {{\bf{W}}^{E}}^{{\pmb{}}}$ using Algorithm \[Algorithm\_DC\]. : Calculate the precoding matrix ${{\bf{W}}^{A}}^{{\pmb{}}} ({\bf{H}})$ for the azimuth channel from the covariance matrix ${\bf{V}}^{A}({\bf{H}})$ via rank reduction as ${{\bf{w}}^A_{ji}}^{{\pmb{}}} ({\bf{H}}) = \beta_{ji} {\mathbf{\nu}}_{\textrm{max}} ({\bf{V}}_{ji}^{A}({\bf{H}}))$ for all $j \in \mathcal{N}_M$ and $i \in \mathcal{N}_R$, where $\beta_{ji}$ is obtained by imposing $P_i ({{\bf{W}}_i^A}^{{\pmb{}}} ({\bf{H}}), {{\bf{W}}_i^E}^{{\pmb{}}}, {{\pmb{\sigma}}_{x,i}^2}^{{\pmb{}}} ({\bf{H}})) = \bar P_i$ using (\[PowerConst\]). \[t\] Channel ${\bf{H}}$ and elevation precoding ${\bf{V}}^E$. ${\bf{V}}^A({\bf{H}})$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_x^2({\bf{H}})$ : Initialize ${\bf{V}}^{A \, (0)}({\bf{H}}) \succeq 0$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2 \, (0)}({\bf{H}}) \in {\mathbb{R}}^+$, and set $l=0$. $l \gets l+1$ Update ${\bf{V}}^{A \, (l)}({\bf{H}})$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2 \, (l)}({\bf{H}})$ by solving problem (\[OP\_wMM\_HS\]). a convergence criterion is satisfied. Set ${\bf{V}}^{A}({\bf{H}}) \gets {\bf{V}}^{A \, (l)}({\bf{H}})$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2}({\bf{H}}) \gets {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2 \,\, (l)}({\bf{H}})$. ### Problem Formulation The ergodic achievable sum-rate (\[ASR\_HS\]) can be optimized over the precoding matrices ${\bf{W}}^A$ and ${\bf{W}}^E$, and over the quantization noise variance vector ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^2$ under fronthaul capacity and power constraints. Since the design of the precoding matrix ${\bf{W}}^A$ for azimuth channel and of the compression noise variance ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^2$ is adapted to the channel realization ${\bf{H}}$ for each coherence block, we use the notations ${\bf{W}}^A({\bf{H}})$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^2 ({\bf{H}})$. The problem of maximizing the achievable rate is then formulated as follows \[OP\_HS\] $$\begin{aligned} \underset { {\bf{W}}^A({\bf{H}}), {\bf{W}}^E, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^2({\bf{H}})}{\textrm{maximize}} && \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}_M} E [ R_j ({\bf{H}}, {\bf{W}}^A({\bf{H}}), {\bf{W}}^E, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^2({\bf{H}})) ] \label{OF_OP;HS} \\ \textrm{s.t.} && C_{x,i} ({\bf{W}}_i^A({\bf{H}}), {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x,i}^2({\bf{H}})) \le \bar C_i, \hspace{1cm} \forall i \in \mathcal{N}_R, \label{FC_OP;HS} \\ && P_i ({\bf{W}}_i^A({\bf{H}}), {\bf{W}}_i^E, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x,i}^2({\bf{H}})) \le \bar P_i, \hspace{1cm} \forall i \in \mathcal{N}_R, \label{PC_OP;HS}\end{aligned}$$ where the constraints apply for all channel realizations ${\bf{H}}$, and we recall that the capacity constraint on $i$-th fronthaul link is $\bar C_i$ and the power constraint for RU $i$ is $\bar P_i$. ### Optimization Algorithm In problem (\[OP\_HS\]), the objective function (\[OF\_OP;HS\]) and constraint (\[FC\_OP;HS\]) are non-convex in terms of ${\bf{W}}^A({\bf{H}})$, ${\bf{W}}^E$, and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^2 ({\bf{H}})$. Furthermore, as discussed above, ${\bf{W}}^E$ is designed based on stochastic CSI (long-term CSI), while ${\bf{W}}^A({\bf{H}})$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^2 ({\bf{H}})$ are adapted to instantaneous CSI (short-term CSI). In order to tackle this problem, we propose an algorithm that optimizes separately the long-term and short-term variables ${\bf{W}}^E$ and $({\bf{W}}^A({\bf{H}}), {\pmb{\sigma}}_x^2 ({\bf{H}}))$, respectively. For the former optimization, we adopt a stochastic optimization approach based empirical approximation of the ensemble averages in (\[OF\_OP;HS\]) following Stochastic Successive Upper-bound Minimization (SSUM) method [@SSUM_paper]. For the latter, we instead invoke the Difference of Convex (DC) method [@MMBook; @MMBook_tutorial] by leveraging the rank relaxation in obtained by reformulating the optimization problem in terms of the covariance matrices ${\bf{V}}^A_{ji}({\bf{H}}) = {\bf{w}}_{ji}^A({\bf{H}}){\bf{w}}_{ji}^{A \, \dagger}({\bf{H}})$ and ${\bf{V}}^E_{ji} = {\bf{w}}^E_{ji}{\bf{w}}_{ji}^{E \, \dagger}$ for all $j \in \mathcal{N}_M$ and $i \in \mathcal{N}_R$. The resulting algorithm is detailed in Algorithm \[Algorithm\_HS\] and Appendix \[Apx;Opt\_CAP\]. Note that, in Algorithm \[Algorithm\_HS\], long-term optimization has two nested loops in which inner loop requires at each iteration the solution of a convex problem, whose complexity is polynomial in the problem size [@BoydBook]. CBP-based Fronthaul Compression for Layered Precoding {#CBP_FC:HS} ----------------------------------------------------- In the proposed CBP-based strategy, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:fig3\], the CU designs the precoding matrices for both azimuth and elevation components, which are transferred, along with a given subset of downlink information messages, over the fronthaul link to the each RU. As discussed, since the design of the elevation precoding is done based on long-term CSI, and hence entails the use of a negligible portion of the fronthaul capacity, the fronthaul overhead depends only on the azimuth precoding matrices, which are adapted to current CSI, and on the information messages. As in [@Kang14arXiv], the subset of information messages sent to each RU is determined by a preliminary clustering step at the CU whereby each RU is assigned to serve a subset of the MSs. At each RU, the precoding matrix for FD-MIMO is computed via the Kronecker product between the precoding matrices for the azimuth and elevation channels. Based on the calculated precoding matrix, each RU can then encode and precode the received messages of the assigned MSs. Details are provided next. ![Block diagram of the Layered Compression-Before-Precoding (CBP) scheme (“${\text{Q}}$" represents fronthaul compression).](SystemModel_LayeredCBP.eps){height="6.8cm"} \[fig:fig3\] ### Details and Analysis To elaborate, let us denote the set of MSs assigned by RU $i$ as $\mathcal{M}_i \subseteq \mathcal{N}_M$, for all $i \in \mathcal{N}_R$. We also use $\mathcal{M}_i [k]$ to denote the $k$-th MS in the set $\mathcal{M}_i$. Note that we assume that the assignment of MSs is given and not subject to optimization. The azimuth precoding vectors $ \widetilde {\bf{W}}_{i}^A$ intended for RU $i$ are compressed by the CU and forwarded over the fronthaul link to RU $i$. The compressed azimuth precoding ${\bf{W}}_{i}^A$ for RU $i$ at the CU is then given by $${\bf{W}}_{i}^A = \widetilde {\bf{W}}_{i}^A + {\bf{Q}}_{w,i},$$ where the quantization noise matrix ${\bf{Q}}_{w,i}$ is assumed to have zero-mean i.i.d. $\mathcal{CN} (0, \sigma_{w,i}^2)$ entries. The required rate for the transfer of the azimuth precoding on fronthaul link is given, similar to (\[FCConstraint;CAP\]), as $$\begin{aligned} \label{FC;LayeredCBP} C_{w,i} (\widetilde {\bf{W}}_i^A, {{\sigma}}_{w,i}^2) &=& \frac{1}{T} I \left ( {\bf{W}}_{i}^A; \widetilde {\bf{W}}_{i}^A \right)\\ \nonumber &=& \frac{1}{T} \{ \log \det \left ( \widetilde {\bf{W}}_{i}^A \widetilde {\bf{W}}_{i}^{A \, \dagger} + \sigma_{w,i}^2 {\bf{I}} \right) - \log \det \left ( \sigma_{w,i}^2 {\bf{I}} \right) \},\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde {\bf{W}}_i^A = [\widetilde {\bf{w}}_{\mathcal{M}_i [1] \, i}^A, \dots, \widetilde {\bf{w}}_{\mathcal{M}_i [\|\mathcal{M}_i\|] \, i}^A]$. The remaining fronthaul capacity is used to convey information messages, whose total rate is $\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}_i} R_j$ with $R_j$ being the user rate for MS $j$. At each RU $i$, the precoding matrix for FD-MIMO is obtained via the Kronecker product of the elevation and azimuth components, yielding the transmitted signal ${\bf{X}}_i = \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}_i} {\bf{X}}_{ji}$, with $${\bf{X}}_{ji} = ( {\bf{w}}_{ji}^A \otimes {\bf{w}}_{ji}^E ) {\bf{s}}_j^T = (\widetilde {\bf{w}}_{ji}^A \otimes {\bf{w}}_{ji}^E) {\bf{s}}_j^T + {\bf{q}}_{w,ji}^A {\bf{s}}_j^T \otimes {\bf{w}}_{ji}^E.$$ The power transmitted at RU $i$ is then calculated as $$\label{PowerConstraint;CBP} P_i (\widetilde {\bf{W}}_i^A, {\bf{W}}_i^E, {{\sigma}}_{w,i}^2) = \textrm{tr} \left ({\bf{X}}_{i}{\bf{X}}_{i}^\dagger \right) = \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}_i} \left ( \|\|{\bf{w}}_{ji}^A\|\|^2 \|\|{\bf{w}}_{ji}^E\|\|^2 + N_{A,i} \sigma_{w,i}^2 \|\|{\bf{w}}_{ji}^E\|\|^2 \right ).$$ \[t\] Long-term statistics of the channel and clustering $\{ \mathcal{M}_i \}$ Elevation precoding ${\bf{W}}^{E \, }$ and MSs’ rates $\{R_j\}$ : Initialize the covariance matrix ${\bf{V}}^{E \, (n)} \succeq 0 $ subject to ${\textrm{tr}} ({\bf{V}}^{E \, (n)}) = 1$ and $\{ R_j^{(n)} \} \in {\mathbb{R}}^+$, and set $n=0$. $n \gets n+1$ Generate a channel matrix realization ${\bf{H}}^{(n)}$ using the available stochastic CSI. : Obtain $\widetilde {\bf{V}}^{\hspace{-0.05cm} A (n)}\hspace{-0.05cm}(\hspace{-0.05cm}{\bf{H}}^{(n)}\hspace{-0.05cm})$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^{2 (n)}\hspace{-0.05cm}(\hspace{-0.05cm}{\bf{H}}^{(n)}\hspace{-0.05cm})$ with ${\bf{V}}^{\hspace{-0.05cm} E} \gets {\bf{V}}^{\hspace{-0.05cm} E (n-1)}$ using Algorithm \[Algorithm\_DC;CBP\]. Update ${\bf{V}}^{E \, (n)}$ and $\{ R_j^{(n)} \}$ by solving problem (\[OP\_wSSUM\_CBP\]), which depends on $\widetilde {\bf{V}}^{A \, (m)}({\bf{H}}^{(m)})$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^{2 \, (m)}({\bf{H}}^{(m)})$ for all $m \le n$. a convergence criterion is satisfied. Set ${\bf{V}}^{E} \gets {\bf{V}}^{E \, (n)}$ and $\{ R_j \} \gets \{ R_j^{(n)} \}$. : Calculate the precoding matrix ${{\bf{W}}^E}^{{\pmb{}}}$ for elevation channel from the covariance matrix ${\bf{V}}^{E}$ via rank reduction as ${{\bf{w}}^E_{ji}}^{{\pmb{}}} = {\mathbf{\nu}}_{\textrm{max}} ({\bf{V}}_{ji}^{E})$ for all $j \in \mathcal{N}_M$ and $i \in \mathcal{N}_R$. Channel ${\bf{H}}$ and elevation precoding ${{\bf{W}}^E}^{{\pmb{}}}$ Azimuth precoding $\widetilde {\bf{W}}^{A \, {{\pmb{}}}} ({\bf{H}})$ and quantization noise vector ${{\pmb{\sigma}}_w^2}^{{\pmb{}}} ({\bf{H}})$ Obtain $\widetilde {\bf{V}}^{A}({\bf{H}})$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^{2} ({\bf{H}})$ with ${\bf{W}}^E \gets {{\bf{W}}^{E}}^{{\pmb{}}}$ using Algorithm \[Algorithm\_DC;CBP\]. : Calculate the precoding matrix $\widetilde {\bf{W}}^{A \, {{\pmb{}}}} ({\bf{H}})$ for the azimuth channel from the covariance matrix $\widetilde {\bf{V}}^{A}({\bf{H}})$ via rank reduction as $\widetilde {\bf{w}}^{A \, {{\pmb{}}}}_{ji} ({\bf{H}}) = \beta_{ji} {\mathbf{\nu}}_{\textrm{max}} (\widetilde {\bf{V}}_{ji}^{A}({\bf{H}}))$ for all $j \in \mathcal{N}_M$ and $i \in \mathcal{N}_R$, where $\beta_{ji}$ is obtained by imposing $P_i (\widetilde {\bf{W}}_i^{A \, {{\pmb{}}}} ({\bf{H}}), {\bf{W}}_i^E, {{{\sigma}}_{w,i}^2}^{{\pmb{}}} ({\bf{H}}) ) = \bar P_i$ using (\[PowerConstraint;CBP\]). The ergodic achievable rate for MS $j$ is calculated as $E [ \bar R_j ({\bf{H}}, \widetilde {\bf{W}}^A, {\bf{W}}^E, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^2 )]$ with $$\begin{aligned} && \hspace{-1cm} \bar R_j ({\bf{H}}, \widetilde {\bf{W}}^A, {\bf{W}}^E, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^2) = \log \left( 1 + \sum_{i=1}^{N_R} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{M}_i} \lambda_{ji}^E \| {\bf{u}}_{ji}^E {\bf{w}}_{ki}^E \|^2 \left( \| \widetilde {\bf{w}}_{ki}^{A \, \dagger} {\bf{h}}_{ji}^{A} \|^2 + \sigma_{w,i}^2 \|\|{\bf{h}}_{ji}^{A}\|\|^2 \right ) \right ) \\ \nonumber&& \hspace{5cm} - \log \left ( 1 + \sum_{i=1}^{N_R} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{M}_i \setminus j} \lambda_{ji}^E \| {\bf{u}}_{ji}^E {\bf{w}}_{ki}^E \|^2 \left( \| \widetilde {\bf{w}}_{ki}^{A \, \dagger} {\bf{h}}_{ji}^{A} \|^2 + \sigma_{w,i}^2 \|\|{\bf{h}}_{ji}^{A}\|\|^2 \right ) \right ),\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde {\bf{W}}^A = [ \widetilde {\bf{W}}^{A \, T}_1, \dots, \widetilde {\bf{W}}^{A \, T}_{N_R}]^T$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_w^2 = [{{\sigma}}_{w,1}^2, \dots, {{\sigma}}_{w,N_R}^2 ]$. ### Problem Formulation As discussed in Section \[PFC:HS\], the azimuth precoding $\widetilde {\bf{W}}^A({\bf{H}})$ and the compression noise variance ${\pmb{\sigma}}_w^2 ({\bf{H}})$ can be adapted to the current channel realization at each coherence block. Accordingly, the optimization problem of interest can be formulated as \[OP\_CBP\] $$\begin{aligned} \underset { \widetilde {\bf{W}}^A({\bf{H}}), {\bf{W}}^E, \{R_j \}, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^2({\bf{H}}) }{\textrm{maximize}} && \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}_M} R_j \label{OF_OP;CBP} \\ \textrm{s.t.} \hspace{0.8cm} && R_j \le E [ \bar R_j ({\bf{H}}, \widetilde {\bf{W}}^A({\bf{H}}), {\bf{W}}^E, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^2({\bf{H}}) ) ] , \hspace{2cm} \forall j \in \mathcal{N}_M, \label{RC_OP;CBP} \\ && C_{w,i} (\widetilde {\bf{W}}_i^A({\bf{H}}), {{\sigma}}_{w,i}^2({\bf{H}})) \le \bar C_i - \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}_i} R_j, \hspace{1.5cm} \forall i \in \mathcal{N}_R, \label{FC_OP;CBP} \\ && P_i (\widetilde {\bf{W}}_i^A({\bf{H}}), {\bf{W}}_i^E, {{\sigma}}_{w,i}^2({\bf{H}})) \le \bar P_i, \hspace{2.6cm} \forall i \in \mathcal{N}_R, \label{PC_OP;CBP}\end{aligned}$$ where the constraints apply to every channel realization ${\bf{H}}$. ### Optimization Algorithm Similar to Section \[PFC:HS\], the non-convex functions $\bar R_j ({\bf{H}}, \widetilde {\bf{W}}^A({\bf{H}}), {\bf{W}}^E,$ ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^2({\bf{H}}))$ and $C_{w,i} (\widetilde {\bf{W}}_i^A({\bf{H}}), {{\sigma}}_{w,i}^2({\bf{H}}))$ can be seen to be DC functions of the covariance matrices $\widetilde {\bf{V}}^A_{ji}({\bf{H}}) = \widetilde {\bf{w}}_{ji}^A({\bf{H}}) \widetilde{\bf{w}}_{ji}^{A \, \dagger}({\bf{H}})$ and ${\bf{V}}^E_{ji} = {\bf{w}}^E_{ji}{\bf{w}}_{ji}^{E \, \dagger}$ for all $j \in \mathcal{N}_M$ and $i \in \mathcal{N}_R$. Moreover, the optimization problem can be divided into long-term and short-term optimizations, that can be tackled via the SSUM and DC methods, respectively, as summarized in Algorithm \[Algorithm\_CBP\] and detailed in Appendix \[Apx;Opt\_CBP\]. Moreover, as in Algorithm \[Algorithm\_HS\], it is required to solve one convex problem, which has polynomial complexity [@BoydBook], at each inner iteration. ![Simulation environment for the numerical results.[]{data-label="fig:Simenv"}](Fig4.eps){width="8cm"} \[t!\] Channel ${\bf{H}}$ and elevation precoding ${\bf{V}}^E$. $\widetilde {\bf{V}}^A({\bf{H}})$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_w^2({\bf{H}})$ : Initialize $\widetilde {\bf{V}}^{A \, (0)}({\bf{H}}) \succeq 0$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^{2 \, (0)}({\bf{H}}) \in {\mathbb{R}}^+$, and set $l=0$. $l \gets l+1$ Update $\widetilde {\bf{V}}^{A \, (l)}({\bf{H}})$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^{2 \, (l)}({\bf{H}})$ by solving problem (\[OP\_wMM\_CBP\]). a convergence criterion is satisfied. Set $\widetilde {\bf{V}}^{A}({\bf{H}}) \gets \widetilde {\bf{V}}^{A \, (l)}({\bf{H}})$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^{2}({\bf{H}}) \gets {\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^{2 \,\, (l)}({\bf{H}})$. Numerical Results ================= In this section, we compare the performance of the strategies with layered precoding, namely layered CAP and CBP schemes, and the conventional strategies, namely CAP and CBP schemes, for FD-MIMO systems. To this end, we consider a set-up simulation environment where the RUs and MSs are randomly located in a square area with side $\delta = 500$ m as in Fig. \[fig:Simenv\]. In the path loss formula (\[PL\_coef\]), we set the reference distance to $d_0=50$ m and the path loss exponent to $\eta = 3$ with $d_{ji}$ being the Euclidean distance between the $i$-th RU and the $j$-th MS. The channels are assumed to have the Kronecker model in (\[CH\_Model\]). Throughout, we assume that the every RU is subject to the same fronthaul capacity $\bar C$ and has the same power constraint $\bar P$, namely $\bar C_i = \bar C$ and $\bar P_i = \bar P$ for $i \in \mathcal{N}_R$. Throughout, we consider CBP strategies in which each RU serves all MSs, i.e., $N_C=N_M$. ![Ergodic achievable sum-rate vs. the number of vertical antennas $N_E$ ($N_R = N_M = 2$, $N_{A,i} = 2$, $C=1$ bit/s/Hz, $P = 0$ dB, and $T = 20$).[]{data-label="fig:fig6"}](vsNE_C1P0T20NA2_1119.eps){width="14cm"} ![Ergodic achievable sum-rate vs. the number of MSs $N_M$ ($N_R = 2$, $N_{A,i} = 2$, $N_{E,i} = 4$, $C=3$ bit/s/Hz, $ P = 5$ dB, and $T = 20$).[]{data-label="fig:vsNM"}](vsNM_NR2_C3P5T20NA2NE4.eps){width="14cm"} Fig. \[fig:fig6\] shows the ergodic achievable sum-rate as function of the number of vertical antennas $N_E$, where the number of RUs and MSs is $N_R=N_M=2$, the number of horizontal antennas is $N_{A,i} = 2$ for all $i \in {\mathcal{N}_R}$, the fronthaul capacity is $\bar C = 1$ bit/s/Hz, the transmit power is $\bar P = 0$ dB and the coherence time is $T=20$. We observe that the layered precoding schemes provide increasingly large gains as $N_E$ grows larger. This is because, in the conventional strategies, the fronthaul overhead for the transfer of elevation precoding information increases with the number of vertical antennas. This gain is less pronounced here for layered CBP strategies, whose achievable rate is limited here by the relatively small coherence interval, as further discussed below (see also Sec. \[CBP\]). Moreover, it is observed that, for $N_E=1$, the conventional and the layered precoding strategies with CBP method have the same performance, while this is not the case for the CAP strategies. In fact, the the conventional CAP strategy outperforms the layered CAP strategy for small values of $N_E$. This is caused by the fact that, with the layered CAP strategy, the azimuth precoded signals for the MSs are separately compressed, hence entailing an inefficient use of the fronthaul when $N_E$ is large enough. Fig. \[fig:vsNM\] shows the effect of the number of MSs $N_M$ on the ergodic achievable sum-rate with $N_R=2$, $N_{A,i}=2$ and $N_{E,i}=4$ for all $i \in \mathcal{N}_R$, $C=3$ bit/s/Hz, $P=5$ dB, and $T=20$. The CBP methods show the known poor performance as the number of MSs increases, due to the need for the transmission of the messages of all MSs on all fronthaul links [@Kang14arXiv]. Moreover, in keeping with the discussion above, we observe that the conventional CAP method is to be preferred in the regime of large number of MSs. This is due to the separate compression of the azimuth precoded signals of layered CAP, which entails a fronthaul overhead proportional to the number of MSs. ![Ergodic achievable sum-rate vs. the fronthaul capacity $\bar C$ ($N_R =2$, $N_M = 2$, $N_{A,i} = 2$, $N_{E,i} = 4$, $P = 5$ dB, and $T = 10$).[]{data-label="fig:fig7"}](vsC_P5T20NA2NE4_1119.eps){width="14cm"} ![Ergodic achievable sum-rate vs. the coherence time $T$ ($N_R =N_M = 2$, $N_{A,i} = 2$, $N_{E,i} = 4$, $C=4$ bit/s/Hz, and $P = 5$ dB).[]{data-label="fig:fig8"}](vsT_C4P5NA2NE4_1119.eps){width="14cm"} In Fig. \[fig:fig7\], the ergodic achievable sum-rate is plotted versus the fronthaul capacity $\bar C$ for $N_R=N_M=2$, $N_{A,i} = 2$ and $N_{E,i}=4$ for all $i \in {\mathcal{N}_R}$, $\bar P = 5$ dB, and $T=10$. We first remark that the performance gain of the layered strategies is observed at low-to-moderate fronthaul capacities, while, for large fronthaul capacities, the performance of the conventional strategies approach that of the layered strategies. As a general rule, the conventional CAP strategy is uniformly better than conventional CBP as long as the fronthaul capacity is sufficiently large, due to the enhanced interference mitigation capabilities of CAP [@Kang14arXiv]. Instead, the layered CAP strategy is advantageous here across all values of fronthaul capacity. The effect of the coherence time $T$ is investigated in Fig. \[fig:fig8\], with $N_R=N_M=2$, $N_{A,i} = 2$ and $N_{E,i}=4$ for all $i \in {\mathcal{N}_R}$, $\bar C = 4$ bit/s/Hz, and $\bar P = 5$ dB. The CBP schemes benefit from a larger coherence time $T$, since the fronthaul overhead required to transmit precoding information gets amortized over a larger period. In contrast, such overhead in layered CAP and CAP schemes scales proportionally to the coherence time $T$ and hence the layered CAP and CAP schemes are not affected by the coherence time. Concluding Remarks ================== In this paper, we have studied the design of downlink Cloud Radio Access Network (C-RAN) systems in which the Radio Units (RUs) are equipped with Full Dimensional (FD)-MIMO arrays. We proposed to leverage the special low-rank structure of FD-MIMO channel, which exhibits different rates of variability in the elevation and azimuth components, by means of a novel layered precoding strategy coupled with an adaptive fronthaul compression scheme. Specifically, in the layered strategy, a single precoding matrix is optimized for the elevation channel across all coherence times based on long-term Channel State Information (CSI), while azimuth precoding matrices are optimized across independent coherence interval by adapting to instantaneous CSI. This proposed layered approach has the unique advantage in a C-RAN of potentially reducing the fronthaul overhead, due to the opportunity to amortize the overhead related to the elevation channel component across multiple coherence times. Via numerical results, it is shown that the layered strategies significantly outperform standard non-layered schemes, especially in the regime of low fronthaul capacity and large number of vertical antennas. We have also considered two different functional splits for both layered and non-layered precoding, namely the conventional C-RAN implementation, also known as Compress-After-Precoding (CAP) scheme, and an alternative split, referred to as Compress-Before-Precoding (CBP), whereby channel coding and precoding are performed at the RUs. Layered precoding is seen to work better under a CAP implementation when the coherence interval is not too large and the number of vertical antennas is sufficiently large; whereas the CBP approach benefits from a longer coherence interval due to its capability to amortize the fronthaul overhead for transfer of azimuth precoding information. Interesting open issues include the investigation of a scenario with multiple interfering clusters of RUs controlled by distinct Central Units (CUs) (see [@Park14WCL]), and the analysis of the performance in the presence of more general FD-MIMO channel models (see, e.g., [@Xu14CTW]). Optimization Algorithm for the Layered CAP Strategy {#Apx;Opt_CAP} =================================================== In this Appendix, we detail the derivation of Algorithm \[Algorithm\_HS\] for the optimization of the layered CAP strategy. We first discuss the optimization problem for the short-term variables, namely the covariance matrix ${\bf{V}}^{A }({\bf{H}})$ for azimuth precoding and the quantization noise variance ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2} ({\bf{H}})$, which are adapted to the channel realization ${\bf{H}}$, for given the elevation covariance matrix ${\bf{V}}^E$. We then consider the optimization of the long-term variable, namely the covariance matrix ${\bf{V}}^{E}$ for elevation precoding, with the given covariance matrices ${\bf{V}}^{A}({\bf{H}})$ for azimuth precoding and quantization noise vectors ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2} ({\bf{H}})$. After obtaining the elevation covariance matrix ${{\bf{V}}^{E}}^{{\pmb{}}}$, using the approach in Algorithm \[Algorithm\_HS\], the precoding matrix ${{\bf{W}}^{E}}^{{\pmb{}}}$ for the elevation channel is calculated via the principal eigenvector approximation [@BoydSemiProg] of the obtained solution ${{\bf{V}}^{E}}^{{\pmb{}}}$ as ${{\bf{w}}^E_{ji}}^{{\pmb{}}} = {\mathbf{\nu}}_{\textrm{max}} ({{\bf{V}}_{ji}^{E}}^{\pmb{}})$ for all $j \in \mathcal{N}_M$ and $i \in \mathcal{N}_R$. In a similar fashion, the algorithm obtains the precoding matrix ${{\bf{W}}^{A}}^{{\pmb{}}} ({\bf{H}})$ for the azimuth channel via the standard rank-reduction approach [@BoydSemiProg] from the obtained solution ${{\bf{V}}^{A} ({\bf{H}})}^{{\pmb{}}}$ as ${{\bf{w}}^A_{ji}}^{{\pmb{}}} ({\bf{H}}) = \beta_{ji} {\mathbf{\nu}}_{\textrm{max}} ( {{\bf{V}}_{ji}^{A}({\bf{H}})}^{{\pmb{}}} )$ with the normalization factors $\beta_{ji}$ selected to satisfy the power constraint with equality, namely $P_i ({{\bf{W}}_i^A}^{{\pmb{}}} ({\bf{H}}), {{\bf{W}}_i^E}^{{\pmb{}}}, {{\pmb{\sigma}}_{x,i}^2}^{{\pmb{}}} ({\bf{H}})) = \bar P_i$. Optimization over ${\bf{V}}^{A}({\bf{H}})$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2} ({\bf{H}})$ with given ${\bf{V}}^E$ {#OP_H_JOP_HS} ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here, we tackle the problem (\[OP\_HS\]) based on the DC algorithm [@MMBook] given the elevation precoding covariance matrix ${\bf{V}}^E$ over the azimuth covariance matrix ${\bf{V}}^{A}({\bf{H}})$ and the quantization noise variance ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2} ({\bf{H}})$. To this end, the objective function $R_j ({\bf{H}}, {\bf{W}}^A({\bf{H}}), {\bf{W}}^E, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^2({\bf{H}}))$ is approximated by a locally tight lower bound $\widetilde R_j ({\bf{H}}, {\bf{V}}^{A}({\bf{H}}),$ ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2}({\bf{H}}) \| {\bf{V}}^{A \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}}), {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2 \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}}), {\bf{V}}^{E})$ around solutions ${\bf{V}}^{A \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}})$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2 \, (l-1)} ({\bf{H}})$ obtained at $(l-1)$-th inner iteration with $$\begin{aligned} \label{AR_wMM_HS} && \hspace{-1.3cm} \widetilde R_j ({\bf{H}}, {\bf{V}}^{A}({\bf{H}}), {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2}({\bf{H}}) \| {\bf{V}}^{A \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}}), {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2 \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}}), {\bf{V}}^{E }) = \log \left( 1 + \sum_{k=1}^{N_M} \sum_{i=1}^{N_R} \rho_{ji} ({\bf{V}}_{ki}^A({\bf{H}}), {\bf{V}}_{ki}^{E}, \sigma_{x,ki}^2({\bf{H}})) \right ) \\ \nonumber&& \hspace{-0.5cm} - f \hspace{-0.1cm} \left( \hspace{-0.1cm} 1 \hspace{-0.1cm} + \hspace{-0.3cm} \sum_{k=1,k \neq j}^{N_M} \sum_{i=1}^{N_R} \hspace{-0.1cm} \rho_{ji} ({\bf{V}}_{ki}^{\hspace{-0.05cm}A \, (l-1)}\hspace{-0.05cm}({\bf{H}}), {\bf{V}}_{ki}^{\hspace{-0.05cm} E}, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x,ki}^{2 \, (l-1)}\hspace{-0.05cm}({\bf{H}})), 1 \hspace{-0.1cm} + \hspace{-0.3cm}\sum_{k=1,k \neq j}^{N_M} \sum_{i=1}^{N_R} \rho_{ji} ({\bf{V}}_{ki}^A({\bf{H}}), {\bf{V}}_{ki}^{E}, \sigma_{x,ki}^2({\bf{H}})) \hspace{-0.1cm} \right)\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_{ji} ({\bf{V}}_{ki}^A, {\bf{V}}_{ki}^E, \sigma_{x,ki}^2) = \lambda_{ji}^E {\bf{u}}_{ji}^E {\bf{V}}_{ki}^E {\bf{u}}^\dagger_{ji} \left( {\bf{h}}_{ji}^{A} {\bf{V}}_{ki}^{A} {\bf{h}}_{ji}^{A \, \dagger} + \sigma_{x,ki}^2 \|\|{\bf{h}}_{ji}^{A}\|\|^2 \right )$ and the linearized function $f(a,b)$ is obtained from the first-order Taylor expansion of the log function as $f(a,b) = \log (a) + {(b-a)}/{a}$. Since the fronthaul constraint (\[FC\_OP;HS\]) is a DC constraint, the left-hand side of the constraint (\[FC\_OP;HS\]) is approximated by applying successive locally tight convex lower bounds as $$\begin{aligned} && \widetilde C_{x,i} ({\bf{V}}_i^A({\bf{H}}), {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x,i}^2({\bf{H}}) \| {\bf{V}}_i^{A \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}}), {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x,i}^{2 \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}})) \triangleq \\ \nonumber && \hspace{4cm} \sum_{j=1}^{N_M} \left \{ f \left ({\textrm{tr}}({\bf{V}}_{ji}^{A \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}})) + \sigma_{x,ji}^{2 \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}}), {\textrm{tr}}({\bf{V}}_{ji}^A({\bf{H}})) + \sigma_{x,ji}^{2}({\bf{H}}) \right) - \log \sigma_{x,ji}^{2} \right \}.\end{aligned}$$ At $l$-th inner loop, the following convex optimization problem, for given ${\bf{V}}^{A \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}})$, ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2 \, (l-1)} ({\bf{H}})$, and ${\bf{V}}^{E}$, is solved for obtaining new iterates ${\bf{V}}^{A \, (l)}({\bf{H}})$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2 \, (l)} ({\bf{H}})$ as \[OP\_wMM\_HS\] $$\begin{aligned} \hspace{-0.7cm} {\bf{V}}^{A \, (l)}({\bf{H}}), {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2 \, (l)} ({\bf{H}}) \gets \hspace{-0.2cm} \underset { {\bf{V}}^A({\bf{H}}), {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^2({\bf{H}})}{\textrm{arg max}} && \hspace{-0.6cm} \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}_M} \hspace{-0.1cm} \widetilde R_j ({\bf{H}}, {\bf{V}}^{A}({\bf{H}}), {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2}({\bf{H}}) \| {\bf{V}}^{A \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}}), \hspace{-0.05cm} {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2 \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}}), \hspace{-0.05cm} {\bf{V}}^{E}) \label{OF_OP_wMM;HS} \\ \textrm{s.t.} \hspace{0.7cm} && \hspace{-0.6cm} \widetilde C_{x,i} ({\bf{V}}_i^A({\bf{H}}), {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x,i}^2({\bf{H}}) \| {\bf{V}}_i^{A \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}}), {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x,i}^{2 \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}})) \le \bar C_i, \label{FC_OP_wMM;HS} \\ && \hspace{-0.6cm} P_i ({\bf{V}}_i^A({\bf{H}}), {\bf{V}}_i^{E}, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x,i}^2({\bf{H}})) \le \bar P_i, \hspace{1cm} \forall i \in \mathcal{N}_R. \label{PC_OP_wMM;HS}\end{aligned}$$ The DC method obtains the solutions ${\bf{V}}^{A}({\bf{H}})$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2} ({\bf{H}})$ by solving the problem (\[OP\_wMM\_HS\]) iteratively over $l$ until a convergence criterion is satisfied and the resulting algorithm is summarized in Algorithm \[Algorithm\_DC\]. Optimization over ${\bf{V}}^{E}$ {#OP_JOP_HS} -------------------------------- In this part, the covariance matrix ${\bf{V}}^{E}$ for elevation precoding is designed for given azimuth precoding covariance matrices ${\bf{V}}^{A \, (m)} = {\bf{V}}^{A \, (m)}({\bf{H}}^{(m)})$ and quantization noise vectors ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2 \, (m)} = {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2 \, (m)} ({\bf{H}}^{(m)})$ for all $m=1,\dots, n$. Since the elevation covariance matrix ${\bf{V}}^{E \, (n)}$ is not adapted to the channel realization ${\bf{H}}$ and the objective function (\[OP\_HS\]) is non-convex with respect to ${\bf{V}}^{E \, (n)}$, in this optimization, we use the SSUM algorithm [@SSUM_paper]. To this end, at each step, a stochastic lower bound of the objective function is maximized around the current iterate. Following the SSUM method, at $n$-th outer loop, the objective function with given ${\bf{V}}^{A \, (m)}$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2 \, (m)}$, for all $m=1,\dots, n$, is reformulated as the empirical average $$\frac{1}{n} \sum_{m=1}^{n} \widetilde R_j ({\bf{H}}^{(m)}, {\bf{V}}^E \| {\bf{V}}^{E \, (m-1)}, {\bf{V}}^{A \, (m)}, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2 \, (m)}),$$ where $\widetilde R_j ({\bf{H}}^{(m)}, {\bf{V}}^E \| {\bf{V}}^{E \, (m-1)}, {\bf{V}}^{A}, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2})$ is a locally tight convex lower bound around the previous iterate ${\bf{V}}^{E \, (m-1)}$, when the channel realization is ${\bf{H}}^{(m)}$, and is calculated as $$\begin{aligned} \label{AR_wSSUM_HS} && \hspace{-0.5cm} \widetilde R_j ({\bf{H}}^{(m)}, {\bf{V}}^E \| {\bf{V}}^{E \, (m-1)}, {\bf{V}}^{A \, (m)}, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2 \, (m)}) = \log \left( 1 + \sum_{k=1}^{N_M} \sum_{i=1}^{N_R} \rho_{ji} ({\bf{H}}^{(m)}, {\bf{V}}_{ki}^{A \, (m)}, {\bf{V}}_{ki}^E, \sigma_{x,i}^{2 \, (m)}) \right ) \\ \nonumber&& \hspace{-0.5cm} - f \left( 1 + \sum_{k=1,k \neq j}^{N_M} \sum_{i=1}^{N_R} \rho_{ki} ({\bf{H}}^{(m)}, {\bf{V}}_{ki}^{A \, (m)}, {\bf{V}}_{ki}^{E \, (m-1)}, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x,i}^{2 \, (m)}), 1 + \sum_{k=1,k \neq j}^{N_M} \sum_{i=1}^{N_R} \rho_{ki} ({\bf{H}}^{(m)}, {\bf{V}}_{ki}^{A \, (m)}, {\bf{V}}_{ki}^E, \sigma_{x,i}^{2 \, (m)}) \right),\end{aligned}$$ with $\rho_{ji} ({\bf{H}}^{(m)}, {\bf{V}}_{ki}^A, {\bf{V}}_{ki}^E, \sigma_{x,i}^2) = \lambda_{ji}^{E \, (m)} {\bf{u}}_{ji}^{E \, (m)} {\bf{V}}_{ki}^E {\bf{u}}^{(m) \, \dagger}_{ji} ( {\bf{h}}_{ji}^{A \, (m)} {\bf{V}}_{ki}^{A} {\bf{h}}_{ji}^{A \, (m) \, \dagger} + \sigma_{x,i}^2 \|\|{\bf{h}}_{ji}^{A \, (m)}\|\|^2 )$. The $n$-th iterate ${\bf{V}}^{E \, (n)}$ is obtained by solving the following convex optimization problem \[OP\_wSSUM\_HS\] $$\begin{aligned} {\bf{V}}^{E \, (n)} \gets \underset {{\bf{V}}^E}{\textrm{arg max}} && \frac{1}{n} \sum_{m=1}^{n} \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}_M} \widetilde R_j ({\bf{H}}^{(m)}, {\bf{V}}^E \| {\bf{V}}^{E \, (m-1)}, {\bf{V}}^{A \, (m)}, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x}^{2 \, (m)}) \label{OF_OP_wSSUM;HS} \\ \textrm{s.t.} && C_{x,i} ({\bf{V}}_i^{A \, (n)}, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x,i}^{2 \, (n)}) \le \bar C_i, \hspace{1cm} \forall i \in \mathcal{N}_R, \label{FC_OP_wSSUM;HS} \\ && P_i ({\bf{V}}_i^{A \, (n)}, {\bf{V}}_i^E, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{x,i}^{2 \, (n)}) \le \bar P_i, \hspace{1cm} \forall i \in \mathcal{N}_R. \label{PC_OP_wSSUM;HS}\end{aligned}$$ As in Section \[OP\_H\_JOP\_HS\], the outer loop in Algorithm \[Algorithm\_HS\] is repeated until the convergence is achieved. Optimization Algorithm for Layered CBP Strategy {#Apx;Opt_CBP} =============================================== In this Appendix, the precoding matrices ${{\bf{W}}^{E}}^{{\pmb{}}}$ and $\widetilde {\bf{W}}^{A \, {{\pmb{}}}}$, MSs’ rates $\{ R_j \}$ and quantization noise vector ${{\pmb{\sigma}}_w^2}^{{\pmb{}}}$ are jointly optimized for the CBP-based strategy. The optimization of short-term variables, namely the covariance matrix $\widetilde {\bf{V}}^{A}({\bf{H}})$ for azimuth precoding and the quantization noise variance ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^{2} ({\bf{H}})$, which are adapted to the channel realization ${\bf{H}}$ for given the elevation covariance matrix ${\bf{V}}^E$, is described first. Then, the optimization over the long-term variables, namely the covariance matrix ${\bf{V}}^{E}$ for elevation precoding and the user rates $\{R_j\}$, is discussed given covariance matrices ${\bf{V}}^{A \, (m)}({\bf{H}})$ for azimuth precoding and quantization noise vectors ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^{2 \, (m)} ({\bf{H}})$, for all $m=1,\dots, n$, as detailed in Appendix \[OP\_JOP\_CBP\]. As in Appendix \[Apx;Opt\_CAP\], the elevation precoding matrix ${{\bf{W}}^{E}}^{\pmb{}}$ and the azimuth precoding matrix $\widetilde {\bf{W}}^{A \, {\pmb{}}}$ are calculated via the standard rank-reduction approach [@BoydSemiProg] with the obtained solutions ${{\bf{V}}^{E}}^{\pmb{}}$ and $\widetilde {\bf{V}}^{A \, {\pmb{}}}$, respectively, as detailed in Algorithm \[Algorithm\_CBP\]. Optimization over $\widetilde {\bf{V}}^{A}({\bf{H}})$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^{2} ({\bf{H}})$ with given ${\bf{V}}^E$ {#OP_H_JOP_CBP} --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here, we aim at maximizing the objective function (\[OF\_OP;CBP\]) over the azimuth precoding covariance matrix $\widetilde {\bf{V}}^{A}({\bf{H}})$ and the quantization noise variance ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^{2} ({\bf{H}})$ given the elevation precoding covariance matrix ${\bf{V}}^E$ using the DC method [@MMBook]. At the $l$-th iteration of the DC method, the non-convex functions $\bar R_j ({\bf{H}}, \widetilde {\bf{V}}^A({\bf{H}}), {\bf{V}}^E, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^2({\bf{H}}))$ and $C_{w,i} (\widetilde {\bf{V}}_i^A({\bf{H}}), {{\sigma}}_{w,i}^2({\bf{H}}))$ are respectively substituted with a locally tight lower bound $\widetilde R_j ({\bf{H}}, \widetilde {\bf{V}}^A({\bf{H}}), {\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^2({\bf{H}}) \|$ $\widetilde {\bf{V}}^{A \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}}), {\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^{2 \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}}), {\bf{V}}^E)$ and a tight upper bound $\widetilde C_{w,i} (\widetilde {\bf{V}}_i^A({\bf{H}}),$ ${{\sigma}}_{w,i}^2({\bf{H}}) \|\widetilde {\bf{V}}_i^{A \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}}), {{\sigma}}_{w,i}^{2 \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}}))$, obtained as in Appendix \[Apx;Opt\_CAP\]. The bounds are given by $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber && \hspace{-0.8cm} \widetilde R_j ({\bf{H}}, \widetilde {\bf{V}}^A({\bf{H}}), {\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^2({\bf{H}}) \| \widetilde {\bf{V}}^{A \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}}), {\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^{2 \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}}), {\bf{V}}^E) = \log \left( 1 + \sum_{i=1}^{N_R} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{M}_i} \rho_{ji} ( \widetilde {\bf{V}}_{ki}^A({\bf{H}}), {\bf{V}}_{ki}^{E}, \sigma_{w,i}^2({\bf{H}})) \right ) \\ && \hspace{-0.1cm} - f \hspace{-0.1cm} \left( \hspace{-0.1cm} 1 \hspace{-0.1cm} + \sum_{i=1}^{N_R} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{M}_i \setminus j} \hspace{-0.1cm} \rho_{ki} (\widetilde {\bf{V}}_{ki}^{\hspace{-0.05cm}A \, (l-1)}\hspace{-0.05cm}({\bf{H}}), {\bf{V}}_{ki}^{\hspace{-0.05cm} E}, {{\sigma}}_{w,i}^{2 \, (l-1)}\hspace{-0.05cm}({\bf{H}})), 1 \hspace{-0.1cm} + \sum_{i=1}^{N_R} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{M}_i \setminus j} \rho_{ki} (\widetilde {\bf{V}}_{ki}^A({\bf{H}}), {\bf{V}}_{ki}^{E}, \sigma_{w,i}^2({\bf{H}})) \hspace{-0.1cm} \right),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} && \hspace{-2cm} \widetilde C_{w,i} (\widetilde {\bf{V}}_i^A({\bf{H}}), {{\sigma}}_{w,i}^2({\bf{H}}) \| \widetilde {\bf{V}}_i^{A \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}}), {{\sigma}}_{w,i}^{2 \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}})) \triangleq \\ \nonumber && \hspace{1cm} \frac{1}{T} \left \{ f \left ( \widetilde {\bf{V}}_i^{A \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}}) + {{\sigma}}_{w,i}^{2 \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}}) {\bf{I}}, \widetilde {\bf{V}}_i^{A}({\bf{H}}) + {{\sigma}}_{w,i}^2({\bf{H}}) {\bf{I}} \right) - N_{A,i} \log \left ( \sigma_{w,i}^2 \right) \right \},\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_{ji} (\widetilde {\bf{V}}_{ki}^A, {\bf{V}}_{ki}^E, \sigma_{w,i}^2) = \lambda_{ji}^E {\bf{u}}_{ji}^E {\bf{V}}_{ki}^E {\bf{u}}^\dagger_{ji} \left( {\bf{h}}_{ji}^{A} \widetilde {\bf{V}}_{ki}^{A} {\bf{h}}_{ji}^{A \, \dagger} + \sigma_{w,i}^2 \|\|{\bf{h}}_{ji}^{A}\|\|^2 \right )$ and the linearization function $f({\bf{A}},{\bf{B}})$ for the matrices is defined as $f ({\bf{A}},{\bf{B}}) \triangleq \log \det ({\bf{A}}) + \textrm{tr} ({\bf{A}}^{-1} ({\bf{B}} - {\bf{A}}))$. At $l$-th iteration of DC method, the following convex optimization problem for given $\widetilde {\bf{V}}^{A \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}})$, ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^{2 \, (l-1)} ({\bf{H}})$ and ${\bf{V}}^{E}$ is solved for obtaining new iterates $\widetilde {\bf{V}}^{A \, (l)}({\bf{H}})$ and ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^{2 \, (l)} ({\bf{H}})$: \[OP\_wMM\_CBP\] $$\begin{aligned} \hspace{-0.5cm} \widetilde {\bf{V}}^{A \, (l)}({\bf{H}}), {\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^{2 \, (l)} ({\bf{H}}) \gets && \hspace{-0.5cm} \underset { \widetilde {\bf{V}}^A({\bf{H}}), {\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^2({\bf{H}}), \{R_j\}}{\textrm{arg max}} \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}_M} \hspace{-0.1cm} R_j \label{OF_OP_wMM;CBP} \\ \textrm{s.t.} && \hspace{0.2cm} R_j \le \widetilde R_j ({\bf{H}}, \widetilde {\bf{V}}^A({\bf{H}}), {\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^2({\bf{H}}) \| \widetilde {\bf{V}}^{A \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}}), {\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^{2 \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}}), {\bf{V}}^E), \,\, \forall j \in \mathcal{N}_M, \label{RC_OP_wMM;CBP} \\ && \hspace{0.2cm} \widetilde C_{w,i} (\widetilde {\bf{V}}_i^A({\bf{H}}), {{\sigma}}_{w,i}^2({\bf{H}}) \| \widetilde {\bf{V}}_i^{A \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}}), {{\sigma}}_{w,i}^{2 \, (l-1)}({\bf{H}})) \le \bar C_i - \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}_i} R_j, \label{FC_OP_wMM;CBP} \\ && \hspace{0.2cm} P_i (\widetilde {\bf{V}}_i^A({\bf{H}}), {\bf{V}}_i^{E}, {{\sigma}}_{w,i}^2({\bf{H}})) \le \bar P_i, \hspace{1cm} \forall i \in \mathcal{N}_R. \label{PC_OP_wMM;CBP}\end{aligned}$$ Problem (\[OP\_wMM\_CBP\]) is solved iteratively over $l$ until convergence and the resulting algorithm is summarized in Algorithm \[Algorithm\_DC;CBP\]. Optimization over ${\bf{V}}^{E}$ and $\{ R_j \}$ {#OP_JOP_CBP} ------------------------------------------------ We design the covariance matrix ${\bf{V}}^{E}$ for elevation precoding and the user rates $\{R_j\}$ for given azimuth precoding covariance matrices $\widetilde {\bf{V}}^{A \, (m)} = \widetilde{\bf{V}}^{A \, (m)}({\bf{H}}^{(m)})$ and quantization noise vectors ${\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^{2 \, (m)} = {\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^{2 \, (m)} ({\bf{H}}^{(m)})$ for all $m=1,\dots, n$. As in Appendix \[Apx;Opt\_CAP\], this optimization problem can be tackled via the SSUM method. To this end, the function $E [ \bar R_j ({\bf{H}}, \widetilde {\bf{W}}^A({\bf{H}}), {\bf{W}}^E, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^2({\bf{H}}) )]$ in (\[RC\_OP;CBP\]) is approximated with the stochastic upper bound as $$\frac{1}{n} \sum_{m=1}^{n} \widetilde R_j ({\bf{H}}^{(m)}, {\bf{V}}^E \| {\bf{V}}^{E \, (m-1)}, \widetilde {\bf{V}}^{A \, (m)}, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^{2 \, (m)}),$$ with $$\begin{aligned} \label{AR_wSSUM_CBP} && \hspace{-0.8cm} \widetilde R_j ({\bf{H}}^{(m)}, {\bf{V}}^E \| {\bf{V}}^{E \, (m-1)}, \widetilde {\bf{V}}^{A \, (m)}, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^{2 \, (m)}) = \log \left( 1 + \sum_{i=1}^{N_R} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{M}_i} \rho_{ji} ({\bf{H}}^{(m)}, \widetilde {\bf{V}}_{ki}^{A \, (m)}, {\bf{V}}_{ki}^E, \sigma_{w,i}^{2 \, (m)}) \right ) \\ \nonumber&& \hspace{-0.5cm} - f \left( 1 + \sum_{i=1}^{N_R} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{M}_i \setminus j} \rho_{ki} ({\bf{H}}^{(m)}, \widetilde {\bf{V}}_{ki}^{A \, (m)}, {\bf{V}}_{ki}^{E \, (m-1)}, {{\sigma}}_{w,i}^{2 \, (m)}), 1 + \sum_{i=1}^{N_R} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{M}_i \setminus j} \rho_{ki} ({\bf{H}}^{(m)}, \widetilde {\bf{V}}_{ki}^{A \, (m)}, {\bf{V}}_{ki}^E, \sigma_{w,i}^{2 \, (m)}) \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_{ji} ({\bf{H}}^{(m)}, \widetilde {\bf{V}}_{ki}^A, {\bf{V}}_{ki}^E, \sigma_{w,i}^2) = \lambda_{ji}^{E \, (m)} {\bf{u}}_{ji}^{E \, (m)} {\bf{V}}_{ki}^E {\bf{u}}^{(m) \, \dagger}_{ji} ( {\bf{h}}_{ji}^{A \, (m)} \widetilde {\bf{V}}_{ki}^{A} {\bf{h}}_{ji}^{A \, (m) \, \dagger} + \sigma_{w,i}^2 \|\|{\bf{h}}_{ji}^{A \, (m)}\|\|^2 )$. At the $n$-th iteration, ${\bf{V}}^{E \, (n)}$ and $\{R_j^{(n)}\}$ are obtained by solving the following optimization problem based on SSUM method \[OP\_wSSUM\_CBP\] $$\begin{aligned} \hspace{-0.5cm} {\bf{V}}^{E \, (n)}, \{R_j^{(n)}\} \gets && \hspace{-0.5cm} \underset {{\bf{V}}^{E}, \{R_j\}}{\textrm{arg max}} \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}_M} \hspace{-0.1cm} R_j \label{OF_OP_wSSUM;CBP} \\ \textrm{s.t.} && \hspace{0.2cm} R_j \le \frac{1}{n} \sum_{m=1}^{n} \widetilde R_j ({\bf{H}}^{(m)}, {\bf{V}}^E \| {\bf{V}}^{E \, (m-1)}, \widetilde {\bf{V}}^{A \, (m)}, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{w}^{2 \, (m)}), \,\, \forall j \in \mathcal{N}_M, \label{RC_OP_wSSUM;CBP} \\ && \hspace{0.2cm} C_{w,i} (\widetilde {\bf{V}}_i^A({\bf{H}}), {{\sigma}}_{w,i}^2({\bf{H}})) \le \bar C_i - \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}_i} R_j, \label{FC_OP_wSSUM;CBP} \\ && \hspace{0.2cm} P_i (\widetilde {\bf{V}}_i^A({\bf{H}}), {\bf{V}}_i^{E}, {{\sigma}}_{w,i}^2({\bf{H}})) \le \bar P_i, \hspace{1cm} \forall i \in \mathcal{N}_R \label{PC_OP_wSSUM;CBP}\end{aligned}$$ until convergence. [^1]: Jinkyu Kang and Joonhyuk Kang are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) Daejeon, South Korea (Email: [email protected] and [email protected]). O. Simeone is with the Center for Wireless Communications and Signal Processing Research (CWCSPR), ECE Department, New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT), Newark, NJ 07102, USA (Email: [email protected]). S. Shamai (Shitz) is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Technion, Haifa, 32000, Israel (Email: [email protected]).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We prove a compactness theorem in the context of Hennessy-Milner logic. It is used to derive a sufficient condition on modal characterizations for the Approximation Induction Principle to be sound modulo the corresponding process equivalence. We show that this condition is necessary when the equivalence in question is compositional with respect to the projection operators.' author: - 'Maciej Gazda & Wan Fokkink' title: Modal Logic and the Approximation Induction Principle --- Introduction ============ Hennessy-Milner logic [@HeMi85] is a modal logic for specifying properties of states in a labelled transition system (LTS). Rob van Glabbeek [@Gla01] uses this logic to characterize a wide range of process semantics in terms of observations. That is, a process semantics is captured by means of a sublogic of Hennessy-Milner logic; two states in an LTS are equivalent if and only if they make true exactly the same formulas in this sublogic. In particular, Hennessy-Milner logic itself characterizes bisimulation equivalence. For several process semantics, mainly in the realm of simulation, van Glabbeek introduces three different modal characterizations (see [@Gla01 Fig. 9]), which differ in their treatment of conjunction. Apart from the richest characterizations, which correspond to the canonical process equivalences, there are also finitary versions (denoted with a superscript $^{}$), which allow only conjunctions over a finite set. Intermediate equivalences based on formulas with arbitrary conjunctions but finite depth are considered as well (with a superscript $\omega$). The corresponding equivalences all differ in general LTSs and collapse in the setting of image-finite LTSs. An LTS is image-finite if for each state and each action $a$, there are finitely many outgoing $a$-transitions. Van Glabbeek sketches separate proofs that the modal characterizations capture the same process semantics under consideration. These proofs are always almost identical. Here we show that given a modal characterization of a process semantics for general LTSs, restricting to finite sub-conjunctions produces a modal characterization of the same semantics for image-finite LTSs. The only requirement is that the formulas that are thus obtained were already present in the original modal characterization. All semantics in the linear time - branching time spectrum [@Gla01] have a modal characterization that satisfies this requirement, except for completed trace semantics (in case of an infinite action set). We obtain a similar compactness result for modal characterizations in which formulas have finite depth. In this case only infinite conjunctions that have an infinite depth need to be restricted to their finite sub-conjunctions. Again, the original and the resulting modal characterization coincide, if the resulting formulas were already present in the original modal characterization. The modal characterization of completed trace semantics satisfies this property. Van Glabbeek uses a version of Hennessy-Milner logic that contains negation (so that disjunction, falsum, and $[a]\,\phi$ need not to be present). However, in that logic the aforementioned result is not so easy to obtain. Therefore we first prove the result in a negation-free version of Hennessy-Milner logic. Next we show that the result carries over to Hennessy-Milner logic with negation. Next we study the Approximation Induction Principle (AIP) from process algebra [@BaBeKl87], which states that two processes are equal if they are equal up to any finite depth. It is well-known that this proof principle is sound modulo bisimulation equivalence for image-finite processes [@Gla87]. Moreover, it is folklore that this soundness result extends to the other equivalences in the linear time - branching time spectrum [@AcBlVa94]. We obtain a sufficient condition on the modal characterization of a process equivalence, to guarantee that AIP is sound with respect to this equivalence. The result is then linked to the compactness theorem from the first part. The sufficient condition says that the modal characterization must only contain formulas of finite depth. We also show that this is basically a necessary condition: if an equivalence is sound modulo AIP, and compositional w.r.t. the projection operators used in the definition of AIP, then it can be characterized by a set of finite-depth formulas. Modal Characterizations for Image-Finite Processes ================================================== Hennessy-Milner Logic --------------------- A labelled transition system* (LTS) consists of a set $S$ of states $s$, a set $A$ of actions $a$, and a set of transitions $s{\mathrel{\stackrel{a}{\rightarrow}}}s'$. An LTS is image-finite if for each $s$ and $a$, the LTS contains only finitely many transitions $s{\mathrel{\stackrel{a}{\rightarrow}}}s'$. Hennessy-Milner logic [@HeMi85] is a modal logic for specifying properties of states in an LTS. There exist several versions of Hennessy-Milner logic. The most general language, as presented in [@Gla01], is denoted with $\hmli$. Its syntax can be defined with the following BNF grammar: $$\varphi ~~::=~~ \true ~\mid~ \bigwedge_{i\in I}\varphi_i ~\mid~ {\langlea\rangle}\varphi ~\mid~ \neg\varphi$$ The meaning of the formulas is defined inductively as follows: $$\begin{array}{l l} s\models \true & s\models {\langlea\rangle}\varphi ~\Leftrightarrow~ \exists s'\in S\,(s{\mathrel{\stackrel{a}{\rightarrow}}}s'\,\wedge\,s'\models\varphi)\\ s\models \bigwedge_{i\in I}\varphi_i ~\Leftrightarrow~ \forall i\in I\,(s\models\varphi_i) ~~~~& s\models \neg \varphi ~\Leftrightarrow~ s \not \models \varphi \end{array}$$ There exists a different syntax (see [@Lar90], [@Sti01]) of Hennessy-Milner logic without negation symbol, denoted with $\hmli^{+}$. As we will see later on, its formulas have nice properties which make it easier to perform certain proofs. $$\phi ~~::=~~ \true ~\mid~ \false ~\mid~ \bigwedge_{i\in I}\phi_i ~\mid~ \bigvee_{i\in I}\phi_i ~\mid~ {\langlea\rangle}\phi ~\mid~ [a]\,\phi$$ The meaning of the new formulas is defined below: $$s\not\models \false \hspace{1cm} s\models \bigvee_{i\in I}\phi_i ~\Leftrightarrow~ \exists i\in I\,(s\models\phi_i) \hspace{1cm} s\models [a]\,\phi ~\Leftrightarrow~ \forall s'\in S\,(s{\mathrel{\stackrel{a}{\rightarrow}}}s'\,\Rightarrow\,s'\models\phi)$$ Observe that we allow quantification over arbitrary sets of indexes $I$. If we restrict to conjunction and disjunction operators over finite sets only, we obtain a language of finite Hennessy-Milner formulas, denoted by $\hmlfin$ or $\hmlfin^+$, respectively. We define depth of a formula $d:\hmli \longrightarrow \nat \cup \{\infty\}$ inductively as: $$d(\true) = 0 \hspace{1cm} d(\bigwedge_{i\in I}\varphi_i) = \sup\{d(\varphi_i)\mid i\in I\} \hspace{1cm} d({\langlea\rangle} \varphi) = 1 + d(\varphi) \hspace{1cm} d(\neg \varphi) = d(\varphi)$$ $\hmlbd$ and $\hmlbd^+$ denote sets of formulas of finite depth: $\hmlbd^{(+)} = \{ \varphi \in \hmli^{(+)} ~\mid~ d(\varphi) < \infty \}$. A context $C[]$ denotes a formula containing one occurrence of $[]$. The formula $C[\phi]$ is obtained by replacing this occurrence of $[]$ by the formula $\phi$. It is well-known, and easy to see, that $\phi\Rightarrow\psi$ yields $C[\phi]\Rightarrow C[\psi]$ for all contexts $C[]$ over $\hmli^{+}$. Compactness Results {#sec:compactness} ------------------- In this section, we show that for image-finite processes, an infinite conjunction or disjunction inside an $\hmli^{+}$ formula can be captured by its finite sub-conjunctions or -disjunctions, respectively. These results are somewhat reminiscent of the compactness theorem for first-order logic, which states that a set of formulas has a model if and only if every finite subset of it has a model. In [@Lar90] there is a result (Lem. 2.8) which implies the proposition below, but only for $\hmlfin^+$ formulas. Moreover, in [@Lar90] no proof is provided for Lem. 2.8. Therefore we include a proof of Prop. \[prop:conjunction\], to make the current paper self-contained. $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$ denotes that $J$ is a finite subset of $I$. \[prop:conjunction\] Given an image-finite LTS, $s\models C[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\phi_i] \in \hmli^{+}$ if and only if $s\models C[\bigwedge_{i\in J}\phi_i]$ for all $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$. $(\Rightarrow)$ For all $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$, $\bigwedge_{i\in I}\phi_i \Rightarrow \bigwedge_{i\in J}\phi_i$, and so $C[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\phi_i]\Rightarrow C[\bigwedge_{i\in J}\phi_i]$. $(\Leftarrow)$ Let $s\models C[\bigwedge_{i\in J}\phi_i]$ for all $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$. We apply structural induction on $C[]$ to prove that then $s\models C[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\phi_i]$. - $C[]=[]$. By assumption, $s\models\phi_i$ for all $i\in I$, so $s\models\bigwedge_{i\in I}\phi_i$. - $C[]=C'[]\wedge\bigwedge_{k\in K}\psi_k$. $s\models C[\bigwedge_{i\in J}\phi_i]$ for all $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$ implies that $s\models C'[\bigwedge_{i\in J}\phi_i]$ for all $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$, and $s\models\bigwedge_{k\in K}\psi_k$. By induction, the first fact yields $s\models C'[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\phi_i]$. Hence $s\models C[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\phi_i]$. - $C[]=C'[]\vee\bigvee_{k\in K}\psi_k$. If $s\models\psi_{k_0}$ for some $k_0\in K$, then clearly $s\models C[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\phi_i]$ So suppose $s\models C'[\bigwedge_{i\in J}\phi_i]$ for all $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$. Then by induction $s\models C'[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\phi_i]$, and so $s\models C[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\phi_i]$. - $C[]={\langlea\rangle}C'[]$. This is the key case. By assumption, $s\models{\langlea\rangle}C'[\bigwedge_{i\in J}\phi_i]$ for all $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$. So for each $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$ there is a state $s_J$ such that $s{\mathrel{\stackrel{a}{\rightarrow}}}s_J$ and $s_J\models C'[\bigwedge_{i\in J}\phi_i]$. Since $s$ is image-finite, $\{s_J\mid J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I\}$ is finite, say $\{s_{J_1},\ldots,s_{J_m}\}$. Suppose, towards a contradiction, that $s_{J_k}\not\models C'[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\phi_i]$ for all $k=1,\ldots,m$. Then by induction, for all $k=1,\ldots,m$, $s_{J_k}\not\models C'[\bigwedge_{i\in K_k}\phi_i]$ for some $K_k\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$. This implies that, for all $k=1,\ldots,m$, $s_{J_k}\not\models C'[\bigwedge_{\ell=1}^m\bigwedge_{i\in K_\ell}\phi_i]$. This contradicts the fact that $s_{\cup_{\ell=1}^m K_\ell}\in\{s_{J_1},\ldots,s_{J_m}\}$. We conclude that $s_{J_{k_0}}\models C'[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\phi_i]$ for some $k_0\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$. Hence $s\models {\langlea\rangle}C'[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\phi_i]$. - $C[]=[a]\,C'[]$. Let $s{\mathrel{\stackrel{a}{\rightarrow}}}s'$. By assumption, $s'\models C'[\bigwedge_{i\in J}\phi_i]$ for all $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$. So by induction, $s'\models C'[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\phi_i]$. Hence $s\models[a]\,C'[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\phi_i]$. It is easy to see that Prop. \[prop:conjunction\] fails for LTSs that are not image-finite. A counterexample is given at the end of Sect. \[sec:modalchar\]. Namely, in that example, the top state at the left does not satisfy ${\langlea\rangle}(\bigwedge_{n \in \nat} {\langlea\rangle}^{n} \true)$, while it does satisfy ${\langlea\rangle}(\bigwedge_{n \in M} {\langlea\rangle}^{n} \true)$ for any $M \subseteq_{FIN} \nat$.\ There is a counterpart of Prop. \[prop:conjunction\], for disjunction instead of conjunction. To derive this lemma immediately from Prop. \[prop:conjunction\], we introduce an operator that, given a formula in $\hmli^+$, yields a formula equivalent to its negation within $\hmli^+$. Given a $\phi \in \hmli^{+}$, the formula $\overline\phi \in \hmli^{+}$ is defined inductively as follows: $$\begin{array}{ccc} \overline{\sf \true} = \false ~~~~~~~~ & \overline{\bigwedge_{i\in I}\phi_i} = \bigvee_{i\in I}\overline{\phi_i} ~~~~~~~~ & \overline{{\langlea\rangle}\phi} = [a]\,\overline{\phi} \vspace{2mm}\\ \overline{\sf \false} = \true ~~~~~~~~ & \overline{\bigvee_{i\in I}\phi_i} = \bigwedge_{i\in I}\overline{\phi_i} ~~~~~~~~ & \overline{[a]\,\phi} = {\langlea\rangle}\overline{\phi} \\ \end{array}$$ Clearly, $\neg\phi\,\Leftrightarrow\,\overline{\phi}$. Moreover, $\overline{\overline{\phi}}=\phi$. The definition is extended to contexts by putting $\overline{[]}=[]$. We write $\overline{C}[]$ for $\overline{C[]}$. It is easy to see that $\overline{C[\phi]}=\overline{C}[\overline\phi]$. \[prop:disjunction\] Given an image-finite LTS, $s\models C[\bigvee_{i\in I}\phi_i]$ if and only if $s\models C[\bigvee_{i\in J}\phi_i]$ for some $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$. $ s\models C[\bigvee_{i\in I}\phi_i]~\Leftrightarrow~s\not\models \overline{ C[\bigvee_{i\in I}\phi_i] } ~\Leftrightarrow s\not\models\overline{C}[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\overline{\phi_i}] ~\Leftrightarrow~ s\not\models\overline{C}[\bigwedge_{i\in J}\overline{\phi_i}] \mbox{ for some $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$} \\ \mbox{(by Prop.~\ref{prop:conjunction})} ~\Leftrightarrow~s\not\models \overline{ C[\bigvee_{i\in J}\phi_i] } \mbox{ for some $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$} \Leftrightarrow~s\models C[\bigvee_{i\in J}\phi_i] \mbox{ for some $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$}. $ Now we move to Hennessy-Milner logic with negation, $\hmli$. Contexts over this syntax are denoted by $D[]$. Each formula $\varphi$ over this logic can be translated to an equivalent formula ${\it P}(\varphi)\in\hmli^+$ in a straightforward fashion: $$\begin{array}{lcllcl} {\it P}(\true) &=& \true ~~~~& ~~~~{\it P}(\bigwedge_{i\in I}\varphi_i) &=& \bigwedge_{i\in I}{\it P}(\varphi_i)\\ {\it P}({\langlea\rangle}\varphi) &=& {\langlea\rangle}{\it P}(\varphi)~~~~& ~~~~{\it P}(\neg\varphi) &=& \overline{{\it P}(\varphi)} \end{array}$$ Clearly, $\varphi\Leftrightarrow P(\varphi)$. The definition is extended to contexts by putting ${\it P}([])=[]$. We write ${\it P}(D)[]$ for ${\it P}(D[])$. For Hennessy-Milner logic with negation, we inductively define positive and negative contexts as follows. - $[]$ is a positive context. - If $D[]$ is a positive (resp. negative) context, then $D[]\wedge\bigwedge_{i\in I}\varphi_i$ and ${\langlea\rangle}D[]$ are positive (resp. negative) contexts. - If $D[]$ is a positive (resp. negative) context, then $\neg D[]$ is a negative (resp. positive) context. \[lem:contexts\] ${\it P}(D[\varphi])={\it P}(D)[{\it P}(\varphi)]$ if $D[]$ is a positive context, and ${\it P}(D[\varphi])={\it P}(D)[\overline{{\it P}(\varphi)}]$ if $D[]$ is a negative context. We prove both statements simultaneously, by structural induction on $D[]$. The cases where $D[]$ is of the form $[]$, $D'[]\wedge\bigwedge_{i\in I}\varphi_i$ or ${\langlea\rangle}D'[]$ are straightforward and left to the reader. We focus on the key case $D[]=\neg D'[]$. First let $D[]$ be positive, so $D'[]$ is negative. Then ${\it P}(\neg D'[\varphi])=\overline{{\it P}(D'[\varphi])}=\overline{{\it P}(D')[\overline{{\it P}(\varphi)}]}\mbox{ (by induction)}\\ =\overline{{\it P}(D')}[\overline{\overline{{\it P}(\varphi)}}]={\it P}(\neg D')[{\it P}(\varphi)]$. Next let $D[]$ be negative, so $D'[]$ is positive. Then ${\it P}(\neg D'[\varphi])=\overline{{\it P}(D'[\varphi])}=\overline{{\it P}(D')[{\it P}(\varphi)]}\mbox{ (by induction)}\\ =\overline{{\it P}(D')}[\overline{{\it P}(\varphi)}]={\it P}(\neg D')[\overline{{\it P}(\varphi)}]$. Now we can prove a counterpart of Prop. \[prop:conjunction\] and \[prop:disjunction\] for $\hmli$. \[prop:negation\] Given an image-finite LTS. 1. If $D[]$ is a positive context, then $s\models D[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\varphi_i]$ if and only if $s\models D[\bigwedge_{i\in J}\varphi_i]$ for all $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$. 2. If $D[]$ is a negative context, then $s\models D[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\varphi_i]$ if and only if $s\models D[\bigwedge_{i\in J}\varphi_i]$ for some $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$. If $D[]$ is a positive context, then\ $s\models D[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\varphi_i]~\Leftrightarrow~s\models {\it P}(D[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\varphi_i])~\Leftrightarrow s\models {\it P}(D)[\bigwedge_{i\in I}{\it P}(\varphi_i)]\mbox{ (by Lem.~\ref{lem:contexts})}~\Leftrightarrow\\ s\models {\it P}(D)[\bigwedge_{i\in J}{\it P}(\varphi_i)]\mbox{ for all $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$ (by Prop.~\ref{prop:conjunction})} \Leftrightarrow~s\models {\it P}(D[\bigwedge_{i\in J}\varphi_i])\mbox{ for all $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$ (by Lem.~\ref{lem:contexts})}\\ \Leftrightarrow~s\models D[\bigwedge_{i\in J}\varphi_i]\mbox{ for all $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$}$. If $D[]$ is a negative context, then\ $s\models D[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\varphi_i]~\Leftrightarrow~s\models {\it P}(D[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\varphi_i])~\Leftrightarrow s\models {\it P}(D)[\bigvee_{i\in I}\overline{{\it P}(\varphi_i)}]\mbox{ (by Lem.~\ref{lem:contexts})}~\Leftrightarrow\\ s\models {\it P}(D)[\bigvee_{i\in J}\overline{{\it P}(\varphi_i)]}\mbox{ for some $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$ (by Prop.~\ref{prop:disjunction})} \Leftrightarrow~s\models {\it P}(D[\bigwedge_{i\in J}\varphi_i])\mbox{ for some $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$ (by Lem.~\ref{lem:contexts})}\\ \Leftrightarrow~s\models D[\bigwedge_{i\in J}\varphi_i]\mbox{ for some $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$}$. Modal Characterizations {#sec:modalchar} ----------------------- A process semantics on LTSs can be captured by means of a sublogic of $\hmli$; see [@Gla01] for a wide range of such modal characterizations. Given such a sublogic ${\cal O}$, two states in an LTS are equivalent if and only if they make true exactly the same formulas in ${\cal O}$. We denote this equivalence relation on states by $\sim_{\cal O}$. We will prove that given such a modal characterization of a process semantics for general LTSs, restricting infinite conjunctions to their finite sub-conjunctions produces a modal characterization of the same semantics, on image-finite LTSs. The only requirement is that these finite sub-conjunctions are already present in the original modal characterization for general LTSs. We obtain a similar compactness result for modal characterizations of which the formulas may contain infinite conjunctions, but are all of finite depth. In this case only infinite conjunctions that have an infinite depth need to be restricted to their finite sub-conjunctions. Again, the original and the resulting modal characterization coincide, if the resulting formulas were already present in the original modal characterization. The modal characterizations in [@Gla01] all satisfy this requirement, except for the one of completed trace semantics, in case of an infinite action set. Namely, the modal characterization of completed trace semantics, for general processes as well as for image-finite ones, is: $$\varphi~::=~\true~\mid~\bigwedge_{a\in A}\neg{\langlea\rangle}\true~\mid~{\langlea\rangle}\varphi$$ where $A$ denotes the set of all actions. Given a modal characterization ${\cal O}$, we denote the sublogic of formulas in ${\cal O}$ that do not contain infinite conjunctions by ${\cal O}_{\rm FIN}$ and the sublogic of formulas with finite depth with ${\cal O}_{FDP}$. Clearly ${\cal O}_{\rm FIN} \subseteq {\cal O}_{FDP}$. Using the results from Sect.\[sec:compactness\], we can now prove the main theorem of this section. \[thm:hml\] Given an image-finite LTS, and ${\cal O}\subseteq\hmli$. 1. If for each $D[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\varphi_i]\in{\cal O}$ with $I$ infinite and $d(\bigwedge_{i\in I}\varphi_i) = \infty$, $D[\bigwedge_{i\in J}\varphi_i]\in{\cal O}$ for all $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$, then $\sim_{\cal O}$ and $\sim_{{\cal O}_{\rm FDP}}$ coincide. 2. If for each $D[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\varphi_i]\in{\cal O}$ with $I$ infinite, $D[\bigwedge_{i\in J}\varphi_i]\in{\cal O}$ for all $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$, then $\sim_{\cal O}$ and $\sim_{{\cal O}_{\rm FIN}}$ coincide. We will prove the theorem for the subset of finite formulas ${\cal O}_{\rm FIN}$, and make remarks between square brackets about the version with ${\cal O}_{\rm FDP}$ whenever it is necessary. Since ${\cal O}_{\rm FIN}\subseteq{\cal O}_{\rm FDP}\subseteq {\cal O}$, clearly $\sim_{\cal O}\,\subseteq\,\sim_{{\cal O}_{\rm FDP}}\,\subseteq\,\sim_{{\cal O}_{\rm FIN}}$. We need to show that ${\cal O}_{\rm FIN}$ \[resp. ${\cal O}_{\rm FDP}$\] can distinguish all states that ${\cal O}$ can. Given states $s,s'$ and a formula $\varphi\in{\cal O}$ with $s\models\varphi$ and $s'\not\models\varphi$. We will construct a formula in ${\cal O}_{\rm FIN}$ \[resp. ${\cal O}_{\rm FDP}$\] that distinguishes $s$ and $s'$. We apply ordinal induction on the length $\lambda(\varphi)$ of the longest chain of nested infinite conjunctions \[of infinite depth\] in $\varphi$. That is, $$\begin{array}{lcl} \lambda(\true) &=& 0 \\ \lambda({\langlea\rangle}\varphi) &=& \lambda(\varphi) \\ \lambda(\bigwedge_{i\in I}\varphi_i) &=& \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1+\sup\{\lambda(\varphi_i)\mid i\in I\} & \mbox{if $I$ is infinite [and $d(\bigwedge_{i\in I}\varphi_i)=\infty$]} \\ \sup\{\lambda(\varphi_i)\mid i\in I\} & \mbox{otherwise} \end{array} \right.\\ \lambda(\neg \varphi) &=& \lambda(\varphi) \end{array}$$ The base case is trivial, because if $\lambda(\varphi)=0$, then $\varphi\in{\cal O}_{\rm FIN}$ \[resp. $\varphi\in{\cal O}_{\rm FDP}$\]. Now consider the inductive case, where $\lambda(\varphi)>0$. Let $\varphi=D[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\varphi_i]$ with $I$ \[and $d(\bigwedge_{i\in I}\varphi_i)$\] infinite, where this occurrence of an infinite conjunction \[and depth\] in $\varphi$ is outermost, in the sense that it does not occur within any infinite conjunction \[of infinite depth\]. We distinguish two cases. - $D[]$ is a positive context. By Prop. \[prop:negation\].1, $s'\not\models\varphi$ implies that $s'\not\models D[\bigwedge_{i\in {J_0}}\varphi_i]$ for some $J_0\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$, while $s\models\varphi$ implies that $s\models D[\bigwedge_{i\in {J_0}}\varphi_i]$. - $D[]$ is a negative context. By Prop. \[prop:negation\].2, $s\models\varphi$ implies that $s\models D[\bigwedge_{i\in {J_0}}\varphi_i]$ for some $J_0\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$, while $s'\not\models\varphi$ implies that $s'\not\models D[\bigwedge_{i\in {J_0}}\varphi_i]$. In both cases, by assumption, $D[\bigwedge_{i\in {J_0}}\varphi_i]\in{\cal O}$. Clearly, there are only finitely many outermost occurrences of infinite conjunctions \[of infinite depth\] in $\varphi$. Using the construction above, these can all be replaced by finite conjunctions, to obtain a formula $\psi\in{\cal O}$ that distinguishes $s$ and $s'$. Since $\lambda(\psi)<\lambda(\varphi)$, by ordinal induction, we can construct a formula in ${\cal O}_{\rm FIN}$ \[resp. ${\cal O}_{\rm FDP}$\] that distinguishes $s$ and $s'$. It is easy to see that the requirement in Thm. \[thm:hml\] that $D[\bigwedge_{i\in J}\varphi_i]\in{\cal O}$ for all $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$ cannot be omitted. For instance, let ${\cal O}$ consist of a single formula with an infinite conjunction, $\bigwedge_{n\in{\mathbb N}}{\langlea\rangle}^n{\sf \true}$ (with ${\langlea\rangle}^0\varphi=\varphi$ and ${\langlea\rangle}^{n+1}\varphi={\langlea\rangle}({\langlea\rangle}^n\varphi)$). Then ${\cal O}_{\rm FIN}=\emptyset$, so $\sim_{{\cal O}_{\rm FIN}}$ is the universal relation. On the other hand, ${\cal O}$ distinguishes an $a$-cycle from a deadlock state. The following example, taken from [@Gla87], shows that Thm. \[thm:hml\] fails for LTSs that are not image-finite. Consider an LTS that consists of finite $a$-traces of arbitrary length, and an LTS that on top of this exhibits an infinite $a$-trace. ![image](imagefinite.pdf){width="80mm"} Let ${\cal O}=\{{\langlea\rangle}(\bigwedge_{n\in N}{\langlea\rangle}^n{\sf \true})\mid N\subseteq{\mathbb N}\}$. Then ${\cal O}_{\rm FIN}=\{{\langlea\rangle}(\bigwedge_{n\in N}{\langlea\rangle}^n \true)\mid N\subseteq_{\rm FIN}{\mathbb N}\}$. Clearly, ${\cal O}$ distinguishes the top states of the two LTSs above, by means of any formula ${\langlea\rangle}({\bigwedge_{n\in N}{\langlea\rangle}^n\true})$ with $N$ infinite. Namely, such a formula holds for the top state at the right, but not for the top state at the left. However, ${\cal O}_{\rm FIN}$ does not distinguish these states; all formulas in ${\cal O}_{\rm FIN}$ hold for both states. Goldblatt [@Gol95] and Hollenberg [@Hol95] (see also [@BlRiVe01]) investigated models that are more general than image-finite LTSs, but that do have the Hennessy-Milner property. That is, models where the modal equivalence $\sim_{\hml}$ coincides with bisimulation equivalence. This led to the notion of modally saturated processes; an LTS is M-saturated if for all states $s$ and all ${\cal O}\subseteq\hml$, whenever every finite subset of ${\cal O}$ is satisfied in some $a$-successor of $s$, then there exists an $a$-successor of $s$ in which ${\cal O}$ is satisfied. It is not difficult to prove, with ordinal induction on the structure of formulas, that Thm. \[thm:hml\] holds for M-saturated models as well. Approximation Induction Principle ================================= For each natural number $n$ we define a projection operator $\pi_{n}$ which mimicks the behaviour of its argument up to $n$ steps and then terminates. The behaviour of an application of the projection operator to a process (or state) is given by the following rule scheme: $\frac{~~~x \stackrel{a}{\rightarrow}x'}{\pi_{n+1}(x)\stackrel{a}{\rightarrow}\pi_{n}(x')}$ The Approximation Induction Principle (AIP) states that if two processes are equal up to any finite depth, then the processes themselves are equal. (AIP) If $\pi_{n}(x) = \pi_{n}(y)$ for all $n \in N$, then $x = y$. Sufficient Criterion for Soundness of AIP ----------------------------------------- In [@AcBlVa94] it is stated that AIP is sound for all 11 “strong” equivalences from [@Gla01], but no argument is provided. Soundness of AIP has been proved several times for bisimulation equivalence (e.g. [@Gla87]) in the setting of finitely branching or image-finite processes. The standard technique is to prove that a relation identifying two processes if and only if all of their projections are bisimilar is a bisimulation (provided that one of the processes is image-finite). A different proof has been presented in [@BaWe90]. Given two processes $p$ and $q$ the authors consider, for all $n \in \nat$, the bisimulations between $\pi_n(p)$ and $\pi_n(q)$. Bisimulations for $n$-th projection are linked with those bisimulations for $(n{+}1)$-th projection in which they are included. This way an infinite, finitely branching tree is constructed. The bisimulation between $p$ and $q$ is a sum of bisimulations lying on an infinite path in the tree. We present a general proof of soundness of AIP in a different way for a range of equivalences, using properties of modal languages that define an equivalence. Namely, AIP is sound for all process equivalences that can be defined using modal characterizations within $\hmlbd$. The crucial part of the proof is the following lemma which states that if a finite-depth formula is satisfied by a process, then it is satisfied by almost all of its projections. \[lem:boundedform\] Given any LTS, for all states $s$ and $\varphi \in \hmlbd$: $s \models \varphi$ $\Leftrightarrow$ $\forall n \geq d(\varphi) ~ \pi_{n}(s) \models \varphi$ Let $s$ be an arbitrary state. We will proceed with induction on the complexity of a formula, defined by:\ $$\|\true\| = 1 \hspace{1cm} \|{\langlea\rangle} \varphi\| = 1 + \|\varphi\| \hspace{1cm} \|\bigwedge_{i\in I}\varphi_i\| = 1 + \sup\{\|\varphi_i\|\mid i\in I\} \hspace{1cm} \|\neg \varphi\| = 1 + \|\varphi\|$$ “$\Rightarrow$”: The base is trivial ($\varphi = \true$). Let $\varphi$ be a formula such that $s \models \varphi$, and suppose that for all $s'$ and for all $\psi$ with $\|\psi\| < \|\varphi\|$, $s' \models \psi$ implies that $\psi$ is satisfied by all projections $\pi_n(s')$ for $n \geq d(\psi)$. There are three possible cases: - $\varphi = {\langlea\rangle} \psi$\ Then $\exists q$: $s \stackrel{a}{\rightarrow} q \wedge q \models \psi$ with $q \models \psi$. From the induction hypothesis we obtain: $\forall n \geq d(\psi) ~~ \pi_{n}(q) \models \psi$. Since $\pi_{n}(s) \stackrel{a}{\rightarrow} \pi_{n-1}(q)$ for $n \geq 1$, we have: $\forall n \geq d(\psi)+1$ $\pi_{n}(s) \models {\langlea\rangle} \psi$, so $\forall n \geq d({\langlea\rangle} \psi)$ $\pi_{n}(s) \models {\langlea\rangle} \psi$ - $\varphi = \bigwedge_{i \in I} \psi _{i}$\ Then $~\forall {i \in I} s \models \psi _{i}$. By induction, this implies: $\forall i \in I$ $\forall n \geq d(\psi_{i})$ $\pi_{n}(s) \models \psi_{i}$. Therefore $\forall n \geq max_{i \in I} \{ d(\psi_i)\}$, $\forall i \in I$ $\pi_{n}(s) \models \psi_{i}$. By definition $d(\bigwedge_{i \in I} \psi_i) = max_{i \in I} \{ d(\psi_i)\}$, so $\forall n \geq d(\bigwedge_{i \in I} \psi_i)$ $\pi_{n}(s) \models \bigwedge_{i \in I} \psi_{i}$. - $\varphi = \neg \psi$\ We have to consider all the subcases, depending on $\psi$:\ - $\psi = \true$: this is impossible (it would mean that $s \not \models \true$ which is never true).\ - $\psi = {\langlea\rangle} \psi'$: Then $\forall s': s\stackrel{a}{\rightarrow}s'$ we have $s' \models \neg \psi'$. By induction $\forall s': s \transa s'$ we have $\forall n \geq d(\neg \psi')$ $\pi_n(s') \models \neg \psi '$. Therefore $\forall n \geq d(\neg \psi')+1 $ $\pi_{n}(s) \models \neg {\langlea\rangle} \psi '$, and thus $\forall n \geq d(\psi) $ $\pi_{n}(s) \models \neg {\langlea\rangle} \psi '$.\ - $\psi = \bigwedge_{i \in I} \psi_{i}$: Then $\exists i_{0} \in I: s \models \neg \psi_{i_{0}}$. By induction, $\forall n \geq d(\neg \psi_{i_{0}})$: $\pi_{n}(s) \models \neg \psi_{i_{0}}$, and so $\forall n \geq d(\varphi) \pi_{n}(s) \models \neg \bigwedge_{i \in I} \psi_{i}$, which is the desired statement.\ - $\psi = \neg \psi '$: This is immediate (in this case $\varphi$ is equivalent to $\psi '$). “$\Leftarrow$”: The other direction follows immediately from what we have just proven. Take an arbitrary formula $\varphi \in \hmo$ and a state $s$ such that $\forall n \geq d(\varphi) ~ \pi_n(s) \models \varphi$. Suppose towards a contradiction that $s \not \models \varphi$. Then $s \models \neg \varphi$, and it was already proven that this implies $\forall n \geq d(\neg \varphi) ~ \pi_n(s) \models \neg \varphi$. This contradicts our assumptions. Therefore $s$ must satisfy $\varphi$. \[thm:aip\] If $\hmo \subseteq \hmlbd$, then AIP is sound for $\hmeq$. We need to show that $\forall n \in N\,(\pi_{n}(s) \hmeq \pi_{n}(q))$ $\Rightarrow$ $s \hmeq q$. Suppose that $\forall n \in N\,(\pi_{n}(s) \hmeq \pi_{n}(q))$. We have to prove that $\hmo(s) = \hmo(q)$. In fact it suffices to prove that $\hmo(s) \subseteq \hmo(q)$, the proof of the other inclusion is symmetric. Take any $\varphi \in \hmo(s)$. According to the Lemma \[lem:boundedform\], $\forall n \geq d(\varphi)$ $\varphi \in \hmo(\pi_{n}(s)) = \hmo(\pi_{n}(q))$. Using the same lemma again we obtain $\varphi \in {\cal O}(q)$. In view of the results from the previous section, we obtain the following sufficient condition for the soundness of AIP in the setting of image-finite LTSs. \[cor:aip1\] Let ${\cal O}\subseteq\hmli$. Suppose that for each $D[\bigwedge_{i\in I}\varphi_i]\in{\cal O}$ with $I$ infinite and $d(\bigwedge_{i\in I}\varphi_i) = \infty$, $D[\bigwedge_{i\in J}\varphi_i]\in{\cal O}$ for all $J\subseteq_{\rm FIN} I$. Then AIP is sound for $\hmeq$ in the setting of image-finite processes. If $\hmo$ meets the above requirements, then according to Thm. \[thm:hml\].2 $~\hmeq = \hmeqprim$, where $\hmo' \in \hmlbd$. By Thm. \[thm:aip\] AIP is sound for $\hmeq$. \[cor:aip2\] AIP is sound with respect to all the basic process equivalences on image-finite processes, namely trace, completed trace, failures, readiness, failure trace, ready trace, ready simulation, $n$-nested simulation ($n \geq 1$), bisimulation. As pointed in [@Gla01], all the above equivalences with the exception of completed trace can be defined with a sublogic of Hennessy-Milner logic consisting of finite formulas. Moreover, all formulas in the modal language corresponding to completed trace equivalence are finite-depth. Soundness of AIP does not necessarily imply that the equivalence in question is definable with a sublogic of $\hmlbd$. Observe first that having a fixed set of actions $A$, for any formula $\varphi \in \hmli$ we can express an ACTL formula $E \varphi$ (“there exists an execution path to a state in which $\varphi$ holds”) with a single formula from $\hmli$. Indeed, for any $\varphi \in \hmli$ the formula $\bigvee_{\sigma \in A^{}} \sigma \varphi$ is equivalent to $E \varphi$. Now consider an equivalence relating two processes according to whether action $a$ can be executed in at least one execution path (that is, if $E ({\langlea\rangle} \true)$ is satisfied). It is easy to observe that AIP is sound for this equivalence, but it cannot be defined with a sublogic of $\hmlbd$. Necessary Criterion for Soundness of AIP ---------------------------------------- In this section we consider only those equivalences which are compositional w.r.t. projection operators (this includes all the equivalences mentioned in Corollary \[cor:aip2\]) . We will prove that in this class, definability of an equivalence with finite-depth formulas is also a necessary condition for the soundness of AIP. First we define for each $\varphi \in \hmli$ a corresponding formula $cut_n(\varphi) \in \hmlbd$ in which every subformula of the form ${\langlea\rangle}\psi$ appearing at depth $n$ is replaced with $\false$. The functions $cut_{n}: \hmli \rightarrow \hmlbd $ for $n \in \nat$ are defined inductively as follows: $$\begin{array}{l l l} cut_n(\true) = \true & cut_0({\langlea\rangle} \varphi) = \false & cut_n(\neg \varphi) = \neg cut_n(\varphi) \\ cut_n(\bigwedge_{i \in I} \varphi_i) = \bigwedge_{i \in I} cut_n(\varphi_i)~~~~ & cut_{n+1}({\langlea\rangle}\varphi) = {\langlea\rangle}cut_n(\varphi)~~~~ \end{array}$$ We now prove a key property for $cut$ functions. \[lem:cut\] Given any LTS. For all states $s$, $\varphi \in \hmli$ and $n \in \nat$: (CT) $\pi_n(s) \models \varphi \iff s \models cut_n(\varphi)$ We prove CT by induction on the structure of $\varphi$. - $\varphi = \true$:\ $\pi_n(s) \models \true$ and $s\models cut_n(\true)=\true$. - $\varphi = {\langlea\rangle} \psi$: Now we distinguish cases where $n=0$ and $n > 0$. Clearly $\pi_0(s) \not\models {\langlea\rangle} \psi$ and $s\not\models cut_0({\langlea\rangle} \psi)=\false$. If $ n > 0$, then $\pi_{n}(s) \models {\langlea\rangle} \psi$ $\iff \exists s': s \transa s' \wedge \pi_{n-1}(s') \models \psi$ (transition rules for $\pi_{n-1}$) $\iff \exists s': s \transa s'$\ $\wedge~ s' \models cut_{n-1}(\psi)$ (structural induction) $\iff s \models {\langlea\rangle}cut_{n-1}(\psi)$ $\iff s \models cut_{n}({\langlea\rangle} \psi)$ (definition of $cut$) - $\varphi = \bigwedge_{i \in I} \psi_i$:\ $\pi_n(s) \models \bigwedge_{i \in I} \psi_i$ $\iff \foralli~ \pi_n(s) \models \psi_i$ $\iff \foralli~ s \models cut_n(\psi_i)$ (structural induction) $\iff s \models cut_n(\bigwedge_{i \in I} \psi_i)$ (definition of $cut$) - $\varphi = \neg \psi$:\ $\pi_n(s) \models \neg \psi$ $ \iff \pi_n(s) \not \models \psi$ $ \iff s \not \models cut_n(\psi)$ (structural induction) $ \iff s \models \neg cut_n(\psi)$ $\iff s \models cut_n(\neg \psi)$ (definition of $cut$) Suppose $\hmeq$ is a process equivalence induced by some $\hmo \subseteq \hmli$ and compositional w.r.t. all projection operators $\pi_n$. AIP is sound for $\hmeq$ if and only if $\hmeq$ can be defined with some $\hmo_1 \subseteq \hmlbd$. “$\Leftarrow$”: That definability of an equivalence with a sublogic of $\hmlbd$ implies soundness of $AIP$ has been already proven in Thm. \[thm:aip\].\ \ “$\implies$”: We have to prove that soundness of AIP implies $\exists \hmo_1 \subseteq \hmlbd:~ s \hmeq q \iff s \hmeqone q$. The desired $\hmo_1$ is constructed by applying the $cut_n$ functions to formulas from $\hmo$: $\hmo_1 = \bigcup_{n \in \nat} \{ cut_n(\varphi) ~\mid~ \varphi \in \hmo \}$. We have:\ $s \hmeq q~$ $\iff \forall {n \in \nat}(\pi_n(s) \hmeq \pi_n(q))$ (soundness of AIP for $\hmeq$ & compositionality w.r.t. projection)\ $\iff \forall {n \in \nat} (\forall \varphi \in \hmo~ \pi_n(s) \models \varphi \iff \pi_n(q) \models \varphi)$\ $\iff \forall {n \in \nat} (\forall \varphi \in \hmo~ s \models cut_n(\varphi) \iff q \models cut_n(\varphi))$ (Lem. \[lem:cut\])\ $\iff \forall {n \in \nat} (\forall \psi \in \hmo_1~ s \models \psi \iff q \models \psi)$ (def. of $\hmo_1$)\ $\iff \forall {n \in \nat} ~(\pi_n(s) \hmeqone \pi_n(q))$ $\iff s \hmeqone q$ [11]{} (1994): 111, pp. 1–52. (1987): 51(1/2), pp. 129–176. (1990): , Cambridge University Press. (2001): Cambridge University Press. (1987): In [Proc. STACS’87]{}, [LNCS]{} 247, Springer, pp. 336–347. (2001): In J.A. Bergstra, A. Ponse & S.A. Smolka, editors: [Handbook of Process Algebra]{}, chapter 1, Elsevier, pp. 3–99. (1995): In A. Ponse, M. de Rijke & Y. Venema, editors: [Modal Logic and Process Algebra. A Bisimulation Perspective]{}, CSLI Lecture Notes 53, pp. 189–216. (1985): 32(1) pp. 137–161. \(1980) In [Proc. ICALP’80]{}, LNCS 85, Springer, pp. 299–309. (1995): In A. Ponse, M. de Rijke & Y. Venema, editors: [Modal Logic and Process Algebra. A Bisimulation Perspective*]{}, CSLI Lecture Notes 53, pp. 189–216. (1990): 72 (2&3), pp. 265–288. (2001): , Springer.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'This article presents an informational approach to particle physics based on an elementary bit structure. It is shown how quantum mechanics develops from the necessity of collecting information relative to experimental setups. Basic symmetry properties of bit structures then lead to a fundamental SO(3,2) symmetry of the Hilbert space. For large bit sets SO(3,2) can be approximated by the Poincaré group. Thereby a relativistic space-time continuum is obtained. In the Poincaré approximation certain bit structures exhibit properties of particles corresponding to the three lepton families. Masses of heavy leptons are derived in good agreement with experimental values. These results reflect natural properties of bit structures. They are obtained without making use of “first principles".' address: - 'Isardamm 135 d, D-82538 Geretsried, Germany' - 'e-mail: [email protected]' author: - Walter Smilga title: 'Informational Structures in Particle Physics [^1]' --- Introduction ============ This article is based on Bohr’s dictum [@mj]: > “Physical phenomena are observed > > relative > > to different experimental setups." Bohr meant by this that the experimental setup determines which of the complementary properties of a quantum mechanical system is measured. I will use Bohr’s dictum in the general sense that “particle physics is a discipline that describes microscopic phenomena relative to macroscopic setups ". There is another famous dictum of Bohr’s [@bh]: > “Physics is not about reality, but about what we can > > say > > about reality." Bohr hereby meant that physics deals with information about reality. If this statement is correct then concepts of information theory must have a legitimate place in physical theories. In the past there were several attempts to base physical theories on elementary informational concepts. In the 1971 R. Penrose [@rp] made an attempt to describe the geometry of space-time in a purely combinatorial way. Penrose studied networks of two-component spinors which represent the simplest quantum mechanical objects. He was able to show that large systems of such spinors, generate properties of angular direction in three-dimensional space. Despite this success, the concept of SU(2) based spin networks was not considered rich enough to also describe distance [@rpwr]. Penrose’s interest, therefore, turned to more complex twistor objects. Nowadays spin networks are discussed as models of space-time at Planck scales [@jcb]. Another attempt to derive space-time from “binary alternatives" was undertaken by C. F. von Weizsäcker [@cfw1; @cfw2] and co-workers. In this concept a physical particle is considered as an aggregate of $10^{40}$ binary alternatives, representing the knowledge about the particle. Although indications for a Poincaré symmetric space-time structure were obtained, the work remained at an experimental stage without having established a definite link to empirical particle physics. Today von Weizsäcker’s binary alternatives are used in theoretical concepts of quantum computing under the name of Q-bits. This article describes a new approach to base particle physics on an informational concept. If physics is a matter of obtaining and processing information, then particle physics deals with the “smallest" building blocks of our information about reality and their combinations to other “small" pieces of information. In this context “smallest", obviously, means such informational structures that cannot be divided into smaller pieces. The smallest pieces of information are well-known: These are the bits (binary digits) of information theory. But what role do bits play in particle physics? Can we observe bits in an experiment? What is the relationship between bits and those terms that are used in particle physics like space-time, symmetries, particles and interaction? This article will establish such a relationship. It will show that phenomena that have been considered as basic properties of nature are rather natural properties of basic informational structures. From bits to spinors ==================== Let us start with a set $B$ of bits $z$ that can attain two states denoted by $0$ and $1$: $$B = \{ z \, \| \, z \in \{0, 1\} \} . \label{2-0}$$ The elements $z$ are distinguished only by their states $0$ and $1$, but are indistinguishable otherwise. If they were, this would require additional features, which they do not have by definition. These bits can carry information, similar to the bits in a computer memory. In the following we will meet subsets of $B$ that will be used to form “macroscopic setups". By such setups I mean subsets of, say $10^{23}$ bits that are suited to carry information about a macroscopic physical body. Then $B$ shall be considerably larger and contain, say $10^{80}$ bits. In the spirit of Bohr’s dictum, I intend to describe an elementary physical phenomenon, represented by a single bit, relative to an experimental setup. This setup can be described by macroscopic setups - at least in a “gedanken" experiment. But what is the meaning of a bit relative to a macroscopic setup? This question, obviously, leads us to a kind of relativity of information . The extension of the notion of relativity to the simplest informational unit will, in the following, proof extremely fertile. To implement this concept we need to establish a simple mathematical language based on the elementary properties of bits. I start by representing bits by states in vector form $$\|1\rangle := \left( \begin{array}{{1}{c}} 1 \\ 0 \end{array} \right) \;\; \mbox{ and } \;\; \|0\rangle := \left( \begin{array}{{1}{c}} 0 \\ 1 \end{array} \right) . \label{2-1}$$ Then with the matrix $$\sigma_3 := \left( \begin{array}{{2}{c}} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{array} \right) \label{2-2}$$ we can set up a simple eigenvalue equation $$\sigma_3 \|z\rangle = \zeta \|z\rangle , \label{2-3}$$ where $\|z\rangle$ is either $\|1\rangle$ or $\|0\rangle$, and where $\zeta$ are the corresponding eigenvalues $1$ and $-1$, respectively. I also define the expectation value of $\sigma_3$ by $$\langle z\| \sigma_3 \|z\rangle = \zeta , \label{2-4}$$ where $\langle z\|$ stands for the transposed vector. This simply gives the orientation of $z$. Another matrix $$\sigma_1 := \left( \begin{array}{{2}{c}} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{array} \right), \label{2-5}$$ applied to $\|1\rangle$ or $\|0\rangle$, changes $\|1\rangle$ to $\|0\rangle$ and $\|0\rangle$ to $\|1\rangle$. Since none of the two orientations is preferred, $\sigma_1$ defines a discrete symmetry transformation within the states $\|0\rangle$ and $\|1\rangle$. Often information is uncertain or incomplete. Therefore, we must be able to describe situations, where we only know with a certain likelihood that the bit is in state $\|1\rangle$ rather than $\|0\rangle$. I handle this situation by considering also linear combinations $$\|s\rangle = \alpha \, \|1\rangle + \beta \, \|0\rangle , \label{2-6}$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are complex numbers with the restriction that $$\alpha^* \alpha + \beta^* \beta = 1 . \label{2-7}$$ I will call such a mixed state a (two-component) spinor . By this step I have introduced a complex vector space with $\|1\rangle$ and $\|0\rangle$ as basic vectors. With a scalar product between two states $\|s_1\rangle$ and $\|s_2\rangle$ $$\langle s_1 \| s_2 \rangle = \alpha^_1 \alpha_2 + \beta^_1 \beta_2 \label{2-9}$$ I extend the vector space to a Hilbert space . In the language of quantum computing this Hilbert space is called a Q-bit . By the introduction of Q-bits we have obtained states that “interpolate" between the orientations of a classical bit or C-bit . In the Hilbert space we can perform some mathematical operations that are not possible in the discrete binary description. We can, for example, consider the algebra of the matrices $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_3$ with respect to the commutator product. Then, from the commutator, we obtain a third matrix $\sigma_2$ $$\sigma_2 := \frac{1}{2\,i}[\sigma_3, \sigma_1] \label{2-10}$$ in the form $$\sigma_2 = \left( \begin{array}{{2}{c}} 0 & -i \\ i & 0 \end{array} \right). \label{2-11}$$ $\sigma_1$, $\sigma_2$ and $\sigma_3$ are the well-known Pauli matrices, which satisfy the commutation relations of the Lie algebra of SU(2). Therefore, they generate SU(2) transformations within the Hilbert space of two-component spinors. These symmetry transformations are continuous, but they are a direct consequence of the discrete symmetry property of the basic states. Foundation of quantum mechanics ================================ I have just extended the notion of a classical bit or C-bit to the quantum mechanical concept of a Q-bit. One part of the quantum aspect has come from the fact that the elementary units of information are discrete or “quantized". The other part has come from the requirement to describe fragmentary information, which has led us to a Hilbert space. This gives us the required means to describe relations within a set of bits which carry information. Let us see how we can make use of it. As known from the quantum mechanics of angular momenta, spinors can be coupled to states with defined angular momenta. The coupling of two spinors delivers, after reduction with respect to SU(2), either a simple state with angular momentum $0$ or three states with angular momentum $1$. If we couple a great number of spinors, we finally come to the classical limit, where the total state can be freely orientated in three angular directions. Therefore, the symmetry group of the total Hilbert space is SO(3). In this way the Hilbert space allows us to build macroscopic setups - macrosystems for short - that behave like classical rigid bodies. It also delivers parameters, in this case the three spatial angles, for a “classical" description of macrosystems. Let us now perform the following gedanken experiment: Assume that we have built a macrosystem that can be used as an experimental setup in the sense of Bohr’s dictum. Then “different" setups can be generated by different angular orientations of the setup. Now adjust a single spinor in parallel orientation to the setup. Then turn the setup by applying a SO(3) rotation by 90 degrees. If we turn the coordinate system together with the setup, then the spinor state will be rotated by a corresponding SU(2) transformation. As a result the spinor state then consists of equal parts of states $\|1\rangle$ and $\|0\rangle$. Now try to “measure" the orientation of the spinor relative to the rotated setup. Even without knowing details of the measuring process, we can deduce from symmetry reasons that the result of the measurement will be undetermined. That means, if we repeat the experiment a great number of times, we will observe a parallel orientation with a likelihood of 50% and an anti-parallel orientation with another 50%. This is exactly what the spinor state tells us, when we interpret the coefficients of the basic states as probability amplitudes. Another turn by 90 degrees brings the spinor into an anti-parallel position relative to the setup. Now its orientation is again well-defined. Thanks to our definition of mixed states the spinor state will deliver the same result. This is only possible since the mixed states have been defined as a coherent superposition of the basic states. So our gedanken experiment has displayed two characteristic properties of a quantum mechanical system, namely indeterminism and coherence. Both have shown up as natural properties of an informational structure - not as a peculiar property of nature. To use Bohr’s words [@bh2]: > “There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum mechanical description." The quantum mechanical description of a set of bits shows the following important properties: - Firstly and somewhat surprisingly, it delivers “classical" degrees of freedom to describe macrosystems; we have found three angular degrees of freedom by which a macrosystem can be rotated. - Secondly, it allows a description of microscopic elements relative to randomly orientated macroscopic setups; this is the quantum mechanical aspect. - Finally, it defines symmetry properties by elements of a Lie group: we have obtained SU(2), with respect to single spinors, and SO(3) in the context of macrosystems. Dirac spinors and de Sitter group ================================== We are on the way to constructing a mathematical model of binary information about reality. Remember: a model of information, not of reality itself. Nevertheless, we hope that understanding the information about reality will give us a reasonable picture of reality itself. Obtaining information about a binary phenomenon with possible values $a$ and $b$, involves an isomorphism between the set $\{a, b\}$ and the informational structure that is modelled by the set of states $\{\|1\rangle, \|0\rangle \}$. There are exactly two such isomorphisms: $$a \rightarrow \|1\rangle, \, \, b \rightarrow \|0\rangle \label{3-1a}$$ and $$a \rightarrow \|0\rangle, \, \, b \rightarrow \|1\rangle . \label{3-1b}$$ There is no reason why any one of these mappings should be preferred to the other. In observing one and the same phenomenon with a certain experimental setup, mapping (\[3-1a\]) may apply, in another setup possibly (\[3-1b\]). Therefore, both mappings must be taken into account. Otherwise, we risk loosing certain information or map it in a wrong way. This would be fatal for our picture of reality that we hope to gain from the information. To include both mappings we have to extend the mathematics that we have developed so far. This is easily done by combining a two-component spinor representing mapping (\[3-1a\]), with a second one that represents mapping (\[3-1b\]). The combination results in four-component basic vectors: $$\begin{aligned} \|u_a\rangle &:=& \left(\begin{array}{{1}{c}} 1\\0\\0\\0 \end{array}\right) \; \mbox{ , } \; \|u_b\rangle := \left(\begin{array}{{1}{c}} 0\\1\\0\\0 \end{array}\right) \; \mbox{ , } \; \label{3-2a}\\ \nonumber \\ \|v_a\rangle &:=& \left(\begin{array}{{1}{c}} 0\\0\\0\\1 \end{array}\right) \; \mbox{ , } \; \|v_b\rangle := \left(\begin{array}{{1}{c}} 0\\0\\1\\0 \end{array}\right). \label{3-2b}\end{aligned}$$ Vectors $\|u\rangle$ represent information obtained by mapping (\[3-1a\]), vectors $\|v\rangle$ information by mapping (\[3-1b\]). Again I introduce an interpolating Hilbert space and obtain four-component spinors that I will call Dirac spinors for obvious reasons. In place of Pauli matrices we now have $4\times4$ matrices: $$\sigma_{ij} := \epsilon_{ijk} \left(\begin{array}{{2}{c}} \sigma_k & 0 \\ 0 & \sigma_k \end{array}\right), \; i,j,k = 1,2,3, \label{3-3}$$ where $\epsilon_{ijk}$ is the total anti-symmetric permutation symbol. The matrix $$\gamma^0 := \left( \begin{array}{{2}{c}} I & 0 \\ 0 & -I \end{array} \right), \label{3-4}$$ where $I$ is the $2\times 2$ unit matrix, has the eigenvalue $+1$ with respect to the first group of basic spinors (\[3-2a\]), and $-1$ with respect to the second (\[3-2b\]). Analogous to $\sigma_1$, I define the matrix $$\tau := \left( \begin{array}{{2}{c}} 0 & I \\ I & 0 \end{array} \right), \label{3-4a}$$ which interchanges the first group with the second. Since both mappings are treated in the same way, this operation again is a symmetry operation. Then also the combined application of $\sigma_1$ and $\tau$ is a symmetry operation. It is generated by the matrix $$\gamma^1 := \left( \begin{array}{{2}{c}} 0 & \sigma_1 \\ \sigma_1 & 0 \end{array}\right). \label{3-5}$$ When we consider the algebra of matrices $\gamma^0$, $\gamma^1$ and $\sigma_{ij}$ with respect to the commutator product, we obtain additional matrices $$\gamma^k := \left( \begin{array}{{2}{c}} 0 & \sigma_k \\ \sigma_k & 0 \end{array}\right) \label{3-6}$$ and $$\sigma^{0k} = -\sigma^{k0} := \left( \begin{array}{{2}{c}} 0 & i\sigma_k \\ -i\sigma_k & 0 \end{array}\right), \label{3-6a}$$ where k=1,2,3. Matrices (\[3-4\]) and (\[3-6\]) are Dirac’s $\gamma$-matrices in the so called Dirac or standard representation. They satisfy the well-known anti-commutation relations $$\{\gamma_\mu, \gamma_\nu \} = 2 g_{\mu\nu} \label{3-7a}$$ and the commutation relations $$\frac{i}{2} \, [\gamma_\mu, \gamma_\nu ] = \sigma_{\mu\nu}, \label{3-7b}$$ where $\mu, \nu = 0,\ldots,3$. To obtain a Hilbert space, I define a scalar product, which is known from Dirac’s theory of electrons, $$\langle \bar{a} \| b \rangle \; \mbox{ with } \; \langle \bar{a} \| = \langle a \| \gamma^0 . \label{3-8}$$ The $4\times4$-matrices $$s_{\mu\nu} :=\, \frac{1}{2} \sigma_{\mu\nu} \; \mbox{ and } \; s_{\mu4} :=\, \frac{1}{2} \gamma_\mu , \label{3-9}$$ which are obtained from Dirac matrices, form an irreducible representation of the de Sitter group SO(3,2) on the Hilbert space of Dirac spinors. The proof is by verifying the commutation relation of SO(3,2) $$[s_{\mu\nu}, s_{\rho\sigma}] = -i[g_{\mu\rho} s_{\nu\sigma} - g_{\mu\sigma} s_{\nu\rho} + g_{\nu\sigma} s_{\mu\rho} - g_{\nu\rho} s_{\mu\sigma}] \mbox{ , } \label{3-10}$$ $$[s_{\mu4}, s_{\nu4}] = -i s_{\mu\nu} \mbox{ , } \label{3-11}$$ $$[s_{\mu\nu}, s_{\rho4}] = i[g_{\nu\rho} s_{\mu4} - g_{\mu\rho} s_{\nu4}] . \label{3-12}$$ SO(3,2) symmetry transformations are a direct consequence of the discrete symmetry operations within the four-component basic states. They extend these operations to the interpolating Hilbert space of Dirac spinors. A subgroup of SO(3,2) is the homogeneous Lorentz group SO(3,1) with commutation relations (\[3-10\]). The common subgroup SO(3) corresponds to the SU(2) symmetry of the two-component parts of the Dirac spinor. We have obtained SO(3,2) as a natural symmetry group of an informational structure made up of a large number of bits. This result is based on the concept of a description of bits relative to macroscopic setups, using a Hilbert space formalism, and on the equal treatment of both spin orientations and of both mappings between phenomenon and informational structure. Poincaré group and space-time ============================= Now it is only a small step to the Poincaré group. Consider again a macroscopic setup and its states with large quasi-continuous quantum numbers. Suppose that we have adjusted the states in such a way that the expectation values of the operators $S_{\mu 4}$ are large compared to those of $S_{\mu\nu}$. (The operators $S$ are defined as a sum over $s$ of the individual spinors. Capital letters denote operators and states of macrosystems.) Then we can apply the methods of group contraction [@iw; @fg] to this segment of the Hilbert space and obtain the Poincaré group P(3,1) as an approximate symmetry group. We can verify this by inspecting the commutator (\[3-11\]) under these conditions: When $S_{\mu 4}$ is large compared to $S_{\mu\nu}$, the commutator can be approximated by $$[P_\mu, P_\nu] = 0, \label{4-2}$$ where the operators $P_\mu$ are the approximations to $S_{\mu 4}$. From (\[3-12\]) we obtain the commutation relations of $P_\mu$ with the generators of Lorentz transformations $$[S_{\mu\nu}, P_\rho] = i[g_{\nu\rho} P_\mu - g_{\mu\rho} P_\nu] . \label{4-3}$$ (\[3-10\]), (\[4-2\]) and (\[4-3\]) are the commutation relations of the Poincaré group. In place of the quasi-continuous quantum numbers of SO(3,2) we now have the continuous spectrum of $P_\mu$. We can use the eigenstates of $P_\mu$ to construct new states $\|X\rangle$ that are localised in space-like directions $$\|X\rangle := (2\pi)^{-3/2} \int\limits^\infty_{-\infty}\! d^3P \: e^{i x^\mu P_\mu}\, \|P\rangle. \label{4-4}$$ When applied to these states, $P_\mu$ generate translations by 4-vectors $a^\mu$ $$e^{ia^\mu P_\mu} \, \|X\rangle = \|X + a\rangle . \label{4-5}$$ The 4-vectors $a^\mu$ span a 4-dimensional space-time with Minkowskian metric. We thereby obtain the 3-dimensional space as a set of possible displacements, in the sense of Poincaré (“La science et l’hypothèse") and Einstein [@ae], who followed Poincaré in this respect. It is remarkable, that we obtain space-time not as an independent phenomenon, but as a property of macroscopic bodies. That means: in the absence of bodies space-time is not defined. Minkowskian space-time is an approximation obtained by group contraction that is valid for the neighbourhood of a given point in space-time. The fact that it is an approximation only, has implications that will be discussed below. The quantum mechanical consequences of definition (\[4-4\]) are wave properties and the well-known commutation relations of momentum and position. Particles in space-time ======================= What is the relationship of a single spinor to the space-time structure of macrosystems? Of course, a spinor does not possess any other degree of freedom than the orientation of its spin. Nevertheless, its relation to a macrosystem can be used to define space-time properties for a spinor. Consider a macrosystem of $N$ spinors with total momentum $P$. Then add another spinor to the system. Within the Poincaré approximation we then obtain a macrosystem of $N+1$ spinors with a slightly different momentum $P + p_s$. We can say: relative to the macrosystem the spinor has a momentum $p_s$, which may depend on the spin $s$ of the spinor. This can be done relative to any other macrosystem. Then the momentum $p_s$ will appear like a property of the spinor itself. Therefore, it makes sense to introduce an auxiliary Hilbert space made up by momentum states $p_s$, and formally associate this Hilbert space with an additional degree of freedom of the spinor. But we should keep in mind that these degrees of freedom are only “borrowed" from the relation of the spinor to a macrosystem. Since $p_s$ is obtained as a difference of momenta of a macrosystem, these momenta transform identically to those of a macrosystem with respect to the Poincaré group. Therefore, we can form localised states or wave packets relative to a macrosystem A and let them “travel" in space and time. If on their way they meet another macrosystem B, they can again form a common state with B. As a part of B the spinor again has a well-defined momentum $p_s$. On the way from A to B the wave packet has to be regarded as an interpolating state, in the same sense as a spinor state interpolates between the two basic spin states. But, because of energy-momentum conservation for the total system, even an interpolating state attains a certain degree of reality, in the sense that it transports energy-momentum from A to B. This can be probed by inserting a third macrosystem C in between A and B. C may be a screen with two slits. Then the spinor may “hit" the screen, but if it does not, its momentum relative to C is undefined. Therefore, we cannot talk about trajectories of the spinor moving from A to B. Consequently, it does not make sense to ask through which slit the spinor has passed. We can more clearly define this concept by asking how the momentum differences are connected to the spin. Within the framework of the exact SO(3,2) symmetry, macrosystem and single spinor are described by SO(3,2) operators acting on states $\|S\rangle$ and $\|s\rangle$. For example: $$(S_{\mu4} + s_{\mu4}) \|S\rangle \|s\rangle . \label{5-1}$$ Within the Poincaré approximation, $S_{\mu4}$ is replaced by $P_\mu$: $$(P_\mu + s_{\mu4}) \|P\rangle \|s\rangle . \label{5-2}$$ Based on the above considerations, within the Poincaré approximation there is also a representation in the form $$(P_\mu + p_\mu) \|P\rangle \|p_s\rangle . \label{5-3}$$ Therefore, a relationship $$s_{\mu4} \|s\rangle \Longleftrightarrow p_\mu \|p_s\rangle \label{5-4}$$ between momentum $p_s$ and spin $s$ must exist. This relationship must be covariant with respect to P(3,1). Let us first look for an invariant operator expression which is linear in both characteristic operators $p_\mu$ and $s_{\mu4}$ and that is applicable to the state $\|p_s\rangle$. The only invariant that satisfies these requirements is $\gamma^\mu p_\mu$. Applied to $\|p_s\rangle$ we obtain $$(\gamma^\mu p_\mu - m) \|p_s\rangle = 0 \label{5-5}$$ with a constant $m$. This is Dirac’s equation with “mass" $m$. As we know, the solutions of Dirac’s equation define a current $\bar{\psi}(x) \gamma_\mu \psi(x)$, which transforms in the same way as a momentum $p_\mu$. Current, defined by the spin operator $\gamma_\mu$, and momentum are linked by Dirac’s equation. This is the relation we have been looking for. From (\[5-5\]) we obtain $$p^\mu p_\mu = m^2 . \label{5-6}$$ Since $p_\mu$ describes the effect of adding $\frac{1}{2}\gamma_\mu$ to the momentum operator of a macrosystem, $p^\mu p_\mu$ is closely related to $\frac{1}{4}\gamma^\mu \gamma_\mu$, which has a fixed value of $1$. This provides us with a scale for the value of the mass $m$. The scale is dimensionless and is defined in units of quantum numbers. Values in units of a mass will be obtained, when we decide about a unit for the momentum. As we know, the Dirac equation allows for massive and massless solutions. Details of these solutions can be found in text books. Therefore, the coupling of a Dirac spinor to a macrosystem can result in two distinct configurations: massive ones that can be transformed into the rest frame of the macrosystem and massless configurations that move with the speed of light. Poincaré symmetry ensures that these configurations are stable with respect to translations in space and time. What can we say about the statistics of these “particles"? We already know that spinors cannot be distinguished except by the spin variable. Therefore, a state of two spinors does not change, except for the sign, when the spinors are interchanged. The interchange of spinors in space-time can be performed by a rotation of $180$ degrees with respect to a symmetry axis of the system. A simple calculation delivers a phase factor $i$ for each spinor. The total state therefore is changed by a factor of $-1$. Therefore, the particles are subjected to Fermi statistics. (This derivation of Pauli’s principle goes back to A. A. Broyles [@aab] in 1976. Later it was used, obviously independently, by Feynman and Weinberg [@fw].) We have arrived at the result that spinors, when observed in relation to macrosystems, show properties of spin-1/2 fermions in space-time. What is time? ============= In section IV the usage of four-component spinors has been justified by the existence of two isomorphisms. What is the exact meaning of these isomorphisms? Let us, for a moment, go back to two-component spinors. Consider a single two-component spinor with spin $s$ and a macroscopic set of such spinors, forming a state with angular momentum $S$. There are two ways to couple $s$ and $S$, namely “$s$ parallel to $S$" and “$s$ anti-parallel to $S$". Therefore, relative to the macroscopic state, the spinor exhibits another degree of freedom with two possible settings. Obviously, this degree of freedom is different from the spin degree of freedom, because by rotating $s$ together with $S$ the spin is changed, but the way of coupling is not. In an environment, where we can be certain that macrosystems are unambiguously built from states of “positive energy", it makes sense to regard this degree of freedom as a matter of the spinor itself, rather than of the relation between spinor and macrosystem. Analogous to the last section, we can describe this additional degree of freedom, without reference to the macroscopic state, by incorporating it into the spinor state. We have already done this in section IV by doubling the spinor components from two to four. The first two components then describe the parallel, the second two the anti-parallel coupling. We now understand that the two isomorphisms describe the same spinor, but in different ways of coupling to macrosystems. The equal treatment of both spin orientations requires that both couplings are equally treated. Therefore, four-component spinors are, in general, an indispensable requirement. The coupling degree of freedom is described by the eigenvalues $\{+1, -1\}$ of $\gamma^0$. In macrosystems the individual $\gamma^0$-matrices add up to the energy operator. In Dirac’s equation the eigenvalues of $\gamma^0$ discriminate between solutions of positive and negative energy. In going to a space-time representation by a Fourier transformation (cf.(\[4-4\])) we obtain, associated with positive and negative energy, wave functions running forward and backward in time. This allows to discriminate between “before" and “after", which means time in its most elementary form. So we find the roots of time in the two ways of coupling of a two-component spinor to a macrosystem, which again is a consequence of the two possible orientations of a bit. Mass spectrum ============= Consider a macrosystem composed of two subsystems forming a state with momentum $P$ $$\|P\rangle = \int d^3q\;c(q)\,\|P_1 - q \rangle \; \|P_2 + q \rangle. \label{6-a}$$ The two subsystems are linked by the exchange of three components of momentum $q$, or more general, by three linearly independent momenta. Alternatively, we can construct the state $\|P\rangle$ by combining three or even four subsystems, as indicated by $$\|P\rangle = \int dq_1 dq_2 dq_3 \;c(q)\, \|P_1 - (q_1, q_2, q_3) \rangle \; \|P_2 + (q_1, 0, q_3) \rangle \; \|P_3 + ( 0, q_2, 0) \rangle \label{6-b}$$ and $$\|P\rangle = \int dq_1 dq_2 dq_3\;c(q)\, \|P_1 - (q_1, q_2, q_3) \rangle \; \|P_2 + (q_1, 0, 0) \rangle \; \|P_3 + ( 0, q_2, 0) \rangle \; \|P_4 + ( 0, 0, q_3) \rangle . \label{6-c}$$ The three independent momentum components act like the valences in chemistry, allowing to link the first subsystem to a maximum of three other subsystems. In deriving the space-time properties of spinors we have considered the direct product of a spinor and a macrosystem state in the form $$\|P\rangle \, \|s\rangle \label{6-1}$$ (cf. (\[5-1\]) - (\[5-3\])). This corresponds to a linkage of type (\[6-a\]). It is only consequent, when we consider also alternative forms corresponding to linkages (\[6-b\]) and (\[6-c\]), as indicated by $$\|P'\rangle \, \|P''\rangle \, \|s\rangle \label{6-2}$$ and $$\|P'\rangle \, \|P''\rangle \, \|P'''\rangle \, \|s\rangle . \label{6-3}$$ Here $P'$, $P''$ and $P'''$ shall be associated with disjoint subsets of the total set of spinors. Let $$P = P' + P'' \;\;\mbox{ or }\;\; P = P' + P'' + P''' \;\;\mbox{resp.} . \label{6-4}$$ Then these states are characterised, like (\[6-1\]), by a single momentum $P$. But now the spinor is correlated with more than one macrosystem. The structures (\[6-1\]), (\[6-2\]) and (\[6-3\]) are distinguished by the multiplicity of states that can be constructed for a given $P$. In this sense (\[6-2\]) defines a “larger" system than (\[6-1\]), and (\[6-3\]) a larger system than (\[6-2\]). Usually, larger systems react with more inertia to changes of momentum than smaller systems. Can we, therefore, associate some kind of effective inert mass to these structures, that is related to the multiplicity of states? Mass formula based on multiplicities of states have been known for more than three decades. In 1971 A. Wyler [@aw1] found such a relation between electron and proton mass. In the 1980s F. D. Smith [@fds] presented mass relations, based on an algebraic particle model for virtually all particles known at that time. Recently G. González-Martín [@ggm1] (G-M in the following) has described detailed algebraic methods to derive mass relations, starting from a universal structure group SL(4,R). G-M’s idea is that the structure group describes a “substrate" from which particles are generated as “excitations" with certain symmetric and topological properties that are associated with subgroups of the structure group. These algebraic methods were often considered as “pure numerology", since their relationship to conventional physical concepts remained unclear. In the following we will establish a connection between our approach and the algebraic methods. This will shed light into the physical backgrounds of these methods. In fact, we can draw parallels to G-M’s approach, when we identify the set of spinors with G-M’s substrate and the couplings (\[6-1\]), (\[6-2\]) and (\[6-3\]) with G-M’s excitations. The couplings (\[6-2\]) and (\[6-3\]) then correspond to G-M’s topological excitations. G-M derives a mass formula for the three lepton families: $$m_n = 4\pi \left(\frac{16 \pi}{3}\right)^n \; m_e \hspace{1cm} n = 1, 2 \;\; , \label{6-5}$$ where $m_e$ is the electron mass and $m_1$ is related to the myon mass and $m_2$ to the tauon mass. With the experimental electron mass of $0.5109989$ MeV, G-M obtains $m_\mu = 107,5916$ MeV and $m_\tau = 1770,3$ MeV. These values speak for the physical relevance of the method. (The experimental values are $105,658$ and $1776,99$.) To come to an understanding of the basic mechanism of algebraic mass relations, consider the mass equation in a fictitious higher dimensional space-time structure, say in (9+1)-dimensional space-time, $$p_0^2 - p_1^2 - p_2^2 - p_3^2 - p_4^2 - p_5^2 - p_6^2 - \ldots = m_0^2. \label{6-5a}$$ Assume that three space-like momenta at a time are projected onto the same momentum in (3+1) space-time. Then we obtain $$p_0^2 - P_1^2 - P_2^2 - P_3^2 = m_0^2, \label{6-5b}$$ where $P_1$ is the projection of $p_1, p_2, p_3$ and $P_2$ the projection of $p_4, p_5, p_6$ and so on. If we add a momentum $\Delta p$ to $P_1$, this momentum may be added either to $p_1$ or $p_2$ or $p_3$. If we look at the change of $p_0$ when a certain $p_i$ is changed, we obtain from (\[6-5a\]), under the simplifying condition that $p_0 \approx m_0$, $$\Delta p_0 = \frac{p_i}{m_0} \,\Delta p. \label{6-5c}$$ Observe that the change of $p_0$ by adding $\Delta p$ is weighted by the current value of $p_i$. If we continue to add momenta to $P_1$ and equally distribute the momenta among all three $p_1, p_2, p_3$, then the current value of each $p_i$ will be only $1/3$ of the value in a basically (3+1)-dimensional space-time. Then for repeatedly adding momenta to $P_1$ with a statistical distribution to all three $p_i$, the relation $$\Delta p_0 = \frac{p_i}{3 \, m_0} \,\Delta p \label{6-5d}$$ holds instead of (\[6-5c\]). This means: the multiplicity of states in (9+1) space-time, relative to the multiplicity in (3+1), multiplies the mass $m_0$ to give an “effective mass" of $3\,m_0$. The factor $3$ is obtained as the quotient of dimension $9$ and dimension $3$. In our approach the number of linear independent states is determined by the group SO(3,2). Locally SO(3,2) is approximated by P(3,1). This approximation maps the states of a representation $\cal{S}$ of SO(3,2) into states of a representation $\cal{L}$ of the Lorentz group SO(3,1). By applying a transformation $L$ of SO(3,1) on a given state of $\cal{S}$ we can generate other states, connected to the original one by a boost transformation. Following G-M, the states obtained in this way will be called L-equivalent . The group $S$ of transformations of the de Sitter group is larger than $L$. Therefore, for each state of $\cal{S}$ other states exist that are mapped onto the same state of $\cal{L}$, but are not $L$-equivalent. The classes of unequivalent states correspond to cosets $aL, a \in S$. These cosets form the factor group $S/L$. The factor group is a symmetric space , which can be assigned a volume. The algebraic method determines the multiplicity of states that are mapped onto the same state of $\cal{L}$ by calculating such volumes. The volume assigned to $S/L$ is given by [@ggm2] $$V(S/L) = \frac{16 \pi}{3}. \label{6-6}$$ This means: each state of $\cal{L}$ is obtained from the corresponding representation of SO(3,2) with a multiplicity of L-unequivalent states given by (\[6-6\]). Accordingly, the multiplicity of the states (\[6-2\]) and (\[6-3\]) is given by $$\left(\frac{16 \pi}{3}\right)^2 \;\; \mbox{ and } \;\; \left(\frac{16 \pi}{3}\right)^3. \label{6-7}$$ Since we want to determine mass relations, as a next step we have to relate the multiplicities of (\[6-7\]) to a basic multiplicity that is associated to the electron mass. Masses are properties of representations of PO(3,1) and these are obtained by contracting representations of SO(3,2). The act of contraction has a further influence on the multiplicity of states. It can be described by another volume factor. Consider first the factor group $P/L$, where $P$ are the transformations of P(3,1). The number of its cosets is determined by the group of translations U(1) with a volume of $V(U(1)) = 4\pi$ [@ggm1]. The volume factor, we are looking for, is then given by $$\frac{V(S/L)}{V(P/L)} = \frac{16 \pi}{3} \frac{1}{4\pi} = 4/3. \label{6-8}$$ Therefore, each state of a representation $\cal{P}$ of $P(3,1)$ that is obtained by contracting a state of $\cal{S}$ has a basic multiplicity of $4/3$. In a sense this can be considered as a multiplicity of “P-unequivalent" states. When we divide the terms in (\[6-7\]) by this factor, we obtain multiplicities relative to the basic multiplicity of representation $\cal{P}$ $$4\pi \left(\frac{16 \pi}{3}\right) \;\; \mbox{ and } \;\; 4\pi \left(\frac{16 \pi}{3}\right)^2. \label{6-9}$$ One might follow from (\[6-6\]) that electron states have a multiplicity of $4\pi$ relative to the basic multiplicity of $\cal{P}$. This conclusion is not unjustified, since this multiplicity is caused by the translation degrees of freedom of the electron. But a translation, applied to a momentum eigenstate, delivers a phase factor, which does not lead to a new, linear independent state. Therefore, electrons have a multiplicity of 1 relative to $\cal{P}$ and its mass can be used as a reference mass corresponding to a multiplicity of 1. When we multiply the electron mass with the multiplicity factors (\[6-9\]) we obtain mass relations that are identical to G-M’s in (\[6-5\]). These considerations apply, in principle, also to the massless solutions of the Dirac equation. Therefore, we can say that each massive lepton is accompanied by a massless, neutrino-like lepton. In structures (\[6-1\]), (\[6-2\]) and (\[6-3\]) we have exhausted all possibilities within a 3-dimensional momentum space, to link a spinor to macrosystems. This means that there are only three families of leptons . The good agreement of these mass relations with the experiment can be regarded as an empirical justification of our concept, which derives space-time properties of spinors from their coupling to macrosystems. In the papers [@aw1; @fds; @ggm1] mass relations are not restricted to leptons. We can expect that the algebraic methods will give us further valuable hints to other, eventually more complex, particle structures. Interaction =========== The approximation of the de Sitter group by the Poincaré group has revealed three families of free particles with the properties of leptons. An essential property of massive leptons, their electric charge, has not yet been addressed. This property is connected with the notion of interaction. We will approach this notion by reconsidering the validity of the Poincaré approximation for a single spinor. On closer examination we find that, in contrast to macrosystems, for single spinors this approximation is dubious, for the following reasons: With reference to the validity of the Poincaré approximation for macrosystems we have associated a momentum to a single spinor. But the spin degree of freedom still transforms by a transformation generated from the spin operator $\frac{1}{2}\gamma_\mu$. The corresponding transformation of the associated momentum is generated by the momentum operator $p_\mu$. This means, that for a spinor the generator of translations contains a $\gamma_\mu$-term besides the $p_\mu$-term. In the literature about group contraction, e.g. [@fg], the $\gamma_\mu$-term is considered small compared to $p_\mu$ and of zeroth order in the contraction limit. In our context $p_\mu$ describes the effect of adding a spinor to a macrosystem. Therefore, the expectation values of $p_\mu$ and $\frac{1}{2}\gamma_\mu$ are of the same order. As a consequence, the Poincaré approximation cannot generally be applied to a single spinor. We can make the best of this situation by keeping the Poincaré approximation as a basic theory. Then we have to treat those terms that disturb the validity of this approximation as “perturbations", using a suitable quantum mechanical perturbation algorithm. In our case the operator $\frac{1}{2}\gamma_\mu$ is such a term. It has been shown [@ws] that a perturbation treatment of the $\gamma_\mu$-term gives rise to an interaction between two massive leptons. This interaction is empirically and theoretically well-known: It has the structure of the electromagnetic interaction and the perturbation theory is identical to quantum electrodynamics . In other words: when we apply a standard perturbation algorithm, we find ourselves in the standard model. In contrast to the standard model the strength of the interaction is determined by the theory. An estimate of the coupling constant delivers a value that is identical to the empirical value of the fine-structure constant $\alpha$ [@ws]. In fact this estimate reproduces Wyler’s semi-empirical formula[@aw2] of 1969, without making use of his attempt to justify this formula. This means: our massive leptons carry one elementary charge. Now we are in a position to answer the question that we have raised at the beginning “Can we observe the bits of particle physics?" in the positive sense: These bits show, when the are observed relative to macroscopic setups, the properties of leptons. Having started from the simplest and unspecific informational structure we have reached familiar structures at the level of the standard model. This result is in stark contrast to the wide-spread opinion that the most elementary physical structures have to be searched for at Planck scales. On closer examination, further perturbation terms can be identified. Based on their characteristics they have been assigned to the remaining interactions [@ws]. Remarkably, this includes a gravitation type of interaction. The corresponding perturbation term gives clear guidelines for the formulation of a perturbation theory, that has a good chance to result in a consistent theory of quantum gravity. Résumé ====== Several authors have expressed the opinion that a fundamental theory should be able to derive space-time and quantum mechanics at the same time from more general principles. With Bohr’s help I have presented such principles. They are: 1. Physics means the acquiring and processing of information about reality. 2. The subject of particle physics is the study of the smallest building blocks of information. 3. The acquisition of information is done relative to macroscopic setups. These principles are not what we usually understand by “first principles". They simply describe what we are doing when we practise particle physics. In fact, they can be regarded as a matter of course, since every attempt to build a theoretical model of our information about reality, must be orientated at, which kind of information is considered and how this information is acquired. The first principle defines the general subject of theoretical physics: it concerns the information about reality. We collect information, link information by theoretical models and derive further information from these models. The second principle leads to the basic building blocks of information, called bits, which set the fundament for basic symmetry properties. The third principle takes us to the quantum mechanical description as a mathematical tool to handle “relative" information. This description finally leads, together with the mentioned symmetry properties, to a relativistic space-time continuum and to particles with a mass spectrum identical to the empirical lepton spectrum. Higher order terms then generate four fundamental interactions. These conclusions have been obtained without consulting any “law of nature". We have only presumed that both settings of a bit have to be equally treated. We further have employed a Hilbert space to describe mixed states. In addition to this, the only “laws" that have entered are the laws of mathematical logic and these are clear and comprehensible. The decision for a Hilbert space description has provided us with a formal language that allows to express relations within a bit structure in well-known terms of theoretical physics. The introduction of the Hilbert space does not imply any additional assumption. It only serves to clearly formulate properties of bit sets. This decision is of pragmatic nature and can be justified only a posteriori. Its sense is measured by the capability to lead to such structures that can be compared with empirical ones. Looking back, we can say that this decision has made sense, since it has led us to a space-time continuum equipped with particles and an electromagnetic interaction. The interaction allows us to measure the properties of this space-time continuum, and thereby give it physical reality. We come to the following understanding: Physical reality, as seen by a particle physicist, is not the outcome of a “fundamental law of nature", but an inevitable logical consequence of the way we look at reality. It seems almost a triviality, that, when we look at more and more elementary informational structures, we finally have to arrive at binary units of information. Obviously, in particle physics we have reached this situation. However, our view into the basic structures is masked by the necessity of relative observation. The properties of this mask, represent what we have learned to regard as “laws of nature". But now we can say that these laws are the result of mathematical logic only and not of any “first principle". The structure behind the “mask" represents the most elementary and most general structure to take up information. There is nothing specific to “particle physics" in this structure. Nevertheless, we have found that the elements of these structure, when observed through the mask of relative observation, show all properties of leptons. We have to conclude that leptons (possibly together with quarks) represent the most elementary structures of physics. But what makes these structures turn into particles, is the result of an observation through the “relativistic mask". With these structures the search for more and more elementary building blocks, which has characterised physics in the past one hundred years, has finally come to an end. Since bits are the smallest pieces of information, there is nothing beyond this level that can contribute to our knowledge of reality. Therefore, this limit does not restrict in any way our search for an understanding of those parts of reality, that we are able to access by physical experiments. On the contrary, here we find a clear and well-defined basic structure, with the potential to base on it an elementary particle theory that will lead us well beyond the standard model. We have good reasons to believe that this theory will include gravitation. To conclude I would like to remind you of another famous dictum of Bohr’s: > “It is the task of science to reduce deep truths to trivialities." [99]{} W. Smilga, “Elementary informational structures and their relation to quantum mechanics and space-time", available as physics/0502040. Cited in M. Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (Wiley, 1974). Cited in B. Herbert, Quantum Reality , p. 45, (Anchor Press, Garden City, N.Y., 1985). R. Penrose, “Angular momentum: an approach to combinatorial space-time", in: Quantum Theory and Beyond , ed. Ted Bastin (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1971). R. Penrose, W. Rindler, Spinors and space-time , p. 43, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988). J. C. Baez, “An introduction to spin foam models of quantum gravity and BF theory", in: Geometry and Quantum Physics , eds. H. Gausterer and H. Grosse, (Springer, Berlin, 2000); available as gr-qc/9905087. C. F. von Weizsäcker, “Binary Alternatives and Space-Time Structure", in: Proceedings, Quantum Theory and the Structure of Time and Space, Vol.2 (In Memoriam Werner Heisenberg) (Munich, 1977). C. F. von Weizsäcker, “Urs, Particles, Fields", in: Proceedings, Quantum Theory and the Structure of Time and Space, Vol.5 (Munich, 1983). Cited in B. Herbert, Quantum Reality , p. 57, (Anchor Press, Garden City, N.Y., 1985). E. Inönü and E. P. Wigner, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 39, 510 (1953).* F. Gürsey in: Group Theoretical Concepts and Methods in Elementary Particle Physics , ed by Gürsey (Gordon and Breach, 1964). A. Einstein, Grundzüge der Relativitätstheorie , p. 2, (Friedr. Vieweg und Sohn, Braunschweig, 1960). A. A. Broyles, Am. J. Phys. 44, 340 (1976). R. Feynman and S. Weinberg, “The Reason for Antiparticles", in: Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics , (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1987). A. Wyler, C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris 271A, 180 (1971). F. D. Smith, Jr., Int. J. Theor. Phys. 24, 155 (1985); 25, 355 (1986).** G. González-Martín, “Lepton and Meson Masses", Reporte SB/F/304.4-02, Univ. Simón Bolívar (2003); available as physics/0405094. A. Böhm, Phys. Rev. 145, 1212 (1986). G. González-Martín, “p/e Geometric Mass Ratio", Reporte SB/F/278-99, Univ. Simón Bolívar (1999); available as physics/0009066. W. Smilga, “Spin foams, causal links and geometry-induced interaction", available as hep-th/0403137. A. Wyler, C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris 269, 743 (1969).** [^1]: Extended version of a contribution to 69th Annual Meeting of the German Physical Society: Physics Since Einstein, Berlin, Germany, 4-9 Mar 2005. [@ws1]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Robust adaptive control of scalar plants in the presence of unmodeled dynamics is established in this paper. It is shown that implementation of a projection algorithm with standard adaptive control of a scalar plant ensures global boundedness of the overall adaptive system for a class of unmodeled dynamics.' author: - 'Heather S. Hussain, Megumi M. Matsutani, Anuradha M. Annaswamy and Eugene Lavretsky [^1][^2][^3][^4]' bibliography: - 'HHussain.bib' title: Adaptive Control of Scalar Plants in the Presence of Unmodeled Dynamics --- Introduction {#sec:1} ============ Following the Rohrs counterexample in [@Rohrs], several robust adaptive control solutions were suggested in the ’80s and ’90s (see, for example, [@1] and [@5]), including specific responses to the counterexample (see for example [@3], [@7], [@11], [@5], and [@10]). Most of these were qualitative, or local, and often involved properties of persistent excitation of the reference input. In this paper, we show that for a class of unmodeled dynamics including the one in [@Rohrs], adaptive control of a scalar plant with global boundedness can be established for any reference input. = \[draw, fill=Aquamarine!50, rectangle, minimum height=1cm, minimum width=2cm, rounded corners=0.5mm, inner sep= 2mm\] = \[draw, fill=Dandelion!40, circle, minimum width=1cm, inner sep= 1mm\] = \[draw, fill=Green!40, circle, minimum width=1cm\] = \[coordinate\] = \[coordinate\] (input1) ; (input2) ; (sum1) [$\sum$]{} ; (block1) [$G_{\eta}(s)$]{}; (block2) [$\displaystyle \frac{1}{s-a_p}$]{}; (block3) [$\displaystyle \frac{1}{s-a_m}$]{}; (sum2) [$\sum$]{}; (output1) ; (block1) – node\[name=u\] [$v(t)$]{} (block2); (output2) ; (block4) [${\theta}$]{}; (input1) – node\[near start\][$r(t)$]{} node\[pos=0.9\] [$+$]{} (sum1); (sum1) – node [$u(t)$]{} (block1); (block2) – node \[name=y\] [$x_p (t)$]{} node\[pos=0.9\] [$+$]{}(sum2); (y) \|- (block4); (block4) -\| node\[pos=0.95\] [$+$]{} node \[pos=0.075\] (sum1); (input2) \|- (block3); (block3) -\| node [$x_m (t)$]{} node\[pos=0.95\] [$-$]{}(sum2); (sum2) – node\[pos=0.65\][$e(t)$]{}(output1); (6.2,-2.5)–($(block4.225)!1.3cm!(block4.45)$); The Problem Statement: Scalar Plant {#sec:2} =================================== The problem we address in this paper is the adaptive control of a first-order plant $$\label{eq:plant} \dot{x}_p(t)= a_p x_p(t)+v(t)$$ where $a_p$ is an unknown parameter. It is assumed that $\|a_p\| \leq \bar{a}$, where $\bar{a}$ is a known positive constant. The unmodeled dynamics are unknown and defined as $$\label{eq:xetadot} \begin{aligned} \dot{x}_\eta (t)&=A_\eta x_\eta (t) + b_\eta u(t) \\ v(t)&={c_\eta}^T x_\eta(t) \end{aligned}$$ where $A_\eta \in \mathbb{R}^{n \mathsf{x} n}$ is Hurwitz with $$\label{eq:Geta} G_\eta (s) \triangleq c_\eta^T(sI_{n \mathsf{x} n}-A_\eta)^{-1} b_\eta\text{.}$$ $x_\eta(t)$ is the state vector, and $u(t)$ is the control input. The goal is to design the control input such that $x_p(t)$ follows $x_m(t)$ which is specified by the reference model $$\label{eq:refmod} \dot{x}_m(t)= a_m x_m(t)+r(t)$$ where $a_m < 0$, and $r(t)$ is the reference input. The adaptive controller we propose is a standard adaptive control input given by (see figure \[fig:ControlProb\]) $$\label{eq:controlin} u(t)=\theta(t)x_p(t)+r(t)$$ where the parameter $\theta(t)$ is updated using a projection algorithm given by $$\label{eq:adaptlaw} \dot{\theta}(t)=\gamma \operatorname{Proj}(\theta(t),-x_p(t)e(t)), \; \gamma >0$$ where $$e(t)=x_p(t)-x_m(t) \label{eq:e}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Proj} \operatorname{Proj}(& \theta,y)= \begin{cases} \displaystyle \frac{\theta_{max}^2-{\theta^2}}{{\theta_{max}^2}-{\theta_{max}^{\prime 2}}}y & [\theta \in \Omega_A, \; y\theta>0]\\\\ y &\text{otherwise} \end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:omegasets} \Omega_0 &= \lbrace\theta \in \mathbb{R}^1 \; \lvert \; -\theta_{max}^{\prime} \leq \theta \leq \theta_{max}^{\prime} \rbrace \nonumber \\ \Omega_1 &= \lbrace \theta \in \mathbb{R}^1 \; \lvert \; -\theta_{max} \leq \theta \leq \theta_{max}\rbrace \\ \Omega_A&=\Omega_1 \backslash \Omega_0 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with positive constants $\theta_{max}^{\prime}$ and $\theta_{max}$ given by $$\label{eq:thetaminor} \theta_{max}^{\prime} >\bar{a}+ \|a_m\|$$ $$\label{eq:thetamajor} \theta_{max}=\theta_{max}^{\prime} +\varepsilon_0, \quad \varepsilon_0 >0.$$ \[lem:1\] Consider the Adaptive Law in (\[eq:adaptlaw\]) with Projection Algorithm in (\[eq:Proj\]) to (\[eq:thetamajor\]). Then, $$\label{eq:lem1} {\lVert\theta(t_a)\rVert} \leq \theta_{max} \Longrightarrow {\lVert\theta(t)\rVert} \leq \theta_{max}, \; \forall t \geq t_a \text{.}$$ Hence, the projection algorithm guarantees the boundedness of the parameter $\theta(t)$ independent of the system dynamics. We refer the reader to [@Proj] for the proof of Lemma \[lem:1\]. Choice of Projection Parameters {#sec:3} =============================== The projection algorithm in (\[eq:Proj\]) is specified by two parameters $\theta_{max}^{\prime} $ and $\theta_{max}$. Equation (\[eq:thetaminor\]) provides the condition for $\theta_{max}^{\prime} $. To determine $\varepsilon_0$ in (\[eq:thetamajor\]), the following discussions are needed: We consider the linear time-invariant system specified by (\[eq:plant\]), (\[eq:xetadot\]), and (\[eq:controlin\]), with the parameter $\theta(t)$ fixed as $$\label{eq:thetafixed} \theta(t)=-\theta_{max}, \quad \forall t \geq t_a \text{.}$$ The closed loop transfer function from $r(t)$ to $x_p(t)$ is given by $$\label{eq:Gcl} G_c (s)= \frac{p_\eta (s)}{q_c (s)}$$ where $G_c(s)$ is defined using $G_\eta(s)$ in (\[eq:Geta\]) as $$\begin{aligned} G_\eta (s) & \triangleq \frac{p_\eta (s)}{q_\eta (s)} \label{eq:Getacl} \\ q_c(s) & = q_\eta (s) (s-a_p)+ \theta_{max} p_\eta (s). \label{eq:qc}\end{aligned}$$ From (\[eq:thetaminor\]) and (\[eq:thetamajor\]), it follows that $$a_p-\theta_{max}<0, \quad \forall {\|a_p\|} \leq \bar{a}.$$ Therefore it follows that there exists a class of unmodeled dynamics $(c_\eta, A_\eta, b_\eta)$ such that $q_c (s)$ has roots in $\mathbb{C}^-$, the left-half of the complex plane. It is this class that is of interest in this paper. \[def:1\] The triple $(c_\eta, A_\eta, b_\eta)$ is said to belong to $S_\eta(\bar{a}, \theta_{max})$ if $p_\eta (s)$ and $q_\eta(s)$ in (\[eq:Getacl\]) are such that the roots of $q_c(s)$ in (\[eq:qc\]) lie in $\mathbb{C}^-$ for all $\|a_p\|\leq \bar a$. Let’s demonstrate $S_\eta(\bar{a}, \theta_{max})$ with an example. Consider the class of unmodeled dynamics of the form $$\label{eq:Geta2ndorder} G_\eta (s) = \frac{\omega_n^2}{s^2+2\zeta\omega_ns +\omega_n^2}$$ where $\zeta>0$ and $\omega_n>0$. From (\[eq:Gcl\]), (\[eq:qc\]), and (\[eq:Geta2ndorder\]), the closed-loop dynamics from $r$ to $x_p$ is given by $$\label{eq:Gcl_2ndorder} G_c (s)= \frac{\omega_n^2}{q_c (s)}$$ where $$\label{eq:qc_Gcl} \begin{aligned} q_c(s) & = s^3 + a_1 s^2 + a_2 s +a_3 \\ a_1&= (2 \zeta \omega_n - a_p)\\ a_2&= (\omega_n^2-2a_p \zeta \omega_n) \\ a_3&= -a_p \omega_n^2+\theta_{max}\omega_n^2 \end{aligned}$$ For the roots of $q_c(s)$ in (\[eq:qc\_Gcl\]) to lie in $\mathbb{C}^-$, the following conditions are neccessary and sufficient for all $\|a_p\|\leq \bar a$: 1. $a_p < \min(2 \zeta \omega_n,\displaystyle \frac{\omega_n}{2\zeta})$ \[cond1\] 2. $ \theta_{max} > a_p$ \[cond2\] 3. $\theta_{max} < \displaystyle \bigg(-4a_p\zeta^2 + \frac{2\zeta a_p^2}{\omega_n} + 2\zeta\omega_n \bigg)$ \[cond3\] If $$\label{eq:ineq1} a_p < \theta_{max} <a_p+ \bar\theta^\star$$ where $$\label{eq:cond3} \bar\theta^\star=(2\zeta\omega_n-a_p)(1-\frac{2\zeta a_p}{\omega_n})$$ then conditions \[cond2\] and \[cond3\] hold. Hence, any class of unmodeled dynamics $(c_\eta, A_\eta, b_\eta)$ in (\[eq:Geta2ndorder\]) satisfying condition \[cond1\] belongs to $S_\eta(\bar{a}, \theta_{max})$. It can be easily shown that the unmodeled dynamics and the plant discussed in the infamous Rohrs counterexample [@Rohrs] satisfies conditions \[cond1\] to \[cond3\] above for some $\theta_{max}$. We now discuss the choice of $\varepsilon_0$. Consider the class of unmodeled dynamics $S_\eta(\bar{a}, \theta_{max})$ in Definition \[def:1\]. Since the closed loop system specified by (\[eq:plant\]), (\[eq:xetadot\]), (\[eq:controlin\]), and (\[eq:thetafixed\]) is stable, it follows that there exists a Lyapunov function $$\label{eq:lyap} V= \bar{x}^T P \bar{x}$$ with a time derivative $$\label{eq:lyapderiv} \dot{V}= -\bar{x}^T Q \bar{x}$$ where $\bar{x}=[x_p \; x_\eta^T]^T$. $P$ is the solution to the Lyapunov equation $$\label{eq:lyap2PQ} \bar{A}^T P + P \bar{A} = -Q < 0$$ where $$\bar{A}= \begin{bmatrix} a_p & c_\eta^T \\ -b_\eta \theta_{max} & A_\eta \end{bmatrix}$$ since $\bar{A}$ is Hurwitz. The latter is true since $\theta_{max}$ satisfies (\[eq:ineq1\]). We define two sets $\Omega_u \subset \Omega_A$ and $\Omega_l \subset \Omega_A$ as $$\begin{aligned} \Omega_u & = \lbrace \theta \in \mathbb{R}^1 \; \lvert \; -\theta_{max}+\xi_0 \leq \theta < -\theta_{max}^{\prime} \rbrace \label{eq:omegau}\\ \Omega_l & = \lbrace\theta \in \mathbb{R}^1 \; \lvert \; -\theta_{max} \leq \theta \leq -\theta_{max}+\xi_0 \rbrace \label{eq:omegal}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{eq:varth} \xi_0=c \varepsilon_0, \quad c \in (0,1).$$ We now consider the linear time-varying system specified by (\[eq:plant\]), (\[eq:xetadot\]), and (\[eq:controlin\]), with $\theta(t) \in \Omega_u \cup \Omega_l$. It follows from (\[eq:thetamajor\]) and (\[eq:lem1\]) that $$\begin{aligned} \theta(t) &=-\theta_{max}+\varepsilon(t), \quad \forall \theta(t) \in \Omega_u \cup \Omega_l \label{eq:theps} \\ \theta(t) &=-\theta_{max}+\xi(t), \quad \forall \theta(t) \in \Omega_l \label{eq:thevar}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{eq:varth_t} \varepsilon(t) \in [0,\varepsilon_0), \quad \xi(t) \in [0,\xi_0].$$ Therefore, the closed-loop system is given by $$\label{eq:LTVsys} \dot{\bar{x}}=\bar{A}\bar{x}+A_\xi(t)\bar{x}+\bar{b}r, \quad \forall \theta(t) \in \Omega_l$$ where $$\label{eq:LTV_A} A_\xi (t)= \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ b_\eta \xi(t) & 0 \end{bmatrix}, \quad \bar{b}= \begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ b_\eta \end{bmatrix}.$$ If we choose $V=-\bar{x}^T Q \bar{x}$ with $P$ as in (\[eq:lyap2PQ\]), we obtain $$\label{eq:lyapderivLTV} \dot{V} \leq - \lambda_{Q_{min}}{\lVert\bar{x}\rVert}^2+2\lambda_{P_{max}} k \xi_0 {\lVert\bar{x}\rVert}^2 +2\lambda_{P_{max}}{\lVert\bar{b}\rVert}r_{max}{\lVert\bar{x}\rVert} \\$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:lamdamax} \begin{aligned} \lambda_{Q_{min}} & \triangleq \min\limits_{i} \|\Re (\lambda_i(Q))\| \\ \lambda_{P_{max}} & \triangleq \max\limits_{i} \|\Re (\lambda_i(P))\| \end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ $${\lVertb_\eta\rVert} \leq k, \quad r_{max}=\max\limits_{t \geq t_a} {\|r(t)\|}.$$ That is, $$\label{eq:lyap_negdef} \dot V < 0 \quad {\rm if} \; {\lVert\bar{x}\rVert} > x_0$$ where $$\begin{aligned} x_0 & =\frac{2\lambda_{P_{\max}}{\lVert\bar b\rVert}r_{\max}}{\bar\lambda} \label{eq:x0} \\ \bar\lambda & =\lambda_{Q_{min}}-2\lambda_{P_{max}} k\xi_0. \label{eq:lamdabar}\end{aligned}$$ In summary, the closed-loop system has bounded solutions for all $\theta(t) \in \Omega_l$ with ${\lVertx(t)\rVert} \leq x_0$ if $(c_\eta, A_\eta, b_\eta)$ is such that 1. $q_c(s)$ has roots in $\mathbb{C}^-$ for all $\|a_p\|\leq \bar a$, and \[cond:1\] 2. $\xi_0<\varepsilon_0$ \[cond:2\], where 3. $\displaystyle \xi_0 < \frac{\lambda_{Q_{min}}}{2k\lambda_{P_{max}}}$ \[cond:3\] We introduce the following definition: \[def:2\] The triple $(c_\eta, A_\eta, b_\eta)$ is said to belong to $S_\eta(\bar{a},\theta_{max},\xi_0)$ if conditions \[cond:1\], \[cond:2\], and \[cond:3\] above are satisfied. Main Result {#sec:4} =========== \[thm:1\] Let [${z(t)=[e(t) \; \theta(t)]^T}$]{}. The closed-loop adaptive system given by (\[eq:plant\])-(\[eq:thetamajor\]) has globally bounded solutions for all $\theta(t_a) \in \Omega_1$ if $(c_\eta, A_\eta, b_\eta) \in S_\eta(\bar{a},\theta_{max},\xi_0)$. We define the region A and the boundary regions ${{ \vbox{ \hrule height 0.45pt \kern0.19ex \hbox{ \kern-0.225em \ifmmodeB\else\ensuremath{B}\fi \kern-0.01em } } }}$ and ${\ushort{B}}$ as follows $$\label{eq:boundaries} \begin{aligned} {{ \vbox{ \hrule height 0.45pt \kern0.19ex \hbox{ \kern-0.225em \ifmmodeB\else\ensuremath{B}\fi \kern-0.01em } } }}&=\lbrace z \in \mathbb{R}^2 \; \lvert \; \theta_{max}^{\prime} < \theta \leq \theta_{max} \rbrace \\ A &=\lbrace z \in \mathbb{R}^2 \; \lvert \; \theta \in \Omega_0 \rbrace \\ {\ushort{B}}&=\lbrace z \in \mathbb{R}^2 \; \lvert \; -\theta_{max} \leq \theta < -\theta_{max}^{\prime} \rbrace \end{aligned}$$ We divide the boundary region ${\ushort{B}}$ into two regions as follows: $$\label{eq:boundaries_lower} \begin{aligned} {\ushort{B}_U}&=\lbrace z \in \mathbb{R}^2 \; \lvert \; \theta \in \Omega_u \rbrace\\ {\ushort{B}_L}&=\lbrace z \in \mathbb{R}^2 \; \lvert \; \theta \in \Omega_l \rbrace \end{aligned}$$ with ${\ushort{B}}={\ushort{B}_U}\cup {\ushort{B}_L}$. \[t\]\[\]\[0.8\][Error, $e(t)$]{} \[b\]\[\]\[0.8\][Parameter, $\theta(t)$]{} \[b\]\[\]\[0.8\][$z(t)=[e(t) \; \theta(t)]^T$]{} \[b\]\[\]\[0.7\][$A$]{} \[\]\[\]\[0.6\][${{ \vbox{ \hrule height 0.45pt \kern0.19ex \hbox{ \kern-0.225em \ifmmodeB\else\ensuremath{B}\fi \kern-0.01em } } }}$]{} \[\]\[\]\[0.6\][${\ushort{B}}$]{} \[b,l\]\[\]\[0.6\][${\ushort{B}_U}$]{} \[l\]\[\]\[0.35\][$\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\boldsymbol{\mapsto}$}$]{} \[t,r\]\[\]\[0.6\][${\ushort{B}_L}$]{} \[r\]\[\]\[0.35\][$\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\boldsymbol{\mapsto}$}$]{} \[b\]\[\]\[0.7\][$0$]{} \[l\]\[\]\[0.7\][$\theta_{max}$]{} \[l\]\[\]\[0.7\][$\theta_{max}^{\prime}$]{} \[l\]\[\]\[0.7\][$-\theta_{max}$]{} \[l\]\[\]\[0.7\][$-\theta_{max}^{\prime}$]{} \[l\]\[\]\[0.7\][$\theta^\star$]{} \[r\]\[\]\[0.7\][$\varepsilon_0$]{} \[r\]\[\]\[0.7\][$\xi_0$]{} \[r\]\[\]\[0.75\][$\lbrace$]{} \[r\]\[\]\[0.4\][${\boldsymbol \lbrace}$]{} \[t\]\[\]\[0.7\][$\bar{e}$]{} \[t\]\[\]\[0.7\][$\bar{e}-2\delta$]{} \[b\]\[\]\[0.7\][$\bar{e}-\delta$]{} \[l,t\]\[\]\[0.7\][$\bar{x}_m$]{} \[r,t\]\[\]\[0.7\][$-\bar{x}_m$]{} \[t\]\[\]\[0.6\] ------- [I]{} ------- \[l\]\[\]\[0.6\][[II]{}]{} \[l\]\[\]\[0.6\][[III]{}]{} The closed-loop adaptive system has error dynamics in (\[eq:e\]) equivalent to[^5] $$\label{eq:edot} \dot{e}=a_m e+\widetilde{\theta}x_p+\eta$$ where $$\label{eq:parerr} \widetilde{\theta} =\theta - \theta^\star,\quad \theta^\star= a_m-a_p, \quad \eta = v - u.$$ By combining the adaptive law in (\[eq:adaptlaw\]) and (\[eq:Proj\]), and boundary region definitions in (\[eq:boundaries\]), we obtain $$\label{eq:adaptlawupdate} \begin{aligned} \dot{\theta}&= & \begin{cases} \displaystyle -\frac{\theta_{max}^2-{\theta^2}}{{\theta_{max}^2}- {{{\theta_{max}^{\prime 2}}}}} \gamma e x_p & \text{if} \; z \in ({\ushort{B}}\cup {{ \vbox{ \hrule height 0.45pt \kern0.19ex \hbox{ \kern-0.225em \ifmmodeB\else\ensuremath{B}\fi \kern-0.01em } } }}), \; -e x_p \theta >0\\\\ - \gamma e x_p & \text{otherwise} \end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ Hence, the projection algorithm guarantees the boundedness of the parameter $\theta(t)$ independent of the system dynamics[@Proj]. It follows that Theorem \[thm:1\] is proved if the global boundedness of $e(t)$ is demonstrated. This is achieved in four phases by studying the trajectory of $z(t)$ for all $t\geq t_a$. This methodology was originally proposed in [@Megumi] for adaptive control in the presence of time delay. We begin with suitably chosen finite constants $\bar e$ and $\delta$ such that $\bar e-\delta >0$. The trajectory then has only two possibilities either (i) $\|e(t)\| < \bar e-\delta$ for all $t\geq t_a$, or (ii) there exists a time $t_a$ at which $\|e(t_a)\|=\bar e-\delta$. The global boundedness of $e(t)$ is immediate in case (i). We therefore assume there exists a $t_a$ where case (ii) holds. 1. Entering the Boundary Region: We start with ${\|e(t_a)\|} = \bar{e}-\delta$. We then show that the trajectory enters the boundary region ${\ushort{B}}$ at $t_b \in (t_a, t_a+\Delta T_{B})$, and ${\ushort{B}_L}$ at $t_c>t_b$ where $\Delta T_{B}$ and $t_c$ are finite. 2. In the Boundary Region, ${\ushort{B}_L}$: When the trajectory enters ${\ushort{B}}$, the parameter is in the boundary of the projection algorithm; $e$ is shown to be bounded in ${\ushort{B}_L}$ by making use of the stability property of the underlying linear time-varying system. For $t > t_c$, the trajectory has only two possibilities: either [(i)]{} $z$ stays in ${\ushort{B}_L}$ for all $t \geq t_c$, or [(ii)]{} $z$ reenters ${\ushort{B}_U}$ at some $t_d>t_c$ where $\|e(t_d)\| \leq \bar{x}_m$. 3. In the Boundary Region, ${\ushort{B}_U}$: For $t > t_d$, the trajectory has three possibilities: either [(i)]{} $z$ reenters $A$ at $t=t_e$, (ii) $z$ stays in ${\ushort{B}_U}$ for all $t \geq t_d$, or [(iii)]{} $z$ reenters ${\ushort{B}_L}$ at $t_f \in (t_d, t_d+\Delta T_{{\ushort{B}_L}})$ where $\Delta T_{{\ushort{B}_L}}$ is finite. 4. Return to Phase I or Phase II: If case [(i)]{} from Phase III holds, then the trajectory has only two possibilities: either $\|e(t)\| < \bar e-\delta, \; \forall t > t_e$ which proves Theorem \[thm:1\], or there exists a $t_g>t_e$ such that $\|e(t_g)\| = \bar e-\delta$ in which case the conditions of Proposition \[prop:1\] are satisfied with $t_a$ replaced by $t_g$, and Phases I through III are repeated for $t \geq t_g$. If case (ii) from Phase III holds, then the boundedness of $e$ is established for all $t \geq t_d$. If case (iii) holds, then Phases II and III are repeated for $t \geq t_f$. In all cases, $e$ remains bounded throughout. Phase I: Entering the Boundary Region {#subsec:Phase1} ------------------------------------- We start with ${\|e(t_a)\|}=\bar{e}-\delta$. From (\[eq:parerr\]), it is easy to see that $$\label{eq:boundeta} {\|\eta\|} \leq (k_\eta+1)\theta_{max}(\|e\|+\bar{x}_m)+(k_\eta+1) r_{max}$$ where $k_\eta={\lVertG_\eta (s)\rVert}$ and $$\label{eq:xmebar} \bar{x}_m=\max\limits_{t \geq t_a} {\|x_m (t)\|}.$$ We define $\bar e$ as $$\label{eq:ebars} \bar{e} =\max\lbrace {e}_0, e_1\rbrace$$ where $$\begin{aligned} {e}_0&= \|x_p(t_a)\|+\bar{x}_m+2\delta \label{eq:ebar0} \\ {e}_1&= \frac{1}{2} \left( \bar{c}b_0+\sqrt{\bar{c}^2 b_0^2 +4\bar{c}b_1}\right) \label{eq:ebar1}\end{aligned}$$ with $b_0$ and $b_1$ defined in (\[eq:b0\]) and (\[eq:b1\]), $\delta \in (0,\bar{x}_m)$, $\alpha \in (0, \varepsilon_0]$, $c$ in (\[eq:varth\]), and $$\begin{aligned} \bar{c}&=\dfrac{2\theta_{max}^{\prime}+\alpha+\dfrac{\varepsilon_0}{c}}{\delta \gamma}.\end{aligned}$$ Phase I is completed by proving the following Proposition: \[prop:1\] Let $z(t_a) \in A$ with ${\|e(t_a)\|} = \bar{e}-\delta$ where $\bar{e}$ is given in (\[eq:ebars\]) and $\delta \in (0,\bar{x}_m)$. Then 1. ${\|e(t)\|} \leq \bar{e}, \quad \forall t \in [t_a, t_a + \Delta T]$ \[prop1:i\] 2. $z(t_c) \in {\ushort{B}_L}$ for some $t_c \in (t_a,t_a+\Delta T)$ \[prop1:ii\] where $$\label{eq:Delta_T} \Delta T= \frac{\delta}{b_0 \bar{e}+b_1}$$ $$\begin{aligned} b_0&={\|a_m\|}+(k_\eta+2)\theta_{max}+{\|\theta^\star\|} \label{eq:b0} \\ b_1&= ((k_\eta+2)\theta_{max}+{\|\theta^\star\|}) \bar{x}_m +(k_\eta+2)r_{max} \label{eq:b1}\end{aligned}$$ From (\[eq:edot\]) and (\[eq:boundeta\]), it follows that $$\label{eq:b0edot} {\|\dot{e}(t)\|} \leq {b_0 \bar{e}^\prime +b_1}, \quad \forall t \in [t_a, t_a+\Delta T]$$ where $$\label{eq:ebarprime} \bar{e}^\prime=\max\limits_{t \in [t_a, t_a+\Delta T]} {\|e(t)\|}.$$ We will show below that $\bar e^\prime=\bar e$ which proves Proposition \[prop:1\](i). We have that for all $\Delta t \in [0,\Delta T]$, $$\begin{aligned} {\|e(t_a+\Delta t)\|} &\leq {\|e(t_a)\|} +\max\limits_{t \in [t_a, t_a+\Delta T]} {\|\dot{e}(t)\|}\Delta T \\ &\leq ({\bar{e}-\delta})+({b_0 \bar{e}^\prime +b_1})\frac{\delta}{b_0 \bar{e}+b_1} \label{eq:ebarprime2}\end{aligned}$$ from (\[eq:b0edot\]), (\[eq:ebarprime\]), the definition of $\Delta T$, and the choice of ${\|e(t_a)\|}$. From (\[eq:ebarprime\]), with some algebraic manipulations, (\[eq:ebarprime2\]) can be rewritten as $$\bar e^\prime \leq \bar e + \frac{ \delta b_0}{b_0\bar e + b_1} \left( \bar e^\prime - \bar e\right)$$ which can be simplified as $$\label{ineq1} \left(\bar e^\prime - \bar e\right) \left(1-b_0\Delta T \right) \leq 0.$$ Since $\delta < \bar x_m$, from the definition of $b_0$ and $b_1$, it can be shown that $$(1-b_0\Delta T) >0.$$ Therefore from (\[ineq1\]), it follows that $$\label{ineq2} \bar e^\prime - \bar e \leq 0.$$ From the definition of $\bar e^\prime$ in (\[eq:ebarprime\]), it follows that only the equality in (\[ineq2\]) can hold. Hence, $$\label{eq:prop1ebar} {\|e(t_a+\Delta t)\|} \leq \bar{e}, \quad \forall \Delta t \in [0,\Delta T]$$ which implies that $$\label{eq:prop1ebar2} {\|e(t)\|} \leq \bar{e}, \quad \forall t \in [t_a,t_a+\Delta T]$$ and the proof of Proposition \[prop:1\]\[prop1:i\] is complete. We note from (\[eq:b0edot\]) that $$\label{eq:prop1ii} {\|e(t)\|} \geq {\|e(t_a)\|}-({b_0 \bar{e} +b_1})\Delta T, \quad \forall t \in [t_a, t_a+\Delta T].$$ Since $\|e(t_a)\| = \bar e-\delta$, (\[eq:prop1ii\]) can be simplified as $${\|e(t)\|} \geq \bar{e}-2\delta, \quad \forall t \in [t_a, t_a+\Delta T].$$ Since $\bar{e} \geq \|x_p(t_a)\| + \bar x_m+ 2\delta$ and $\delta < \bar x_m$, it follows that $$\label{eq:xm_ebar} \bar{e}-2\delta > \bar x_m.$$ This in turn implies that $\dot{\theta}(t)$ is negative for all $t\in [t_a,t_a+\Delta T]$ with $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:prop1thetaderivative} {\theta(t_a)-\theta(t_a + \Delta t)} & \geq \gamma (\bar{e}-2\delta) (\bar{e}-2\delta- \bar{x}_m){\Delta t}\end{aligned}$$ for all $\Delta t \in [0, \Delta T]$. Defining, $$\label{eq:prop1deltaTinmax} \Delta T_B =\frac{2\theta_{max} - \varepsilon_0 + \alpha}{\gamma(\bar{e}-2\delta) ( \bar{e}-2\delta- \bar{x}_m)}$$ it follows that $z(t_b)$ enters ${\ushort{B}}$ at $t_b \in (t_a, t_a+\Delta T_B)$ if $\Delta T_B \leq \Delta T$. We now show that $z(t_c)$ enters ${\ushort{B}_L}$ at $t_c< t_a + \Delta T_B^\prime$ for some $\Delta T_B^\prime > \Delta T_B$. It can first be proven that $$\label{eq:prop1proj} {\|\operatorname{Proj}(\theta,y)\|} > c{\|y\|}, \quad \forall z \in {\ushort{B}_U}.$$ Then, from (\[eq:adaptlawupdate\]), $$\label{eq:prop1thetadot2} -\dot{\theta}(t) > \gamma c (\bar{e}-2\delta) ( \bar{e}-2\delta- \bar{x}_m), \quad \forall t \in T_{{\ushort{B}_U}}$$ where $T_{{\ushort{B}_U}}$ is defined as $$T_{{\ushort{B}_U}}: \lbrace t \; \lvert \; z(t) \in {\ushort{B}_U}\; \text{and} \; t \in [t_a,t_a+\Delta T] \rbrace.$$ Since the distance the trajectory can travel in ${\ushort{B}_L}$ is bounded by $\xi_0$, the maximum time $z(t)$ spends in ${\ushort{B}_U}$ can be derived from (\[eq:prop1thetadot2\]), and we obtain $$\label{eq:deltaTBL} \Delta T_{{\ushort{B}_L}}=\frac{(1-c)\varepsilon_0}{\displaystyle {\gamma}{c} (\bar{e}-2\delta) ( \bar{e}-2\delta- \bar{x}_m)}.$$ This implies that $z(t_c)$ enters ${\ushort{B}_L}$ at $t_c \in (t_a,t_a+\Delta T_B^\prime)$ where $$\Delta T_B^\prime=\Delta T_B + \Delta T_{{\ushort{B}_L}}$$ if $\Delta T_B^\prime \leq \Delta T$, since then (\[eq:prop1thetadot2\]) is satisfied for all $t \in (t_b,t_c]$. From the choice of $\bar e$ in (\[eq:ebars\]), we have that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:ebar1max} \bar{e} \geq \frac{1}{2} \left( \bar{c}b_0+\sqrt{\bar{c}^2 b_0^2 +4\bar{c}b_1}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Using algebraic manipulations, it can be shown that (\[eq:ebar1max\]) implies that $\Delta T_B^\prime \leq \Delta T$. This proves Proposition \[prop:1\]\[prop1:ii\]. Phase II: In the Boundary Region, $\text{\b{$B$}}_L$ {#subsec:Phase2} ---------------------------------------------------- When the trajectory enters ${\ushort{B}_L}$, the parameter is in the boundary of the projection algorithm with thickness $\xi_0$; $e(t)$ is shown to be bounded by making use of the underlying linear time-varying system in (\[eq:LTVsys\]) and (\[eq:LTV\_A\]). Let $z(t) \in {\ushort{B}_L}$ for $t\in[t_c, t_d)$. That is, $\theta(t)=-\theta_{max}+\xi(t)$ for $t\in [t_c,t_d)$ with $\xi(t)$ satisfying (\[eq:varth\_t\]) and (\[eq:varth\]). Since $(c_\eta, A_\eta, b_\eta) \in S_\eta(\bar{a},\theta_{max},\xi_0)$, from (\[eq:lyap\_negdef\]), it follows that $$\label{eq:normxbar} {\lVert\bar{x}(t)\rVert} \leq x_0, \quad \forall t \in T_{{\ushort{B}_L}}$$ where $T_{{\ushort{B}_L}}$ is defined as $$T_{{\ushort{B}_L}}: \lbrace t \; \lvert \; z(t) \in {\ushort{B}_L}\rbrace.$$ Since ${\|e(t)\|}\leq {\|x_p(t)\|}+\bar{x}_m$ for all $t \in T_{{\ushort{B}_L}}$ and $\bar{x}=[x_p \; x_\eta^T]^T$, this implies $$\label{eq:ebar2_phase2} {\|e(t)\|}\leq \bar{e}_2, \quad \forall t\in (t_c,t_d)$$ where $$\label{eq:ebar2} \bar{e}_2= x_0 + \bar{x}_m$$ which proves boundedness of $e$ in ${\ushort{B}_L}$. We have so far shown that if the trajectory begins in $A$ at $t=t_a$, it will enter the region ${\ushort{B}_L}$ at $t=t_c$, where $t_c < t_a+\Delta T$, and $\Delta T$ is finite. For $t > t_c$, there are only two possibilities either (i) $z$ stays in ${\ushort{B}_L}$ for all $t > t_c$, or (ii) $z$ reenters ${\ushort{B}_U}$ at $t=t_d$ for some $t_d > t_c$. If (i) holds, it implies that (\[eq:ebar2\_phase2\]) holds with $t_d = \infty$, proving Theorem \[thm:1\]. The following Proposition addresses case (ii): \[prop:2\] Let $z(t) \in {\ushort{B}_L}$ for $t \in [t_c, t_d)$ and $z(t_d) \in {\ushort{B}_U}$ for some $t_d > t_c$. Then $${\|e(t_d)\|} \leq \bar{x}_m$$ Since $z(t) \in {\ushort{B}_L}$ for $t \in [t_c, t_d)$ and $z(t_d) \in {\ushort{B}_U}$ for some $t_d > t_c$, from (\[eq:boundaries\_lower\]), it follows that for any $\Delta t_d \in (0, t_d-t_c]$, $$\theta(t_d-\Delta t_d) \leq -\theta_{max}+\xi_0, \quad \theta(t_d) \geq -\theta_{max}+\xi_0.$$ This implies that $\dot{\theta}(t_d) \geq 0$ which in turn implies $$\label{eq:et_d} {\|e(t_d)\|} \leq \bar{x}_m.$$ which proves Proposition \[prop:2\]. We note from (\[eq:ebar2\]) that $$\label{eq:ebar2_phase2b} \|e(t)\| \leq \bar{e}_2, \quad \forall t \in (t_c, t_d]$$ which proves boundedness of $e$ in Phase II. Phase III: In the Boundary Region, $\text{\b{$B$}}_U$ {#subsec:Phase3} ----------------------------------------------------- The boundedness of $e$ has been established thus far for all $t \in [t_a, t_d]$. For $t>t_d$, there are three cases to consider: either (i) $z$ reenters $A$ at $t=t_e$ for some $t_e > t_d$, (ii) $z$ remains in ${\ushort{B}_U}$ for all $t \geq t_d$, or (iii) $z$ reenters ${\ushort{B}_L}$ at $t_f \in (t_d,t_d+\Delta T_{{\ushort{B}_L}})$ with $\Delta T_{{\ushort{B}_L}}$ given by (\[eq:deltaTBL\]). We address case (i) in the following Proposition. \[prop:3\] Let $z(t) \in {\ushort{B}_U}$ for $t \in [t_d, t_e)$ and $z(t_e) \in A$ for some $t_e > t_d$. Then $${\|e(t)\|} < \bar{x}_m, \quad \forall t \in (t_d, t_e]$$ Since $z(t) \in {\ushort{B}_U}$ for $t \in [t_d, t_e)$ and $z(t_e) \in A$ for some $t_e > t_d$, from (\[eq:boundaries\]), it follows that for any $\Delta t_e \in (0, t_e-t_d]$, $$\theta(t_e-\Delta t_e) < -\theta_{max}^\prime, \quad \theta(t_e) \geq -\theta_{max}^\prime.$$ This implies that $\dot{\theta}(t)$ is positive, and we obtain $$\label{eq:et_dprime} {\|e(t)\|} < \bar{x}_m, \quad \forall t \in (t_d,t_e]$$ which proves Proposition \[prop:3\]. We now address case (ii) and (iii). We consider suitably chosen finite constants $\bar e_3$ and $\delta$ such that $\bar{e}_3-\delta >0$, and $$\label{eq:ebar3} \bar{e}_3 =\max \lbrace e_2, e_3 \rbrace$$ where $$\begin{aligned} e_2 &= 2\bar{x}_m+2\delta \label{eq:e2} \\ e_3 &= \frac{1}{2} \left( \bar{c}_2 b_0+\sqrt{\bar{c}_2 ^2 b_0^2 +4\bar{c}_2 b_1}\right) \label{eq:e3}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \bar{c}_2&=\dfrac{(1-c) \varepsilon_0}{\delta \gamma c}.\end{aligned}$$ From (\[eq:et\_d\]) and the definition of $\bar{e}_3$, it follows that $$\label{eq:phase3_caseii} \|e(t_d)\| < \bar{e}_3-\delta.$$ If $e(t)$ grows without bound, it implies that there exists $t_d^{\prime} >t_{c}$ such that $$\label{eq:phase3_case3} \|e(t_d^{\prime})\|=\bar{e}_3-\delta.$$ Hence, $$\label{eq:phase3_case2} \|e(t)\|<\bar{e}_3-\delta, \quad \forall t \in [t_d, t_d^{\prime}).$$ We show below that if such a $t_d^{\prime}$ exists, then $z(t)$ must enter ${\ushort{B}_L}$ at $t=t_f$, for some finite $t_f>t_d^{\prime}$. \[prop:4\] Let $z(t) \in {\ushort{B}_U}$ for all $t \in [t_d,t_f)$, and $\exists t_d^{\prime} \in (t_d,t_f)$ such that ${\|e(t_d^{\prime})\|} = \bar{e}_3-\delta$ where $\bar{e}_3$ is given in (\[eq:ebar3\]) and $\delta \in (0,\bar{x}_m)$. Then 1. ${\|e(t)\|} \leq \bar{e}_3, \quad \forall t \in [t_d^{\prime}, t_d^{\prime} + \Delta T^\prime]$ \[prop4:i\] 2. $z(t_f) \in {\ushort{B}_L}$ for some $t_f \in (t_d^{\prime},t_d^{\prime}+\Delta T^\prime)$ \[prop4:ii\] where $$\label{eq:Delta_Tp} \Delta T^\prime= \frac{\delta}{b_0 \bar{e}_3+b_1}$$ We note that Proposition (\[prop:4\]) is identical to Proposition \[prop:1\] with $t_a$ replaced by $t_d^{\prime}$, $\bar{e}$ replaced with $\bar{e}_3$, and $z(t_d^{\prime}) \in {\ushort{B}_U}$ which implies $\Delta T_B=0$. Using an identical procedure, we can prove both Proposition \[prop:4\]\[prop4:i\] and Proposition \[prop:4\]\[prop4:ii\]. We note that if case (ii) holds, it implies that (\[eq:phase3\_case2\]) holds for $t_d^{\prime}=\infty$, which implies that $e(t)$ is globally bounded. In summary, in Phase III, we conclude that if $z$ enters ${\ushort{B}_U}$ at $t=t_d$, 1. $z$ enters A at $t=t_e$ with $\|e(t)\| < \bar{x}_m$ for all $t \in [t_d, t_e]$, 2. $z$ remains in ${\ushort{B}_U}$ for $t \geq t_d$ with $\|e(t)\| < \bar{e}_3 -\delta$ for all $t \geq t_d$, or 3. $z$ enters ${\ushort{B}_L}$ at $t=t_f$ for $t_f>t_d$ with $\|e(t)\| \leq \bar{e}_3$ for all $t \in [t_d, t_f]$. Therefore, either Phases I and II, or Phases I, II, and III, can be repeated endlessly but with $\|e(t)\|$ remaining bounded throughout. This is stated in the next section. Phase IV: Return to Phase I or Phase II {#subsec:Phase4} --------------------------------------- If Proposition \[prop:3\] is satisfied, then the trajectory has exited the boundary region and entered Region $A$. Therefore, $\|e(t)\| < \bar{e}-\delta$ for all $t \geq t_e$, in which case the boundedness of $e$ is established, proving Theorem \[thm:1\], or there exists a $t_g>t_e$ such that $\|e(t_g)\|=\bar{e}-\delta$. The latter implies that the conditions of Proposition \[prop:1\] are satisfied with $t_a$ replaced by $t_g$. Therefore, Phases I through III are repeated for $t\geq t_g$. If Proposition \[prop:4\] is satisfied instead, then $z$ has reentered ${\ushort{B}_L}$, in which case Phases II and III are repeated for $t > t_f$. By combining (\[eq:ebars\]) from Phase I, (\[eq:ebar2\_phase2\]), (\[eq:ebar2\]), and (\[eq:ebar2\_phase2b\]) from Phase II, and (\[eq:et\_dprime\]) and (\[eq:ebar3\]) from Phase III, we obtain $$\|e(t)\| \leq \max \lbrace \bar{e},\bar{e}_2, \bar{e}_3 \rbrace, \quad \forall t \geq t_a$$ proving Theorem \[thm:1\]. Numerical Example {#sec:5} ================= In this section we demonstrate using the counterexample in [@Rohrs] as to how the main result in this paper can be used to obtain robust adaptive control in the presence of unmodeled dynamics. We consider the nominal first order stable plant[^6] $${x_p}(t)= \frac{2}{\left( s+1 \right)}[u(t)]$$ in the presence of highly damped second order unmodeled dynamics, described by (\[eq:Geta2ndorder\]) with $$\label{eq:zeta_omega} \zeta = 0.9912, \quad \omega_n = 15.1327$$ and a reference model $$\label{eq:rohrs2} x_m(t)=\frac{3}{\left( s+3 \right)}[r(t)].$$ The adaptive controller is chosen as in (\[eq:adaptlaw\])-(\[eq:thetamajor\]) with suitably chosen $\theta_{max}$ and $\varepsilon_0= 0.1\theta_{max}$. The control problem differs slightly from that shown in Fig. \[fig:ControlProb\] and requires gain compensation on the reference input. That is, the plant and reference model differ from (\[eq:plant\]) and (\[eq:refmod\]) such that $$\begin{aligned} \dot{x}_p(t) & = a_p x_p(t)+k_p v(t) \label{eq:plant_num} \\ \dot{x}_m(t)& = a_m x_m(t)+k_m r(t) \label{eq:refmod_num}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{eq:num_param} a_p=-1, \quad k_p=2, \quad a_m=-3, \quad k_m=3.$$ The control input is then $$\label{eq:controlin_num} u(t)=\theta(t)x_p(t)+k_r r(t)$$ where $k_r= \sfrac{k_m}{k_p}=1.5$ so as to match the closed-loop adaptive system when no unmodeled dynamics are present ($G_{\eta}(s) \equiv 1$). We now show that (\[eq:Geta2ndorder\]) with (\[eq:zeta\_omega\]) corresponds to $S_\eta(a_p,\theta_{max},\varepsilon_0)$ for suitably chosen $\theta_{max}$ and $\varepsilon_0$. When $\theta(t)=-\theta_{max}$ in (\[eq:controlin\_num\]), the closed-loop adaptive system given by (\[eq:plant\_num\]), (\[eq:refmod\_num\]), (\[eq:num\_param\]), and (\[eq:controlin\_num\]) has a transfer function from $r$ to $x_p$ of the form $$\label{eq:Gcl_2ndorder_numeric} G_c (s)= \frac{458}{s^3+31s^2+259s+229+458\theta_{max}}.$$ In addition to condition \[cond1\], the following conditions are neccessary and sufficient for the poles of $G_c(s)$ in (\[eq:Gcl\_2ndorder\_numeric\]) to lie in $\mathbb{C}^-$, which are slightly modified versions of \[cond2\] and \[cond3\] due to the presence of $k_p$ and $k_m$: 1. $\; \theta_{max} > \displaystyle \frac{a_p}{k_p}$ \[cond2\_num\_b\] 2. $\theta_{max} < \displaystyle \frac{1}{k_p} \bigg(-4a_p\zeta^2 + \frac{2\zeta a_p^2}{\omega_n} + 2\zeta\omega_n \bigg)$ \[cond3\_num\_b\] Therefore, if $\theta_{max}$ is such that $$\label{eq:ineq1_num} \displaystyle \frac{a_p}{k_p} < \theta_{max} < \frac{1}{k_p} (a_p+ \bar\theta^\star)$$ with $\bar{\theta}^*=35.06$ then conditions \[cond2\_num\_b\] and \[cond3\_num\_b\] hold. Since $a_p=-1$ and $k_p=2$, if we choose $\theta_{max} = 16.7$, (\[eq:ineq1\_num\]) is satisfied. With $\zeta$ and $\omega_n$ in (\[eq:zeta\_omega\]), \[cond1\] is satisfied as well. We now demonstrate the choice of $\varepsilon_0$. Since the closed-loop system in (\[eq:Gcl\_2ndorder\_numeric\]) is stable for $\xi_0$ satisfying \[cond:3\], a Lyapunov function is chosen as in (\[eq:lyap\]). It follows from (\[eq:lyap2PQ\]) and (\[eq:lamdamax\]) that $Q$ and $P$ are such that $\lambda_{Q_{min}} =1$ and $\lambda_{P_{max}} = 47773.6$. Since ${\lVertb_\eta\rVert} = 229$ from (\[eq:Geta2ndorder\]) and (\[eq:zeta\_omega\]), we choose $\xi_0$ using \[cond:3\] such that $$\label{eq:var_num} \xi_0 = 4.57\cdot 10^{-8}.$$ Condition \[cond:2\] implies that any $\varepsilon_0$ such that $\xi_0 < \varepsilon_0 < \theta_{max}$ suffices, with the actual value determined between the trade-off between adaptation and numerical accuracy. In the numerical simulations we report below, we chose $\varepsilon_0=0.1 \theta_{max}$. In summary, $\theta_{max}=16.7$, $\xi_0$ as in (\[eq:var\_num\]), and $\varepsilon_0=1.7$, ensures that the triple $(c_\eta,A_\eta,b_\eta)$ belongs to $S_\eta(a_p,\theta_{max}, \xi_0)$. With these choices, the adaptive controller in (\[eq:adaptlawupdate\]) and (\[eq:controlin\_num\]) guarantees globally bounded solutions for any initial conditions $x_p(0)$ and $\theta(0)$ with ${\lVert\theta(0)\rVert} \leq \theta_{max}$ for the Rohrs unmodeled dynamics in (\[eq:Geta2ndorder\]) and (\[eq:zeta\_omega\]). Simulation Studies ------------------ In this section, we carry out numerical studies of the adaptive system defined by the plant in (\[eq:plant\_num\]) in the presence of unmodeled dynamics in (\[eq:Geta2ndorder\]) and (\[eq:zeta\_omega\]) with the reference model in (\[eq:refmod\_num\]), the controller in (\[eq:controlin\_num\]), and the adaptive law in (\[eq:adaptlawupdate\]) with $\theta_{max}=16.7$ and $\varepsilon_0=1.7$. The resulting plant output, $x_p$, reference model output, $x_m$, error, $e$, and $\theta$ are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:case\_2\] for the reference input $$\label{eq:rohrs_sine2} r(t)= 0.3+1.85\sin(16.1\text{t})$$ and initial conditions $x_p(0)=0$ and $\theta(0)=-0.65$. It was observed that all of these quantities became unstable when the projection bound in (\[eq:thetamajor\]) was removed. It is interesting to note that in this case, only Phases I and II discussed in Section \[sec:4\] occurred, with Phase I lasting from $t=0$ to $t=1377.5s$ and Phase II for all $t\geq 1377.5s$. This clearly validates the main result of this paper reported in Theorem 1. \[b\]\[\]\[[0.7]{}\][Outputs]{} \[b\]\[\]\[[0.7]{}\][$e$]{} \[b\]\[\]\[[0.7]{}\][$\theta$]{} \[t\]\[\]\[[0.7]{}\][time $(s)$]{} \[l\]\[r\]\[[0.7]{}\][$\theta^\star$]{} \[\]\[r\]\[[0.7]{}\][$x_m(t)$]{} \[b\]\[br\]\[[0.7]{}\][$\, x_p(t)$]{} \[c\]\[\]\[[0.4]{}\][$\odot$]{} \[\]\[\]\[[0.4]{}\][$\bullet$]{} \[r\]\[\]\[[0.4]{}\]\[-90\][$\boldsymbol{\scriptscriptstyle{---------}}$]{} \[b\]\[l\]\[[0.7]{}\] -------------- $\text{I}_f$ -------------- \[t\]\[\]\[[0.7]{}\] \[l\]\[r\]\[[0.7]{}\][$\theta(t_f)$]{} In what follows, we carry out a more detailed study of this adaptive system, by only changing the reference input. As the numerical simulations will show, the behavior of the adaptive system, in terms of which of the four phases reported in Section \[sec:4\] occur, is directly dependent on the nature of the reference input. Four different choices of the reference input are made, and the corresponding behavior are described. 1. The error, $e$, and parameter, $\theta$, corresponding to this reference input are shown in Fig. \[fig:case\_1\]. We observe immediately that $\|e(t)\|< 1$ for all $t\geq 0$. As a result, the trajectory never enters ${\ushort{B}}$, eliminating the need for Phases II, III, or IV. Hence, no projection is required in this case. \[refin:case\_1\] 2. . That is, $$r(t) = \begin{cases} 12 &0 \leq t \leq 1s \\ 0 & t > 1s\end{cases}$$ The corresponding trajectories are shown in Fig. \[fig:case\_3\], which illustrate that Phase I occurs for $0\leq t\leq 0.9s$, and Phase II for $0.9s \leq t < 1.0s$. The trajectory exits the boundary region at $t_e= 1.0s$, demonstrating Phase III. Phase I is repeated, and the trajectory reenters ${\ushort{B}}$ at $t_b=1.3s$, demonstrating Phase IV. The trajectory then settles in ${\ushort{B}}$ for all $t\geq 1.3s$. \[refin:case\_3\] \[\]\[\]\[[0.7]{}\][$e$]{} \[\]\[\]\[0.6\][time $(s)$]{} \[t\]\[\]\[[0.7]{}\] \[l\]\[r\]\[[0.7]{}\][$\theta(t_f)$]{} \[r\]\[\]\[[0.4]{}\]\[90\][$\boldsymbol{\scriptscriptstyle{----}}$]{} \[l\]\[\]\[[0.4]{}\]\[90\][$\boldsymbol{\scriptscriptstyle{-----------}}$]{} \[r\]\[\]\[[0.4]{}\]\[90\][$\boldsymbol{\scriptscriptstyle{----}}$]{} \[tl\]\[\]\[[0.7]{}\] -------------- $\text{I}_f$ -------------- \[bl\]\[\]\[[0.7]{}\] --------------- $\text{II}_f$ --------------- \[tl\]\[\]\[[0.7]{}\] ---------------- $\text{III}_f$ ---------------- \[t\]\[b\]\[[0.5]{}\][$z(0)$]{} \[tr\]\[b\]\[[0.5]{}\][$z(t_f)$]{} \[\]\[\]\[[0.4]{}\][$\bullet$]{} \[t\]\[\]\[[0.7]{}\][$\theta$]{} \[t\]\[\]\[[0.7]{}\][$e$]{} 3. \[refin:case\_4\] Fig. \[fig:case\_4\] illustrates the corresponding limit cycle behavior of the trajectory. We observe that the trajectory first enters ${\ushort{B}}$ at $t_{b}=1.80s$. Phase II then occurs for $1.80s \leq t < 9.82s$. Phase III occurs for $t_e=9.82s$, and then Phase I is repeated with the trajectory reentering ${\ushort{B}}$ at $t_b=9.84s$. Phases I through III are repeated for all $ t \geq 9.84$, demonstrating Phase IV, a limit cycle behavior. The points at which the trajectory enters ${\ushort{B}}$ (i.e. Phase II) are shown in orange, and the points at which the trajectory exits ${\ushort{B}}$ (i.e. Phase III) are shown in purple. \[l\]\[\]\[[0.4]{}\]\[90\][$\boldsymbol{\scriptscriptstyle{---}}$]{} \[l\]\[\]\[[0.4]{}\]\[90\][$\boldsymbol{\scriptscriptstyle{--------}}$]{} \[r\]\[\]\[[0.4]{}\]\[90\][$\boldsymbol{\scriptscriptstyle{-----}}$]{} \[\]\[\]\[[0.4]{}\][$\bullet$]{} \[\]\[\]\[[0.4]{}\][$\bullet$]{} \[bl\]\[\]\[[0.7]{}\] ------------------ $\text{I}_{f_1}$ ------------------ \[bl\]\[\]\[[0.7]{}\] ------------------- $\text{II}_{f_1}$ ------------------- \[tl\]\[\]\[[0.7]{}\] -------------------- $\text{III}_{f_1}$ -------------------- \[t\]\[\]\[[0.7]{}\][$\theta$]{} \[t\]\[\]\[[0.7]{}\][$e$]{} 4. , with $\omega_0$ undergoing a continuous sweep from 16.1 rad/s to 2 rad/s over a sixty second interval. The resulting trajectories are shown in phase-plane form in Fig. \[fig:case\_5\]b, for six different initial conditions labeled 1 through 6. It is observed that the trajectory behaves differently for each initial condition. Initial conditions 1 through 3 resulted in trajectories that remained in Phase II for all $t \geq t_b$. Initial condition 4 led to a trajectory with a finite number of occurrences of Phases I through III and finally settled in Region $A$. Initial conditions 5 and 6 stayed in Region $A$ for all $t \geq 0$. All steady state values are labeled as $1f$ through $6f$. \[refin:case\_5\] \[\]\[\]\[0.6\][time $(s)$]{} \[t\]\[\]\[[0.7]{}\][$\theta$]{} \[t\]\[\]\[[0.7]{}\][$e$]{} \[\]\[\]\[[0.4]{}\][$\odot$]{} \[\]\[\]\[[0.4]{}\] \[\]\[\]\[[0.4]{}\] \[\]\[\]\[[0.4]{}\][$\odot$]{} \[bl\]\[r\]\[[0.7]{}\][$\theta^\star$]{} \[b\]\[t\]\[[0.5]{}\][$1$]{} \[b\]\[t\]\[[0.5]{}\][$2$]{} \[b\]\[t\]\[[0.5]{}\][$3$]{} \[b\]\[t\]\[[0.5]{}\][$4$]{} \[b\]\[t\]\[[0.5]{}\][$5$]{} \[b\]\[t\]\[[0.5]{}\][$6$]{} \[l\]\[r\]\[[0.5]{}\][$4f$]{} \[tl\]\[r\]\[[0.5]{}\][$5f$]{} \[l\]\[r\]\[[0.5]{}\][$6f$]{} \[l\]\[r\]\[[0.5]{}\][$1f,2f,3f$]{} \[l\]\[r\]\[[0.5]{}\] \[l\]\[r\]\[[0.5]{}\] \[\]\[\]\[0.3\][$4f$]{} \[\]\[b\]\[0.3\][$5f$]{} \[\]\[\]\[0.3\][$6f$]{} \[t\]\[\]\[0.3\][$1f,2f,3f$]{} Summary ======= In this paper, robust adaptive control of scalar plants in the presence of unmodeled dynamics is investigated. It is shown through analytic methods and simulation results that implementation of a projection algorithm in standard adaptive control law achieves global boundedness of the overall adaptive system for a class of unmodeled dynamics. The restrictions on the class of unmodeled dynamics and the projection bounds are explicitly calculated and demonstrated using the Rohrs counterexample. [^1]: H. H. Hussain and A. M. Annaswamy are with the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massaschusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139 e-mail: ([[email protected]]{}). [^2]: M. M. Matsutani is with the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massaschusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139 [^3]: E. Lavretsky is with The Boeing Company, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 [^4]: This work is supported by the Boeing Strategic University Initiative. [^5]: For ease of exposition, we suppress the argument “t” in what follows. [^6]: $s$ in what follows is a differential operator $d/dt$ and not the Laplace variable.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: '[@MR3509473] conjectured that the expectation of the length of the longest common subsequence of two i.i.d random permutations of size $n$ is greater than $\sqrt{n}$. We prove in this paper that there exists a universal constant $n_1$ such that their conjecture is satisfied for any pair of i.i.d random permutations of size greater than $n_1$ with distribution invariant under conjugation. We prove also that asymptotically, this expectation is at least of order $2\sqrt{n}$ which is the asymptotic behaviour of the uniform setting. More generally, in the case where the laws of the two permutations are not necessarily the same, we gibe a lower bound for the expectation. In particular, we prove that if one of the permutations is invariant under conjugation and with a good control of the expectation of the number of its cycles, the limiting fluctuations of the length of the longest common subsequence are of Tracy-Widom type. This result holds independently of the law of the second permutation.' author: - 'Mohamed Slim Kammoun[^1]' title: On the longest common subsequence of independent random permutations invariant under conjugation --- [*Keywords:* Random permutations, longest increasing subsequence, longest common subsequence, Tracy-Widom distribution.]{} Introduction and main results ============================= #### Let ${\mathfrak{S}_n}$ be the symmetric group, namely the group of permutations of ${\{1,\dots,n\}}$. Given $\sigma \in {\mathfrak{S}_n}$, $(\sigma(i_1),\dots,\sigma(i_k))$ is a subsequence of $\sigma$ of length $k$ if $ i_1<i_2<\dots<i_k$. We denote by $LCS(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$ the length of the longest common subsequence (LCS) of two permutations. #### In the sequel of this article, we consider two sequences of random permutations ${(\sigma_{1,n})}_{n\geq 1}$ and ${(\sigma_{2,n})}_{n\geq 1}$ with joint distribution ${\mathbb{P}}$ and associated expectation ${\mathbb{E}}$ such that $\sigma_{1,n}$ and $\sigma_{2,n}$ are independent and supported on ${\mathfrak{S}_n}$. The study of the $LCS$ of independent random permutations was initiated by [@houdre2014central]. Recently [@MR3830132] showed that for i.i.d random permutations $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb{E}}(LCS(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n}))\geq \sqrt[3]{n}.\end{aligned}$$ It is conjectured by [@MR3509473] that for i.i.d random permutations, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb{E}}(LCS(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n}))\geq \sqrt{n}.\end{aligned}$$ In this article, we obtain asymptotic bounds in the scale of $\sqrt{n}$ in the case where the law of at least one of the two permutations is invariant under conjugation. We say that the law of $\sigma_n$ is invariant under conjugation if for any $\hat \sigma \in {\mathfrak{S}_n}$, $\hat \sigma \circ\sigma_n \circ {\hat \sigma}^{-1}$ is equal in distribution to $\sigma_n$. LCS of two independent random permutations with distribution invariant under conjugation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #### {#section-2 .unnumbered} In Theorem \[thm6\], we give an asymptotic lower bound for the $LCS$ of two independent random permutations. Under a good control of the number of fixed points, we give a better bound in Proposition \[thm7\]. Finally, as an application of Proposition \[thm7\], we give an asymptotically optimal lower bound for i.i.d random permutations with distributions invariant under conjugation in Corollary \[thmp\]. \[thm6\] Assume that for any $n\geq 1$, $\sigma_{1,n}$ and $\sigma_{2,n}$ are independent and their distributions are invariant under conjugation. Then $$\begin{aligned} \liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{{\mathbb{E}}(LCS(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n}))}{\sqrt{n}}\geq 2\sqrt{\theta} \simeq 0.564,\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta$ is the unique solution of $G(2\sqrt{x})=\frac{2+x}{12}$, $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber G:= [0,2]&\to\left[0,\frac{1}{2}\right] \\x &\mapsto \int_{-1}^{1}\left(\Omega(s)- \left\|s+\frac{x}{2}\right\| - \frac{x}{2}\right)_+\mathrm{d} s, \label{e2}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \Omega(s):=\begin{cases} \frac{2}{\pi}(s\arcsin({s})+\sqrt{1-s^2}) & \text{ if } \|s\|<1 \\ \|s\| & \text{ if } \|s\|\geq 1 \end{cases}.\end{aligned}$$ The function $\Omega$ appears as the Vershik-Kerov-Lagan-Shepp limit shape. For more details, one can see Figure \[vkls\] and Lemma \[lem10\]. We will prove this result in Subsection \[pthm6\] by comparison with the uniform distribution on ${\mathfrak{S}_n}$ and the uniform distribution on the set of involutions. #### Under a good control of the number of fixed points, we obtain a better bound. \[thm7\] Let $0\leq \alpha\leq 2$. Assume that for any $n\geq 1$, $\sigma_{1,n}$ and $\sigma_{2,n}$ are independent and their distributions are invariant under conjugation. - If $$\label{cond1} \lim_{n\to\infty} \max({\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{1,n}(1)=1),{\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{2,n}(1)=1))=0,$$ then $$\begin{aligned} \label{res} \liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{{\mathbb{E}}(LCS(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n}))}{\sqrt{n}}\geq 2.\end{aligned}$$ - If $$\label{cond2} \liminf_{n\to\infty} \sqrt{n}{{\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{1,n}(1)=1){\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{2,n}(1)=1)}\geq \alpha,$$ then $$\begin{aligned} \liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{{\mathbb{E}}(LCS(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n}))}{\sqrt{n}}\geq \alpha.\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, we obtain the following result for i.i.d random permutations. \[thmp\] Assume that for any $n\geq 1$, $\sigma_{1,n}$ and $\sigma_{2,n}$ are two independent and identically distributed random permutations with distribution invariant under conjugation. Then $$\begin{aligned} \liminf_{n\to \infty}\frac{ {\mathbb{E}}(LCS(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n}))}{\sqrt{n}}\geq2.\end{aligned}$$ We conjecture that we can get rid of and ; the stability under conjugation is sufficient to obtain which is equivalent to replace $2\sqrt\theta$ by $2$ in Theorem \[thm6\]. We will prove Proposition \[thm7\] and Corollary \[thmp\] in Subsection \[pthm7\]. The idea of the proof is to study the longest increasing subsequence of $\sigma_{1,n}^{-1}\circ \sigma_{2,n}$ knowing that under a good control of the number of fixed points of the two permutations, the number of cycles of $\sigma_{1,n}^{-1}\circ \sigma_{2,n}$ is sufficiently small to compare it with the uniform distribution. LCS of two independent random permutations where one of the distributions is invariant under conjugation --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #### When $\sigma_{2,n}$ is not invariant under conjugation, we give an asymptotic lower bound of $ \frac{{\mathbb{E}}(LCS(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n}))}{\sqrt{n}}$ in Theorem \[thm8\]. Moreover, we prove in Proposition \[thm5\] that under a good control of the number of cycles of $\sigma_{1,n}$, $\lim_{n\to \infty} \frac{{\mathbb{E}}(LCS(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n}))}{\sqrt{n}}=2$ and under a stronger control, we have Tracy-Widom fluctuations for $LCS(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n})$. \[thm8\] Assume that for any $n\geq 1$, $\sigma_{1,n}$ and $\sigma_{2,n}$ are independent and the law of $\sigma_{1,n}$ is invariant under conjugation. Then $$\begin{aligned} \liminf_{n\to \infty} \frac{{\mathbb{E}}(LCS(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n}))}{\sqrt{n}}\geq G^{-1} \left({\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{{\mathbb{E}}(\#(\sigma_{1,n}))}{2n}}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\#(\sigma)$ is the number of cycles of $\sigma$ and $G$ is defined in .\ In particular, if $\lim_{n\to\infty}{\mathbb{E}}\left(\frac{\#(\sigma_{1,n})}{n}\right)=0$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \liminf_{n \to \infty} \frac{{\mathbb{E}}\left({LCS(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n})}\right)}{\sqrt{n}}\geq2.\end{aligned}$$ \[thm5\] Assume that for any $n\geq 1$, $\sigma_{1,n}$ and $\sigma_{2,n}$ are independent and the law of $\sigma_{1,n}$ is invariant under conjugation. - If $\frac{\#(\sigma_{1,n})}{\sqrt[6]{n}}\overset{\mathbb{P}}\to 0, $ then $\forall s\in\mathbb{R}$, $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \mathbb{P}\left(\frac{LCS(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n})-2\sqrt{n}}{\sqrt[6]{n}}\leq s\right)=F_2(s),$$ where $F_2$ is the cumulative distribution function of the Tracy-Widom distribution. - If $\frac{\#(\sigma_{1,n})}{\sqrt{n}}\overset{\mathbb{P}}\to 0, $ then $ \frac{LCS(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n})}{\sqrt{n}} \overset{\mathbb{P}}\to 2. $ - If $\lim_{n\to\infty}{\mathbb{E}}\left(\frac{\#(\sigma_{1,n})}{\sqrt{n}}\right)=0, $ then $\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{{\mathbb{E}}\left({LCS(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n})}\right)}{\sqrt{n}}=2. \quad $ Note that in Theorem \[thm8\] and in Proposition \[thm5\], we do not have any assumption on the distribution of $\sigma_{2,n}$. The proof in Subsection \[pthm8\] is based on a coupling argument between $\sigma_{1,n}$ and a uniform permutation. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ #### {#section-5 .unnumbered} The author would like to acknowledge many extremely useful conversations with Mylène Maïda, Adrien Hardy and Christan Houdré and their great help to improve the coherence of this paper. He would also acknowledge a useful discussion with Pierre-Loïc Méliot about Gelfand measures. This work is partially supported by the Labex CEMPI (ANR-11-LABX-0007-01). Proof of results ================ General tools ------------- #### Given $\sigma \in {\mathfrak{S}_n}$ and $1\leq i_1<i_2<\dots<i_k\leq n$, the subsequence $(\sigma(i_1),\dots,\sigma(i_k))$ is an increasing subsequence of $\sigma$ if $\sigma(i_1)<\dots<\sigma(i_k)$. We denote by $\ell(\sigma)$ the length of the longest increasing subsequence of $\sigma$.\ For example, for the permutation $$\sigma=\begin{pmatrix} 1& 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 \\ 5& 3 & 2 & 1 & 4 \end{pmatrix},$$ we have $\ell(\sigma)=2$. The study of the longest common subsequence is strongly related to the notion of longest increasing subsequence. More precisely, we have the following. \[prop\] Let $\sigma_1,\sigma_2\in{\mathfrak{S}_n}$. $$\begin{aligned} LCS(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)=\ell(\sigma_1^{-1}\circ\sigma_2)=\ell(\sigma_2^{-1}\circ\sigma_1).\end{aligned}$$ It is clear that the length of the longest common subsequence is invariant under left composition. Consequently $$\begin{aligned} LCS(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)=LCS(\sigma_1^{-1}\circ\sigma_1,\sigma_1^{-1}\circ\sigma_2)=LCS(Id_n,\sigma_1^{-1}\circ\sigma_2).\end{aligned}$$ Observe that by definition, the subsequences of $Id_n$ are the increasing subsequences which concludes the proof. We will use in the remainder of this paper the Robinson–Schensted correspondence [@RSKR; @MR0121305] or the Robinson–Schensted–Knuth correspondence [@RSKK]. We denote by $$\lambda(\sigma)=\{\lambda_i(\sigma)\}_{i\geq 1}.$$ the shape of the image of $\sigma$ by this correspondence. We will not include here detailed description of the algorithm. For further reading, we recommend [@Sagan2001 Chapter 3]. #### We denote by $$\begin{aligned} \mathfrak{I}_1(\sigma):&=\{s\subset\{1,2,\dots,n\};\; \forall i,j \in s,\; (i-j)(\sigma(i)-\sigma(j))\geq 0 \}, \\\mathfrak{I}_{k+1}(\sigma):&=\{s\cup s',\; s\in \mathfrak{I}_k,\;s'\in \mathfrak{I}_1\}.\end{aligned}$$ The link to the longest increasing subsequence is given by the following result. \[RSKLEMMA\] [@GREENE1974254] For any permutation $ \sigma\in \mathfrak{S}_n$, $$\begin{aligned} \max_{s\in \mathfrak{I}_i(\sigma)} \|s\| =\sum_{k=1}^i \lambda_k(\sigma).\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $$\ell(\sigma)=\max_{s\in \mathfrak{I}_1(\sigma)} \|s\| =\lambda_1(\sigma).$$ Let $L_{\lambda(\sigma)}$ be the height function of $\lambda(\sigma)$ rotated by $\frac{3\pi}{4}$ and extended by the function $x\mapsto \|x\|$ to obtain a function defined on $\mathbb{R}$.\ For example, if $\lambda(\sigma)=(7,5,2,1,1,\underline{0})$, then the associated function $L_{\lambda(\sigma)}$ is represented by Figure \[figL\]. \[/pgfplots/y=0.5cm, /pgfplots/x=0.5cm\] coordinates [ (0,10)(0,7)(1,7)(1,5)(2,5)(2,2)(3,2)(3,1)(5,1)(5,0)(10,0) ]{}; ; The image of the uniform permutation by the Robinson-Schensted correspondence is known as the Plancherel measure. Its typical shape was studied separately by [@LOGAN1977206] and [@MR0480398]. Stronger results have been proved by [@Vershik1985]. In 1993, Kerov studied the limiting fluctuations but did not publish his results. One can see [@10.1007/978-94-010-0524-1_3] for further details. #### To prove our results, we will use the Markov operator $T$ defined on ${\mathfrak{S}_n}$ and associated to the stochastic matrix $\left[\frac{\mathrm{1}_{A_{\sigma_1}}(\sigma_2)}{card(A_{\sigma_1})}\right]_{\sigma_1,\sigma_2 \in {\mathfrak{S}_n}}$ where $$A_\sigma = \begin{cases} \{\sigma\} & \text{if } \#(\sigma)=1\\ \{\rho \in {\mathfrak{S}_n}, \sigma^{-1}\circ\rho=(i_1,i_2)\circ(i_1,i_3)\dots\circ(i_1,i_{\#(\sigma)}) \text{ and } \#(\rho)=1 \} &\text{if } \#(\sigma)>1 \end{cases}.$$ We recall that $\#(\sigma)$ is the number of cycles of $\sigma$. $T$ is then the Markov operator mapping a permutation $\sigma$ to a permutation uniformly chosen among the permutations obtained by merging the cycles of $\sigma$ using transpositions having all a common point. Note that $A_\sigma$ is not empty since any choice of one point in each cycle gives a possible $(i_1,i_2,\dots i_{\#(\sigma)})$ and a correspondent permutation $\rho$. \[basiclem\] For any permutation $\sigma$, - Almost surely, $$\label{eq13} \|\ell(T(\sigma))-\ell(\sigma)\|\leq \#(\sigma).$$ - More generally, almost surely, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq14} \max_{i\geq 1} \left\|\sum_{k=1}^i\left( \lambda_k(\sigma)-\lambda_k\left(T(\sigma)\right)\right)\right\|\leq \#(\sigma).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, for any random permutation $\sigma_n$ invariant under conjugation on ${\mathfrak{S}_n}$, the law of $T(\sigma_n)$ is the uniform distribution on permutations with a unique cycle. Note that the uniform distribution on permutations with a unique cycle is also known as the Ewens’s distribution with parameter $0$. We denote it by $Ew(0)$. The law of $T(\sigma_n)$ is clearly invariant under conjugation. Indeed, let $\sigma,\rho\in{\mathfrak{S}_n}$. $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb{P}}(T(\sigma_n)=\sigma)&=\mathbf{1}_{\#(\sigma)=1} \sum_{\hat{\sigma}\in{\mathfrak{S}_n}}\mathbf{1}_{\sigma \in A_{\hat\sigma}} \frac{{\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_n=\hat\sigma)}{card(A_{\hat\sigma})} \\ &=\mathbf{1}_{\#(\sigma)=1} \sum_{\hat{\sigma}\in{\mathfrak{S}_n}}\mathbf{1}_{{\rho\circ\sigma\circ\rho^{-1}} \in A_{{\rho\circ\hat\sigma\circ\rho^{-1}}}} \frac{{\mathbb{P}}({\rho\circ\sigma_n\circ\rho^{-1}}={\rho\circ\hat\sigma\circ\rho^{-1}})}{card(A_{\rho\circ\hat\sigma\circ\rho^{-1}})} \\ &=\mathbf{1}_{\#(\sigma)=1} \sum_{\hat{\sigma}\in{\mathfrak{S}_n}}\mathbf{1}_{{\rho\circ\sigma\circ\rho^{-1}} \in A_{{\hat\sigma}}} \frac{{\mathbb{P}}({\rho\circ\sigma_n\circ\rho^{-1}}=\hat\sigma)}{card(A_{\hat\sigma})} \\&=\mathbf{1}_{\#({\rho\circ\sigma\circ\rho^{-1}})=1} \sum_{\hat{\sigma}\in{\mathfrak{S}_n}}\mathbf{1}_{{\rho\circ\sigma\circ\rho^{-1}} \in A_{{\hat\sigma}}} \frac{{\mathbb{P}}({\sigma_n}=\hat\sigma)}{card(A_{\hat\sigma})} \\&= {\mathbb{P}}(T(\sigma_n)=\rho\circ\sigma\circ\rho^{-1}). \end{aligned}$$ Moreover, by construction, almost surely, $\#(T(\sigma_n))=1$. Consequently, the law of $T(\sigma_n)$ is $Ew(0)$. #### Let $\sigma$ be a permutation. By definition of $\ell(\sigma)$, there exists ${i_1<i_2<\dots<i_ {\ell(\sigma)}}$ such that ${\sigma(i_1)<\dots<\sigma(i_{\ell(\sigma)})}$. Let $\rho=\sigma\circ(j_1,j_2)\circ(j_1,j_3)\dots\circ(j_1,j_{\#(\sigma)})$ be a permutation with a unique cycle and $i'_1,i'_2,\dots,i'_m$ be the same sequence as $i_1,i_2,\dots, i_{\ell(\sigma)}$ after removing $j_1$, $j_2$, …, $j_{\#(\sigma)}$ if needed. We have $\ell(\sigma)-\#(\sigma)\leq m$ and $\sigma(i'_1)<\dots<\sigma(i'_{m})$. Knowing that $\forall i\notin \{j_1,j_2,\dots ,j_{\#(\sigma)}\}$, $\rho (i)=\sigma(i)$, so that $$\rho (i'_1)<\dots<\rho (i'_{m}).$$ Therefore, $m\leq \ell(\rho)$ and $$\begin{aligned} \ell(\sigma)-\ell(\rho )\leq \#({\sigma}).\end{aligned}$$ We can obtain the reverse inequality in using the same techniques. Similarly, to prove , let $l\geq1$ and $\left\{i_1,i_2,\dots, i_{\sum_{k=1}^l \lambda_k(\sigma)}\right\}\in\mathfrak{I}_l(\sigma).$ Let $i'_1,i'_2,\dots,i'_m$ be the same sequence as $i_1,i_2,\dots, i_{\ell(\sigma)}$ after removing $j_1$, $j_2$, …$,j_{\#(\sigma)}$ if needed. We have $\left\{i'_1,i'_2,\dots, i'_{m}\right\}\in\mathfrak{I}_l(\rho) $ and we conclude as in the proof of . For more details, one can see [@kammoun2018]. We used the same techniques of proof with a different Markov operator. Here, the bound is better thanks to the use of the same point $i_1$ to merge cycles. [@kammoun2018 Theorem 1.8]\[lem10\] Assume that the distribution of $\sigma_n$ is $Ew(0)$. Then for all $\varepsilon>0$, $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{n\to \infty} \mathbb{P}\left(\sup_{s\in \mathbb{R}} \left\|\frac{1}{\sqrt{2n}}L_{\lambda(\sigma_n)}\left({s}{\sqrt{2n}}\right)-\Omega(s)\right\|<\varepsilon\right) =1,\end{aligned}$$ where we recall that $$\begin{aligned} \Omega(s):=\begin{cases} \frac{2}{\pi}(s\arcsin({s})+\sqrt{1-s^2}) & \text{ if } \|s\|<1 \\ \|s\| & \text{ if } \|s\|\geq 1 \end{cases}.\end{aligned}$$ For the remainder of this paper, we will refer to this limiting shape as the Vershik-Kerov-Logan-Shepp shape. See Figure \[vkls\][^2]. This convergence is closely related to the Wigner’s semi-circular law. For further details, one can see [@ss2; @ss1; @ss3]. ![Illustration of the Vershik-Kerov-Logan-Shepp convergence []{data-label="vkls"}](gr1.png) \[col11\] Assume that the distribution of $\sigma_n$ is $Ew(0)$. Then for any $0\leq\gamma\leq2$, for any $\varepsilon>0$, $$\label{gamma} {\mathbb{P}}\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}(\lambda_i(\sigma_n)-\gamma\sqrt{n})_{+}}{n}> 2 G(\gamma)-\varepsilon \right) \to 1.$$ This is a direct application of Lemma \[lem10\]. One can see that $\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}(\lambda_i(\sigma)-\gamma\sqrt{n})_{+}}{2n}$ is the area of the region delimited by the curves of the functions $x\mapsto \|x\|$, $x \mapsto\gamma+x$ and $x\mapsto\frac{ L_{\lambda(\sigma)}(x\sqrt{2n})}{\sqrt{2n}}$, see Figure \[figL2figure\]. By construction, this area is equal to $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\left(\frac{ L_{\lambda(\sigma)}(s\sqrt{2n})}{\sqrt{2n}}- \left\|s+\frac{\gamma}{2}\right\| - \frac{\gamma}{2}\right)_+\mathrm{d} s.$$ By Lemma \[lem10\], $$\begin{aligned} \int_{-1}^{1}\left(\frac{ L_{\lambda(\sigma)}(s\sqrt{2n})}{\sqrt{2n}}- \left\|s+\frac{\gamma}{2}\right\| - \frac{\gamma}{2}\right)_+\mathrm{d} s\overset{{\mathbb{P}}}{\to}G(\gamma).\end{aligned}$$ We can conclude then that $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}(\lambda_i(\sigma)-\gamma\sqrt{n})_{+}}{n}&=2 \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\left(\frac{ L_{\lambda(\sigma)}(s\sqrt{2n})}{\sqrt{2n}}- \left\|s+\frac{\gamma}{2}\right\| - \frac{\gamma}{2}\right)_+\mathrm{d} s \\& \geq 2 \int_{-1}^{1}\left(\frac{ L_{\lambda(\sigma)}(s\sqrt{2n})}{\sqrt{2n}}- \left\|s+\frac{\gamma}{2}\right\| - \frac{\gamma}{2}\right)_+\mathrm{d} s \\ & \overset{\mathbb{P}}{\to}2 G(\gamma).\end{aligned}$$ This yields . \[/pgfplots/y=0.6cm, /pgfplots/x=0.6cm\] coordinates [ (0,10)(0,7)(1,7)(1,5)(2,5)(2,2)(3,2)(3,1)(5,1)(5,0)(10,0) ]{}; (0,4) rectangle (2,5); (0,4) rectangle (1,7); ; coordinates [ (-5.65,0)(0,5.65) ]{}; coordinates [ (0,0)(-8,8) ]{}; (premier) at (0.3,5.65) [1]{}; (second) at (0.5,2.82) [0.5]{}; (secondz) at (0.7,1.41) [0.25]{}; (secondez) at (0.7,4.24) [0.75]{}; Note that it is not difficult to prove that $$\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}(\lambda_i(\sigma_n)-\gamma\sqrt{n})_{+}}{n}\overset{{\mathbb{P}}}\to 2 G(\gamma).$$ We skip the proof here as we only need in the sequel. \[col13\] For any permutation $\sigma$, for any $\alpha \geq 0$, almost surely, $$\begin{aligned} \left\|{\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}(\lambda_i(\sigma)-\alpha\sqrt{n})_{+}} - {\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}(\lambda_i(T(\sigma))-\alpha\sqrt{n})_{+}}\right\| \leq {\#(\sigma)}.\end{aligned}$$ We prove first that $$\begin{aligned} {\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}(\lambda_i(\sigma)-\alpha\sqrt{n})_{+}} - {\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}(\lambda_i(T(\sigma))-\alpha\sqrt{n})_{+}} \leq {\#(\sigma)}.\end{aligned}$$ If $\lambda_1(\sigma)\leq\alpha\sqrt{n}$, the inequality is trivial as the right hand side is non-negative and the left hand side is non-positive. Otherwise, let $k:= \max \{j\geq1, \lambda_j(\sigma)> \alpha\sqrt{n}\}.$ We have $$\begin{aligned} {\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}(\lambda_i(\sigma)-\alpha\sqrt{n})_{+}} &= {\sum_{i=1}^k(\lambda_i(\sigma)-\alpha\sqrt{n})_{+}} +{\sum_{i=k+1}^{\infty}(\lambda_i(\sigma_n)-\alpha\sqrt{n})_{+}} \\&=\sum_{i=1}^k {(\lambda_i(\sigma)-\alpha\sqrt{n})},\end{aligned}$$ and$$\begin{aligned} {\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}(\lambda_i(T(\sigma))-\alpha\sqrt{n})_{+}} &\geq {\sum_{i=1}^{k}(\lambda_i(T(\sigma))-\alpha\sqrt{n})_{+}} \geq \sum_{i=1}^k{( \lambda_i(T(\sigma))-\alpha\sqrt{n})}.\end{aligned}$$ Using , we obtain $$\begin{aligned} {\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}(\lambda_i(\sigma)-\alpha\sqrt{n})_{+}} - {\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}(\lambda_i(T(\sigma))-\alpha\sqrt{n})_{+}} &\leq \sum_{i=1}^k{ \lambda_i(\sigma)-\lambda_i(T(\sigma))} \\&\leq {\#(\sigma)}.\end{aligned}$$ The reverse inequality is obtained by exchanging the role of $\sigma$ and $T(\sigma)$. \[col14\] For any $\alpha<2$, there exist $\beta>0$ and $n_\alpha>0$ such that for any $n>n_\alpha$, for any random permutation $\sigma_n$ invariant under conjugation satisfying $\mathbb{E}(\#\sigma_n)<n\beta$, we have $${\mathbb{E}}(\ell(\sigma_n))\geq \alpha\sqrt{n}.$$ This is a direct application of Corollary \[col11\] and Corollary \[col13\]. Let $\alpha<\gamma<2$, $\varepsilon>0$ and $\beta>0$ such that $1-\frac{\beta}{G(\gamma)} - \varepsilon > \frac{\alpha}{\gamma}$. By Corollary \[col11\], we obtain the existence of $n_\alpha$ such that for any $n>n_\alpha$, $${\mathbb{P}}\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}(\lambda_i(T(\sigma_n))-\gamma\sqrt{n})_{+}}{n}> G(\gamma) \right) > 1-\varepsilon.$$ Since $\{\ell(\sigma)>k\}$ is equivalent to $\{\sum_{i=1}^\infty (\lambda_i(\sigma)-k)_{+} >0\} $ and by Markov inequality, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb{E}}(\ell(\sigma_n))&\geq \gamma\sqrt{n} {\mathbb{P}}(\ell(\sigma_n)\geq\gamma\sqrt{n}) \\& \geq \gamma\sqrt{n} {\mathbb{P}}\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}(\lambda_i(T(\sigma_n))-\gamma\sqrt{n})_{+}}{n}> G(\gamma) , \frac{\#(\sigma_n)}{n}<G(\gamma) \right) \\& \geq \gamma\sqrt{n} \left(1-\frac{\beta}{G(\gamma)}-\varepsilon\right) \\&\geq \alpha\sqrt{n}.\end{aligned}$$ \[lem21\] Let $\sigma \in {\mathfrak{S}_n}$ and $\rho \in A_\sigma$, then $$\begin{aligned} \ell(\sigma)\geq \sup\left\{k\in \mathbb{N},\sum_{i=1}^\infty (\lambda_i(\rho)-k)_{+} \geq \#(\sigma)\right\}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \ell(\rho)\geq \sup\left\{k\in \mathbb{N},\sum_{i=1}^\infty (\lambda_i(\sigma)-k)_{+} \geq \#(\sigma)\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ By the equivalence between $\{\ell(\sigma)>k\}$ and $\{\sum_{i=1}^\infty (\lambda_i(\sigma)-k)_{+} >0 \}$, this a direct application of Corollary \[col13\]. Proof of Proposition \[thm7\] and Corollary \[thmp\] {#pthm7} ---------------------------------------------------- #### To prove Proposition \[thm7\] and Corollary \[thmp\], we distinguish two cases. For the first case, we suppose that the number of fixed points is large enough. We use the fact that for a given permutation, the length of the longest increasing subsequence is bigger than the number of fixed points. For the second case, when the number of fixed points is controlled, we prove in Lemma \[lem15\] that the number of cycles of $(\sigma_{1,n})^{-1}\circ{\sigma_{2,n}}$ is sufficiently controlled to use Corollary \[col14\]. In both cases, we can conclude by Proposition \[prop\]. \[lem15\] For any $ k\geq 2$, there exists $C, C'>0$ such that for any $n\geq 1$, for any independent random permutations $\sigma_{1,n}$ and $\sigma_{2,n}$ with distributions invariant under conjugation, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb{P}}\left(c_1\left((\sigma_{1,n})^{-1}\circ{\sigma_{2,n}}\right)=k\right) \leq \frac{C}{n}+ C' ({\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{1,n}(1)=1)+{\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{2,n}(1)=1)),\end{aligned}$$ where $c_m(\sigma)$ is the length of the cycle of $\sigma$ containing $m$. To prove this result, we will introduce some new objects. To a couple of permutations, we will associate a couple of graphs.\ We denote by $\mathbb{G}^n_k$ the set of oriented simple graphs with vertices $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$ and having exactly $k$ edges.\ For example, $\mathbb{G}^2_1= \left\{\begin {tikzpicture}[-latex ,auto ,node distance =1 cm and 1.5cm ,on grid , semithick , state/.style ={ circle ,top color =white , bottom color = processblue!20 , draw,processblue , text=blue , minimum width =0.1 cm}] \node[state] (C) {$1$}; \node[state] (D) [right =of C] {$2$}; \path (C) edge [bend left =25] (D); \end{tikzpicture}, \begin {tikzpicture}[-latex ,auto ,node distance =1 cm and 1.5cm ,on grid , semithick , state/.style ={ circle ,top color =white , bottom color = processblue!20 , draw,processblue , text=blue , minimum width =0.1 cm}] \node[state] (C) {$2$}; \node[state] (D) [right =of C] {$1$}; \path (C) edge [bend left =25] (D); \end{tikzpicture}, \begin {tikzpicture}[-latex ,auto ,node distance =1 cm and 1.5cm ,on grid , semithick , state/.style ={ circle ,top color =white , bottom color = processblue!20 , draw,processblue , text=blue , minimum width =0.1 cm}] \node[state] (C) {$1$}; \node[state] (D) [below =of C] {$2$}; \path (C) edge [loop above] (C); \end{tikzpicture}, \begin {tikzpicture}[-latex ,auto ,node distance =1 cm and 1.5cm ,on grid , semithick , state/.style ={ circle ,top color =white , bottom color = processblue!20 , draw,processblue , text=blue , minimum width =0.1 cm}] \node[state] (C) {$2$}; \node[state] (D) [below =of C] {$1$}; \path (C) edge [loop above] (C); \end{tikzpicture} \right\}$ .\ Given $g\in\mathbb{G}^n_k$, we denote by $E_g$ the set of its edges and by $A_g:=[\mathbbm{1}_{(i,j)\in E_g}]_{1\leq i,j\leq n}$ its adjacency matrix. A connected component of $g$ is called trivial if it does not have any edge and a vertex $i$ of $g$ is called isolated if $E_g$ does not contain any edge of the form $(i,j)$ or $(j,i)$. We say that two oriented simple graphs $g_1$ and $g_2$ are isomorphic if one can obtain $g_2$ by changing the labels of the vertices of $g_1$. In particular, if $g_1,g_2\in\mathbb{G}^n_k$ then $g_1,g_2$ are isomorphic if and only if there exists a permutation matrix $\sigma$ such that $A_{g_1}\sigma=\sigma A_{g_2}$. Let $g\in\mathbb{G}^n_k $, we denote by $\tilde{g}$ the graph obtained from $g$ after removing isolated vertices. Let $\mathcal{R}$ be the equivalence relation such that $g_1\mathcal{R} g_2$ if $\tilde{g}_1$ and $\tilde{g}_2$ are isomorphic. We denote by $\hat{\mathbb{G}}_k:={{\raisebox{.2em}{$\cup_{n\geq1} \mathbb{G}_k^n$}\left/\raisebox{-.2em}{$\mathcal{R}$}\right.}} $ the set of equivalence classes of $\cup_{n\geq1} \mathbb{G}_k^n$ for the relation $\mathcal{R}$.\ For example, $\begin {tikzpicture}[-latex ,auto ,node distance =1 cm and 1.5cm ,on grid , semithick , state/.style ={ circle ,top color =white , bottom color = processblue!20 , draw,processblue , text=blue , minimum width =0.1 cm}] \node[state] (C) {$2$}; \node[state] (D) [below =of C] {$1$}; \path (C) edge [loop above] (C); \end{tikzpicture} \ \mathcal{R} \ \begin {tikzpicture}[-latex ,auto ,node distance =1 cm and 1.5cm ,on grid , semithick , state/.style ={ circle ,top color =white , bottom color = processblue!20 , draw,processblue , text=blue , minimum width =0.1 cm}] \node[state] (C) {$1$}; \path (C) edge [loop above] (C); \end{tikzpicture}$ and $\hat{\mathbb{G}}_1 = \left\{\begin {tikzpicture}[-latex ,auto ,node distance =1 cm and 1.5cm ,on grid , semithick , state/.style ={ circle ,top color =white , bottom color = processblue!20 , draw,processblue , text=blue , minimum width =0.1 cm}] \node[state] (C) {$\ $}; \node[state] (D) [right =of C] {$\ $}; \path (C) edge [bend left =25] (D); \end{tikzpicture}, \begin {tikzpicture}[-latex ,auto ,node distance =1 cm and 1.5cm ,on grid , semithick , state/.style ={ circle ,top color =white , bottom color = processblue!20 , draw,processblue , text=blue , minimum width =0.1 cm}] \node[state] (C) {$\ $}; \path (C) edge [loop above] (C); \end{tikzpicture} \right\}$.\ Let $n$ be a positive integer and $\sigma_1,\sigma_2\in{\mathfrak{S}_n}$. Let $k_m:=c_m(\sigma_{1}^{-1}\circ\sigma_{2})$, $(i^m_1=m,i^m_2,\dots,i^m_{k_m})$ be the cycle of $\sigma_{1}^{-1}\circ\sigma_{2}$ containing $m$ and $j_l^m:=\sigma_{2}(i^m_l)$. In particular, $i_1^m,i_2^m,\dots,i_{k_m}^m$ are pairwise distinct and $j_1^m,j_2^m,\dots,j_{k_m}^m$ are pairwise distinct. We denote by $\mathcal{G}_1^m (\sigma_1,\sigma_2) \in \mathbb{G}_{k_m}^n$ the graph such that $E_{\mathcal{G}_1^m (\sigma_1,\sigma_2)}=\{(i^m_1,j^m_{k_m})\} \bigcup \left(\bigcup_{l=1}^{k_m-1}{\{(i^m_{l+1},j^m_l)\}}\right) $. We denote also by $\mathcal{G}_2^m(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)\in \mathbb{G}_{k_m}^n$ the graph such that $E_{\mathcal{G}_2^m (\sigma_1,\sigma_2)}=\cup_{l=1}^{k_m}{\{(i^m_l,j^m_{l})\}}$. In particular, $\mathcal{G}_1^m(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$ and $\mathcal{G}_2^m(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$ have the same set of non-isolated vertices. For $i\in\{1,2\}$, let $\hat{\mathcal{G}}^m_i(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$ be the equivalence class of $\mathcal{G}^m_i(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$.\ For example, if $$\sigma_{1}=\begin{pmatrix} 1& 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 \\ 5& 3 & 2 & 1 & 4 \end{pmatrix} \quad \text{and} \quad \sigma_{2}=\begin{pmatrix} 1& 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 \\ 2& 3 & 5 & 1 & 4 \end{pmatrix},$$ we obtain $E_{\mathcal{G}_1^1 (\sigma_1,\sigma_2)}=\{(1,5),(3,2)\}$, $E_{\mathcal{G}_2^1 (\sigma_1,\sigma_2)}=\{(1,2),(3,5)\}$, \(C) [$3$]{}; (A) \[above right=of C\] [$5$]{}; (B) \[above =of C\] [$1$]{}; (E) \[below =of C\] [$4$]{}; (D) \[right =of C\] [$2$]{}; (B) edge \[bend left =25\] (A); (C) edge \[bend left =25\] (D); at (-1.5,0) [$\mathcal{G}^1_1(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)=$]{}; \(C) [$3$]{}; (A) \[above right=of C\] [$2$]{}; (B) \[above =of C\] [$1$]{}; (E) \[below =of C\] [$4$]{}; (D) \[right =of C\] [$5$]{}; (B) edge \[bend left =25\] (A); (C) edge \[bend left =25\] (D); at (-1.7,0) [, $\mathcal{G}^1_2(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)=$]{}; at (+2.2,0) [ and]{}; \(C) ; (A) \[above right=of C\] ; (B) \[above =of C\] ; (D) \[right =of C\] ; (B) edge \[bend left =25\] (A); (C) edge \[bend left =25\] (D); at (-2.3,0.5) [$\hat{\mathcal{G}}^1_1(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)=\hat{\mathcal{G}}^1_2(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)=$]{};at (2,0.5) [.]{}; \ Finally, given $g\in\mathbb{G}^n_k$, we denote by $$\mathfrak{S}_{n,g}:=\{\sigma\in {\mathfrak{S}_n}; \forall (i,j)\in E_g, \sigma(i)=j \}.$$ It is not difficult to prove the two following lemmas. \[lem20\] If ${m_1}\in \{i^{m_2}_l, 1\leq l\leq k_{m_2}\}$, then $\mathcal{G}^{m_1}_1(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)=\mathcal{G}^{m_2}_1(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$ and $\mathcal{G}^{m_1}_2(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)=\mathcal{G}^{m_2}_2(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$. If ${m_1}\in \{i^{m_2}_l, 1\leq l\leq k_{m_2}\}$, then there exists $1\leq l \leq k_{m_1} $ such that $(\sigma^{-1}_{1}\circ\sigma_{2})^l(m_1)=m_2$. Consequently, $k_{m_1}=k_{m_2}$, $ (i^{m_2}_1,i^{m_2}_2,\dots, i^{m_2}_{k_{m_2}})=(i^{m_1}_l,i^{m_1}_{l+1},\dots, i^{m_1}_{k_{m_1}},i^{m_1}_{{1}},\dots,i^{m_1}_{{l-1}})$ and $ (j^{m_2}_1,j^{m_2}_2,\dots, j^{m_2}_{k_{m_2}})=(j^{m_1}_l,j^{m_1}_{l+1},\dots, j^{m_1}_{k_{m_1}},j^{m_1}_{{1}},\dots,j^{m_1}_{{l-1}})$ and we can check easily that $\mathcal{G}^{m_1}_1(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)=\mathcal{G}^{m_2}_1(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$ and $\mathcal{G}^{m_1}_2(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)=\mathcal{G}^{m_2}_2(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$. \[lemma15\] Let $g_1, g_2 \in \mathbb{G}^n_k$. Assume that there exists $\rho \in {\mathfrak{S}_n}$ such that $A_{g_2}\rho=\rho A_{g_1}$. If $\rho$ has a fixed point on any non-trivial connected component of $g_1$, then $\mathfrak{S}_{n,g_1}\cap\mathfrak{S}_{n,g_2}=\emptyset $ or $A_{g_1}=A_{g_2}$. Let $\rho \in {\mathfrak{S}_n}$ be a permutation having a fixed point on any non-trivial connected component of $g_1$ such that $A_{g_2}\rho=\rho A_{g_1}$. Assume that $A_{g_1} \neq A_{g_2}$. There exists necessarily $(i,j)\in E_{g_1}$ such that $\rho(i)=i$ and $\rho(j)\neq j$ or $\rho(j)=j$ and $\rho(i)\neq i$ . In the first case, $\mathfrak{S}_{n,g_1}\cap\mathfrak{S}_{n,g_2}\subset\{\sigma\in {\mathfrak{S}_n}; \sigma(i)=j, \sigma(i)=\rho(j) \}=\emptyset$. In the second case, $\mathfrak{S}_{n,g_1}\cap\mathfrak{S}_{n,g_2}\subset\{\sigma\in {\mathfrak{S}_n}; \sigma(i)=j, \sigma(\rho(i))=j \}=\emptyset$. The following result is immediate. For any graph $g\in \mathbb{G}^n_k$ having $p$ non-trivial connected components and $v$ non-isolated vertices, for any random permutation $\sigma_n$ with distribution invariant under conjugation on ${\mathfrak{S}_n}$, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_n\in\mathfrak{S}_{n,g}) \leq \frac{1}{{{n-p}\choose{v-p}}(v-p)!}.\end{aligned}$$ If there exist $i,j,l$, with $j\neq l $ such that $\{(i,j)\cup(i,l)\} \subset E_g$ or $\{(j,i)\cup(l,i)\} \subset E_g$ then $\mathfrak{S}_{n,g} =\emptyset$. Therefore, if $\mathfrak{S}_{n,g} \neq \emptyset$, then non-trivial connected components of $g$ having $w$ vertices are either cycles of length $w$ or isomorphic to $\overline{g}_w$, where $ A_{\overline{g}_w}=[\mathbbm{1}_{j=i+1}]_{1\leq i,j\leq w}.$\ For example, $\overline{g}_5=\begin {tikzpicture}[-latex ,auto ,node distance =1 cm and 1.5cm ,on grid , semithick , state/.style ={ circle ,top color =white , bottom color = processblue!20 , draw,processblue , text=blue , minimum width =0.1 cm}] \node[state] (A) {$1$}; \node[state] (B) [right =of A] {$2$}; \node[state] (C) [right =of B] {$3$}; \node[state] (D) [right =of C] {$4$}; \node[state] (E) [right =of D] {$5$}; \path (A) edge [bend left =25] (B); \path (B) edge [bend left =25] (C); \path (D) edge [bend left =25] (E); \path (C) edge [bend left =25] (D); \end{tikzpicture}$. Let $g\in \mathbb{G}^n_k$ such that $\mathfrak{S}_{n,g} \neq \emptyset$. Fix $p$ vertices $x_1,x_2,\dots,x_p$ each belonging to a different non-trivial connected components of $g$. Let $\{x_1,x_2,\dots x_p,\dots,x_v\}$ be the set of non-isolated vertices of $g$. Let $$F= \{(y_i)_{p+1\leq i \leq n}; y_i \in \{1,2,\dots,n\}\setminus\{x_1,\dots x_p\} \text{ pairwise distinct}\}.$$ Given $y=(y_i)_{p+1\leq i \leq n}\in F$, we denote by $g_y \in \mathbb{G}^n_k$ the graph isomorphic to $g$ obtained by fixing the labels of $ x_1,x_2,\dots,x_p$ and by changing the labels of $x_i$ by $y_i$ for $p+1\leq i\leq v$. Since non trivial connected components of $g$ of length $w$ are either cycles or isomorphic to $\bar{g}_w$, if $y \neq y' \in F$, then $g_y\neq g_{y'}$ and by Lemma \[lemma15\], $\mathfrak{S}_{n,g_{y}}\cap\mathfrak{S}_{n,g_{y'}}=\emptyset$. Since $\sigma_n$ is invariant under conjugation, we have $ {\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_n\in\mathfrak{S}_{n,g_{y}})= {\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_n\in\mathfrak{S}_{n,g_{y'}})= {\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_n\in\mathfrak{S}_{n,g}).$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_n\in\mathfrak{S}_{n,g})=\frac{\sum_{y\in F}{\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_n\in\mathfrak{S}_{n,g_{y}})}{card{(F)}}=\frac{{\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_n\in\cup_{y\in F}\mathfrak{S}_{n,g_{y}})}{card(F)}\leq \frac{1}{card(F)}= \frac{1}{{{n-p}\choose{v-p}}(v-p)!}.\end{aligned}$$ We will now prove Lemma \[lem15\]. Note that $\hat{\mathbb{G}}_k$ is finite. Therefore, it is sufficient to prove that for any $\hat{g}_1,\hat{g}_2 \in \hat{\mathbb{G}}_k$ having the same number of vertices, there exist two constants $C_{\hat{g}_1,\hat{g}_2}$ and $C'_{\hat{g}_1,\hat{g}_2}$ such that for any integer $n$, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb{P}}((\hat{\mathcal{G}}^1_1(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n}),\hat{\mathcal{G}}^1_2(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n}))=(\hat{g}_1,\hat{g}_2)))\leq \frac{C_{\hat{g}_1,\hat{g}_2}}{n}+ C'_{\hat{g}_1,\hat{g}_2}({\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{1,n}(1)=1)+{\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{2,n}(1)=1)).\end{aligned}$$ Let $\hat{g}_1,\hat{g}_2 \in \hat{\mathbb{G}}_k$ be two unlabeled graphs having respectively $p_1$ and $p_2$ connected component and $v\leq 2k$ vertices. Let $B^n_{\hat{g}_1,\hat{g}_2}$ be the set of couples $({g}_1,{g}_2) \in (\mathbb{G}^n_k)^2$ having the same non-isolated vertices such that $1$ is a non-isolated vertex of both graphs and, for $i \in \{1,2\}$, the equivalence class of $g_i$ is $\hat{g}_i$. - Suppose that $\hat{g}_1$ and $\hat{g}_2$ do not contain any loop i.e no edges of type $(i,i)$. Then $p_1\leq \frac{v}{2}$ and $p_2\leq \frac{v}{2}$. Consequently, $$\begin{aligned} &{\mathbb{P}}((\hat{\mathcal{G}}^1_1(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n}),\hat{\mathcal{G}}^1_2(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n}))=(\hat{g}_1,\hat{g}_2))) \\=& \sum_{(g_1,g_2)\in B^n_{\hat{g}_1,\hat{g}_2}} {\mathbb{P}}((\mathcal{G}^1_1(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n}),\mathcal{G}^1_2(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n}))=(g_1,g_2)) \\\leq& \sum_{(g_1,g_2)\in B^n_{\hat{g}_1,\hat{g}_2}} {\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{1,n}\in \mathfrak{S}_{n,g_1}, \sigma_{2,n}\in \mathfrak{S}_{n,g_2}) \\=& \sum_{(g_1,g_2)\in B^n_{\hat{g}_1,\hat{g}_2}} {\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{1,n}\in \mathfrak{S}_{n,g_1}) {\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{2,n}\in \mathfrak{S}_{n,g_2}) \\\leq& \sum_{(g_1,g_2)\in B^n_{\hat{g}_1,\hat{g}_2}} \frac{1}{{{n-p_1}\choose{v-p_1}}(v-p_1)!} \frac{1}{{{n-p_2}\choose{v-p_2}}(v-p_2)!} \\=& \frac{card(B^n_{\hat{g}_1,\hat{g}_2})}{{{n-p_1}\choose{v-p_1}}(v-p_1)!{{n-p_2}\choose{v-p_2}}(v-p_2)!} \\ \leq& \frac{{{n-1}\choose{v-1}} {v!}^2 }{{{n-p_1}\choose{v-p_1}}(v-p_1)!{{n-p_2}\choose{v-p_2}}(v-p_2)!} \\\leq & C_{g_1,g_2}n^{v-1-(v-p_1+v-p_2)} = C_{g_1,g_2}n^{p_1+p_2-v-1} \leq \frac{C_{g_1,g_2}}{n}.\end{aligned}$$ - Suppose that $\hat{g}_1$ contains a loop. By Lemma \[lem20\], if $\hat{\mathcal{G}}^m_1(\sigma_{1},\sigma_{2})=\hat{g}_1$, then there exists $j$ a fixed point of $\sigma_1$ such that $k_j=k$ and $j\in \{i^{m}_l, 1\leq l\leq k\}$. Thus, almost surely, $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{i=1}^n \mathbf{1}_{\hat{\mathcal{G}}^i_1(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n})=\hat{g}_1} &\leq k\ card(\{i \in fix(\sigma_{1,n}); k_{i}=k\})\leq k \ card(fix(\sigma_{1,n})),\end{aligned}$$ where $fix(\sigma)$ is the set of fixed points of $\sigma$. Consequently, since $\sigma_{1,n}$ is invariant under conjugation, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb{P}}\left(\left(\hat{\mathcal{G}}^1_1(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n}),\hat{\mathcal{G}}^1_2(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n})\right)=(\hat{g}_1,\hat{g}_2)\right) &\leq {\mathbb{P}}\left(\hat{\mathcal{G}}^1_1(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n})=\hat{g}_1\right)\\&= \frac{\sum_{i=1}^n {\mathbb{P}}\left({\hat{\mathcal{G}}^i_1(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n})=\hat{g}_1}\right)}{n} \\&\leq k\frac{{\mathbb{E}}(card(fix(\sigma_{1,n})))}{n}\\&=k{\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{1,n}(1)=1).\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, if $\hat{g}_2$ contains a loop, then $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb{P}}\left(\left(\hat{\mathcal{G}}^1_1(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n}),\hat{\mathcal{G}}^1_2(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n})\right)=(\hat{g}_1,\hat{g}_2)\right)\leq k{\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{2,n}(1)=1).\end{aligned}$$ We will now prove Proposition \[thm7\]. Under the condition of Proposition \[thm7\], - Assume that $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} \sqrt{n}{{\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{1,n}(1)=1){\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{2,n}(1)=1)}\geq \alpha.$$ In this case, $$\begin{aligned} \liminf_{n\to \infty} \frac{{\mathbb{E}}(LCS(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n}))}{\sqrt{n}}&\geq \liminf_{n\to \infty}\frac{ {\mathbb{E}}(card(fix(\sigma_{1,n}\circ\sigma_{2,n}^{-1})))}{\sqrt{n}} \\&\geq \liminf_{n\to \infty} \sqrt{n}{{\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{1,n}(1)=1){\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{2,n}(1)=1)}\\&\geq \alpha.\end{aligned}$$ - Assume that $$\label{H1} \lim_{n\to\infty} \max({\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{1,n}(1)=1),{\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{2,n}(1)=1))=0.$$ #### In this case, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb{P}}\left( \sigma^{-1}_{1,n}\circ\sigma_{2,n}(1)=1\right)&=\sum_{i=1}^n \mathbb{P}(\sigma_{1,n}(1)=i)\mathbb{P}(\sigma_{2,n}(1)=i)\\&= {\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{1,n}(1)=1){\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{2,n}(1)=1)\\&+\frac{(1-{\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{1,n}(1)=1))(1-{\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{2,n}(1)=1))}{n-1} \\&=o(1).\end{aligned}$$ For any random permutation $\sigma_n\in {\mathfrak{S}_n}$ invariant under conjugation, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb{E}}(\#(\sigma_n))={\mathbb{E}}\left(\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{c_i(\sigma_n)}\right)=\sum_{i=1}^n {\mathbb{E}}\left(\frac{1}{c_i(\sigma_n)}\right)=n{\mathbb{E}}\left(\frac{1}{c_1(\sigma_n)}\right),\end{aligned}$$ and for $n_\beta:=\floor{\frac{1}{\beta}}+1$, with the same $\beta$ as in Corollary \[col14\], $$\begin{aligned} \frac{{\mathbb{E}}(\#(\sigma_n))}{n}&= \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k}{\mathbb{P}}(c_1(\sigma_n)=k) \\&\leq {\mathbb{P}}(c_1(\sigma_n)=1) +\sum_{k=2}^{n_\beta} {\mathbb{P}}(c_1(\sigma_n)=k) + \frac{1}{n_\beta+1} \sum_{k=n_\beta+1}^{\infty} {\mathbb{P}}(c_1(\sigma_n)=k) \\ &\leq {\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_n(1)=1)+ \sum_{k=2}^{n_\beta} {\mathbb{P}}(c_1(\sigma_n)=k) + \frac{1}{n_\beta+1}.\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, under , by Lemma \[lem15\], we have $$\begin{aligned} \frac{{\mathbb{E}}(\#(\sigma_{1,n}\circ\sigma_{2,n}^{-1}))}{n} & \leq \frac{1}{n_\beta+1}+o(1)< \beta+o(1).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we obtain Proposition \[thm7\] thanks to Corollary \[col14\]. This is a direct application of Proposition \[thm7\]. In fact, if $${\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{1,n}(1)=1) \geq \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt[4]{n}},$$ then $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} \sqrt{n}{{\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{1,n}(1)=1){\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{2,n}(1)=1)}\geq 2.$$ Otherwise, $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \max({\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{1,n}(1)=1),{\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_{2,n}(1)=1))=0.$$ Proof of Theorem \[thm6\] {#pthm6} ------------------------- #### By observing that if $\sigma_{1,n}$ and $\sigma_{2,n}$ are independent random permutations with distribution invariant under conjugation then $\sigma_{1,n}^{-1}\circ\sigma_{2,n}$ is invariant under conjugation, proving Theorem \[thm6\] is equivalent to prove the following. \[thm20\] For any sequence of random permutations $\{\sigma_n\}_{n\geq1}$ invariant under conjugation, $$\begin{aligned} \liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{{\mathbb{E}}(\ell(\sigma_n))}{\sqrt{n}}\geq 2\sqrt{\theta}.\end{aligned}$$ The argument will be by comparison with the uniform measure on ${\mathfrak{S}_n}$ and the uniform measure on the set of involutions. We will use the uniform permutation on ${\mathfrak{S}_n}$ if we have a few number of cycles. Otherwise, we will use the uniform measure on the set of involution since it has approximately $\frac{n}{2}$ cycles with high probability. In this section, we denote by ${\mathfrak{S}_n}^2:=\{\sigma\in{\mathfrak{S}_n},\sigma\circ\sigma=Id_n\}$ the set of involution of ${\mathfrak{S}_n}$. If $\sigma_n$ is distributed according to the uniform distribution on ${\mathfrak{S}_n}^2$, the distribution of $\lambda(\sigma_n)$ on the set of Young diagrams $\mathbb{Y}_n$ is known as the Gelfand distribution. In particular, we have the following results. [@meliot:hal-01215045 Theorem 1] If $\sigma_n$ is distributed according to the uniform distribution on ${\mathfrak{S}_n}^2$, then $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{n\to \infty} \mathbb{P}\left(\sup_{s\in \mathbb{R}} \left\|\frac{1}{\sqrt{2n}}L_{\lambda(\sigma_n)}\left({s}{\sqrt{2n}}\right)-\Omega(s)\right\|<\varepsilon\right) =1.\end{aligned}$$ [@9780521898065 Page 692, Proposition IX.19] If $\sigma_n$ is distributed according to the uniform distribution on ${\mathfrak{S}_n}^2$ then $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{{\mathbb{E}}(card(fix(\sigma_n)))}{\sqrt{n}}=1.\end{aligned}$$ We will now prove the following. \[cor24\] If $\sigma_n$ is invariant under conjugation and supported on ${\mathfrak{S}_n}^2$ then $$\begin{aligned} \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{{\mathbb{E}}(\ell(\sigma_n))}{\sqrt{n}}\geq 2.\end{aligned}$$ If $\frac{{\mathbb{E}}(card(fix(\sigma_n)))}{\sqrt{n}}\geq 2$ the result is trivial. Otherwise, the technique of proof is identical to that of Corollary \[col14\]. Going back to Lemma \[basiclem\], we replace $A_\sigma$ by $$A'_\sigma:=\{\rho \in {\mathfrak{S}_n}; \sigma=\rho\circ(i_1,i_2)\circ\dots\circ(i_{card(fix(\sigma))-1},i_{card(fix(\sigma))}), fix(\rho)=\emptyset\}$$ if $n$ is even and by $$A'_\sigma:=\{\rho \in {\mathfrak{S}_n}; \sigma=\rho\circ(i_1,i_2)\circ\dots\circ(i_{card(fix(\sigma))-2},i_{card(fix(\sigma))-1}), card(fix(\rho))=1\}$$ if $n$ is odd. We denote by $T'$ the Markov operator on ${\mathfrak{S}_n}^2$ associated to the stochastic matrix $\left[\frac{\mathrm{1}_{A'_{\sigma_1}}(\sigma_2)}{card(A_{\sigma_1})}\right]_{\sigma_1,\sigma_2 \in {\mathfrak{S}_n}^2}$. That means that we merge couples of fixed points to obtain the uniform distribution on permutations having only cycles of length $2$ when $n$ is even and having an additional fixed point when $n$ is odd. Similarly to that we did in Lemma \[basiclem\], for any permutation $\sigma$, we have the following. - Almost surely, $$\|\ell(T'(\sigma))-\ell(\sigma)\|\leq card(fix(\sigma)).$$ - More generally, almost surely, $$\begin{aligned} \max_{i\geq 1} \left\|\sum_{k=1}^i\left( \lambda_k(\sigma)-\lambda_k\left(T'(\sigma)\right)\right)\right\|\leq card(fix(\sigma)).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, if $\sigma_n$ is invariant under conjugation, the law of $T'(\sigma_n)$ does not depend on the law of $\sigma_n$.\ Consequently, Corollary \[cor24\] follows using the same techniques as in the proof of Corollary \[col14\]. \[fincor\] Let $\{\sigma_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ be a sequence of random permutations each one being invariant under conjugation. Assume that there exists a sequence $(\beta_n)_{n\geq 1}$ such that $$\lim_{n\to \infty} \beta_n=+ \infty,$$ and for any $n\geq 1$, $${\mathbb{P}}(card(fix(\sigma_{n}^2))>\beta_n)=1.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned} \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{{\mathbb{E}}\left(\ell(\sigma_n)\right)}{\sqrt{\beta_n}}\geq 2.\end{aligned}$$ Giving $A\subset \mathbb{N}$ finite, we denote by $\mathfrak{S}_A$ (resp. $\mathfrak{S}_A^2$) the set of permutations (respect involutions) of $A$. A random permutation $\sigma_A$ supported on $\mathfrak{S}_A$ is called invariant under conjugation if for any $\sigma \in\mathfrak{S}_A$ , $\sigma \circ {\sigma}_A \circ \sigma^{-1}$ is equal in distribution to $\sigma_A$.\ Fix $\varepsilon>0$. By Corollary \[cor24\], there exists $n_0$ such that for any $A\subset \mathbb{N}$ with $n_0<card(A)<+\infty$, for any random permutation $\hat\sigma_A$ supported on $\mathfrak{S}_A^2$ invariant under conjugation, $$\frac{{\mathbb{E}}{(\ell(\hat\sigma_A)})}{\sqrt{card(A)}} \geq 2-\varepsilon.$$ Let $\sigma_n$ be a random permutation invariant under conjugation and $\rho_n$ be the restriction of $\sigma_n$ on $fix(\sigma_n^2)$. In particular, almost surely $\ell(\rho_n)\leq \ell(\sigma_n)$. One can see that for any $A \subset \{1,2,\dots,n\}$ such that ${\mathbb{P}}(fix(\sigma^2_n)=A)>0$, for any $\hat{\sigma}_1,\hat{\sigma}_2 \in \mathfrak{S}_A,$ $${\mathbb{P}}(\rho_n=\hat{\sigma}_1\|fix(\sigma^2_n)=A)={\mathbb{P}}(\rho_n=\hat{\sigma}_2\circ\hat{\sigma}_1\circ\hat{\sigma}_2^{-1}\|fix(\sigma^2_n)=A).$$ Consequently, if $\beta_n>n_0$, $$\begin{aligned} \frac{{\mathbb{E}}\left(\ell(\sigma_n)\right)}{\sqrt{\beta_n}}& =\sum_{{}^{\quad \; \; \|A\|>\beta_n}_{{\mathbb{P}}(fix(\sigma^2_n)=A)>0}} \frac{{\mathbb{E}}\left(\ell(\sigma_n)\|fix(\sigma_n^2)=A\right)}{\sqrt{\beta_n}} {\mathbb{P}}(fix(\sigma^2_n)=A) \\&\geq \sum_{{}^{\quad \; \; \|A\|>\beta_n}_{{\mathbb{P}}(fix(\sigma^2_n)=A)>0}} (2-\varepsilon) \sqrt{\frac{card(A)}{\beta_n}}{\mathbb{P}}(fix(\sigma^2_n)=A) \\&\geq \sum_{{}^{\quad \; \; \|A\|>\beta_n}_{{\mathbb{P}}(fix(\sigma^2_n)=A)>0}} (2-\varepsilon) {\mathbb{P}}(fix(\sigma^2_n)=A)=2-\varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ This yields Corollary \[fincor\]. \[finlem\] For any permutation $\sigma\in {\mathfrak{S}_n}$, $$card(fix(\sigma^2))\geq 6\#(\sigma)-3 card(fix(\sigma))-2n.$$ We denote by $\#_k(\sigma)$ the number of cycles of $\sigma$ of length $k$. We have $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{k\geq 1} k \#_k(\sigma)=n \quad \text{and} \quad \sum_{k\geq 1} \#_k(\sigma)=\#(\sigma).\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned} n+2card(fix(\sigma))+ \#_2(\sigma)&= 3card(fix(\sigma))+ 3 \#_2(\sigma) +\sum_{k\geq 3} k \#_k(\sigma) \\& \geq 3 \sum_{k\geq 1} \#_k(\sigma) = 3 \#(\sigma).\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, $$\begin{aligned} \#_2(\sigma)\geq 3 \#(\sigma) -n-2card(fix(\sigma)).\end{aligned}$$ Finally, $$card(fix(\sigma^2)) = card(fix(\sigma))+ 2 \#_2(\sigma) \geq 6\#(\sigma)-3card(fix(\sigma))-2n.$$ We will now prove Theorem \[thm20\]. In this proof, we use the following convention. Let $A,B \subset {\mathfrak{S}_n}$ and $f:{\mathfrak{S}_n}\to\mathbb{R}$. If ${\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_n\in A)=0$, we assign $ {\mathbb{P}}(\sigma_n \in B\| \sigma_n \in A )=0$ and ${\mathbb{E}}(f(\sigma_n)\|\sigma_n \in A)=0$.\ We have $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb{E}}(\ell(\sigma_n))&={\mathbb{E}}\left(\ell(\sigma_n)\middle\|\#(\sigma_n)\leq \frac{(2+\theta)n}{6}\right){\mathbb{P}}\left(\#(\sigma_n)\leq \frac{(2+\theta)n}{6}\right)\\&+ {\mathbb{E}}\left(\ell(\sigma_n)\middle\|\#(\sigma_n)> \frac{(2+\theta)n}{6}\right){\mathbb{P}}\left(\#(\sigma_n)> \frac{(2+\theta)n}{6}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Since the condition on the number of cycles is invariant under conjugation, it is sufficient to prove Theorem \[thm20\] in the two particular cases. - Assume that almost surely $\#(\sigma_n)\leq \frac{(2+\theta)n}{6}$. By Lemma \[lem21\], for any $0<\gamma<2$, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb{P}}\left(\frac{\ell(\sigma_n)}{\sqrt{n}}>\gamma\right)&\geq {\mathbb{P}}\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}(\lambda_i(T(\sigma_n))-\gamma\sqrt{n})_{+}}{n}> \frac{2+\theta}{6}\right). \end{aligned}$$ As $T(\sigma_n)$ is distributed according to the $Ew(0)$, by choosing $\gamma=2\sqrt{\theta}-\varepsilon$ for some $\varepsilon>0$ in Corollary \[col11\], we can conclude that the right hand side goes to $1$ as $n$ goes to infinity. - Assume that almost surely $\#(\sigma_n)> \frac{(2+\theta)n}{6}$. We can write, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb{E}}(\ell(\sigma_n))&={\mathbb{E}}(\ell(\sigma_n)\|card(fix(\sigma_n)) \geq 2 \sqrt{n\theta}){\mathbb{P}}(card(fix(\sigma_n)) \geq 2 \sqrt{n\theta})\\&+ {\mathbb{E}}(\ell(\sigma_n)\|card(fix(\sigma_n)) < 2 \sqrt{n\theta}){\mathbb{P}}(card(fix(\sigma_n)) < 2 \sqrt{n\theta}). \end{aligned}$$ Clearly, if ${\mathbb{P}}(card(fix(\sigma_n)) \geq 2 \sqrt{n\theta})>0$, then $${\mathbb{E}}(\ell(\sigma_n)\|card(fix(\sigma_n)) \geq 2 \sqrt{n\theta})>2\sqrt{n\theta}.$$ Moreover, under the condition $card(fix(\sigma_n)) < 2 \sqrt{n\theta},$ we have by Lemma \[finlem\], almost surely, $$card(fix(\sigma^2_n)))>\theta n - 6\sqrt{\theta n}.$$ We can then conclude by Corollary \[fincor\] that if $ {\mathbb{P}}(card(fix(\sigma_n)) < 2 \sqrt{n\theta})>0$, then $$\begin{aligned} \liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{{\mathbb{E}}\left(\ell(\sigma_n)\middle\|card(fix(\sigma_n)) < 2 \sqrt{\theta n}\right)} {\sqrt{n\theta-6\sqrt{n\theta}}}\geq2. \end{aligned}$$ Thus, if $ {\mathbb{P}}(card(fix(\sigma_n)) < 2 \sqrt{n\theta})>0$, then $$\begin{aligned} \liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{{\mathbb{E}}\left(\ell(\sigma_n)\middle\|card(fix(\sigma_n)) < 2 \sqrt{n\theta}\right)} {\sqrt{n}} \geq2\sqrt{\theta}. \end{aligned}$$ Proof of Theorem \[thm8\] and Proposition \[thm5\]. {#pthm8} --------------------------------------------------- The proofs of Theorem \[thm8\] and Proposition \[thm5\] are based on the following observation. \[lem16\] For any permutations $\sigma_{1},\sigma_{2}$, almost surely, $$\begin{aligned} \|LCS(\sigma_{1},\sigma_{2})- LCS(T(\sigma_{1}),\sigma_{2})\| \leq\#(\sigma_{1}).\end{aligned}$$ The proof is identical to that of Lemma \[basiclem\]. \[col17\] Assume that the law of ${\tilde\sigma}_{1,n}$ is Ew(0) and ${\tilde\sigma}_{1,n}$ and $\sigma_{2,n}$ are independent. Then $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \mathbb{P}\left(\frac{LCS(\tilde{\sigma}_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n})-2\sqrt{n}}{\sqrt[6]{n}}\leq s\right)=F_2(s),$$ $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{{\mathbb{E}}\left({LCS(\tilde{\sigma}_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n})}\right)}{\sqrt{n}}=2 \quad \text{and} \quad \frac{{LCS(\tilde{\sigma}_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n})}}{\sqrt{n}}\overset{\mathbb{P}}{\to}2.\end{aligned}$$ Note that if $\sigma_{1,n}$ is distributed according the uniform distribution, one can see that the independence between $\sigma_{1,n}$ and $\sigma_{2,n}$ implies that $\sigma_{1,n}^{-1}\circ\sigma_{2,n}$ follows also the uniform distribution. In this case, $$\label{261} \lim_{n \to \infty} \mathbb{P}\left(\frac{LCS({\sigma}_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n})-2\sqrt{n}}{\sqrt[6]{n}}\leq s\right)=\lim_{n \to \infty} \mathbb{P}\left(\frac{\ell(\sigma_{1,n})-2\sqrt{n}}{\sqrt[6]{n}}\leq s\right)= F_2(s),$$ $$\label{262} \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{{\mathbb{E}}\left({LCS({\sigma}_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n})}\right)}{\sqrt{n}}= \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{{\mathbb{E}}\left({\ell({\sigma}_{1,n})}\right)}{\sqrt{n}}=2,$$ and $$\label{263} \frac{{LCS({\sigma}_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n})}}{\sqrt{n}}\overset{d}{=}\frac{\ell(\sigma_{1,n})}{\sqrt{n}}\overset{\mathbb{P}}{\to}2.$$ The second equality of is due to [-@Baik] and the second equality of and the convergence of are due to [@MR0480398]. Hence, one can conclude by Lemma \[lem16\] since ${{\mathbb{E}}(\#(\sigma_{1,n}))=log(n)+O(1)}$ and $LCS(\tilde{\sigma}_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n})$ is equal in distribution to $LCS(T({\sigma}_{1,n}),\sigma_{2,n})$. Using again Lemma \[lem16\], Corollary \[col17\] imply Proposition \[thm5\] since $T({\sigma}_{1,n})$ is distributed according to $Ew(0)$. Using the same technique as in Corollary \[col11\], we can prove that for any $\varepsilon>0$, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb{P}}\left(\frac{LCS(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n})}{\sqrt{n}} > G^{-1}\left(\frac{\#(\sigma_{1,n})}{2n}+\varepsilon\right)-\varepsilon\right)\to 1.\end{aligned}$$ Consequently,$$\begin{aligned} \liminf_{n\to \infty} \frac{{\mathbb{E}}(LCS(\sigma_{1,n},\sigma_{2,n}))}{\sqrt{n}}\geq {\mathbb{E}}\left(G^{-1} \left({\liminf_{n\to\infty}} \frac{\#(\sigma_{1,n})}{2n}\right)\right). \end{aligned}$$ Since $G^{-1}$ is convex, we can conclude using Jensen’s inequality. [20]{} \[1\][\#1]{} \[1\][`#1`]{} urlstyle \[1\][doi: \#1]{} J. Baik, P. Deift, and K. Johansson. On the distribution of the length of the longest increasing subsequence of random permutations. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 120 (4):0 1119–1178, 1999. ISSN 0894-0347. [doi: ]{}[10.1090/S0894-0347-99-00307-0]{}. URL <https://doi.org/10.1090/S0894-0347-99-00307-0>. B. Bukh and L. Zhou. Twins in words and long common subsequences in permutations. Israel J. Math., 2130 (1):0 183–209, 2016. ISSN 0021-2172. [doi: ]{}[10.1007/s11856-016-1323-8]{}. URL <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11856-016-1323-8>. P. Flajolet and R. Sedgewick. Analytic Combinatorics. Cambridge University Press, 2009. ISBN 0521898064. URL <https://www.amazon.com/Analytic-Combinatorics-Philippe-Flajolet/dp/0521898064?SubscriptionId=AKIAIOBINVZYXZQZ2U3A&tag=chimbori05-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0521898064>. G. Gautier, R. Bardenet, and M. Valko. . ArXiv e-prints, 2018. URL <http://arxiv.org/abs/1809.07258>. C. Greene. An extension of [S]{}chensted’s theorem. Advances in Math., 14:0 254–265, 1974. ISSN 0001-8708. [doi: ]{}[10.1016/0001-8708(74)90031-0]{}. URL <https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8708(74)90031-0>. C. Houdr[é]{} and [Ü]{}. I[ş]{}lak. A central limit theorem for the length of the longest common subsequences in random words. arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.1559, 2014. C. Houdré and C. Xu. A note on the expected length of the longest common subsequences of two i.i.d. random permutations. Electron. J. Combin., 250 (2):0 Paper 2.50, 10, 2018. ISSN 1077-8926. V. Ivanov and G. Olshanski. Kerov’s central limit theorem for the [P]{}lancherel measure on [Y]{}oung diagrams. In Symmetric functions 2001: surveys of developments and perspectives, volume 74 of NATO Sci. Ser. II Math. Phys. Chem., pages 93–151. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 2002. [doi: ]{}[10.1007/978-94-010-0524-1\_3]{}. URL <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0524-1_3>. M. S. Kammoun. Monotonous subsequences and the descent process of invariant random permutations. Electron. J. Probab., 23:0 31 pp., 2018. [doi: ]{}[10.1214/18-EJP244]{}. URL <https://doi.org/10.1214/18-EJP244>. S. Kerov. The asymptotics of interlacing sequences and the growth of continual [Y]{}oung diagrams. Zap. Nauchn. Sem. S.-Peterburg. Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov. (POMI), 2050 (Differentsial prime naya Geom. Gruppy Li i Mekh. 13):0 21–29, 179, 1993. ISSN 0373-2703. [doi: ]{}[10.1007/BF02362775]{}. URL <https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02362775>. S. Kerov. A differential model for the growth of [Y]{}oung diagrams. In Proceedings of the [S]{}t. [P]{}etersburg [M]{}athematical [S]{}ociety, [V]{}ol. [IV]{}, volume 188 of Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser. 2, pages 111–130. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1999. [doi: ]{}[10.1090/trans2/188/06]{}. URL <https://doi.org/10.1090/trans2/188/06>. S. V. Kerov. Transition probabilities of continual [Y]{}oung diagrams and the [M]{}arkov moment problem. Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen., 270 (2):0 32–49, 96, 1993. ISSN 0374-1990. [doi: ]{}[10.1007/BF01085981]{}. URL <https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01085981>. D. E. Knuth. Permutations, matrices, and generalized [Y]{}oung tableaux. Pacific J. Math., 34:0 709–727, 1970. ISSN 0030-8730. URL <http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.pjm/1102971948>. B. F. Logan and L. A. Shepp. A variational problem for random [Y]{}oung tableaux. Advances in Math., 260 (2):0 206–222, 1977. ISSN 0001-8708. [doi: ]{}[10.1016/0001-8708(77)90030-5]{}. URL <https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8708(77)90030-5>. P.-L. M[é]{}liot. . In M. Bousquet-M[é]{}lou, M. Wachs, and A. Hultman, editors, [23rd International Conference on Formal Power Series and Algebraic Combinatorics (FPSAC 2011)]{}, volume DMTCS Proceedings vol. AO, 23rd International Conference on Formal Power Series and Algebraic Combinatorics (FPSAC 2011) of DMTCS Proceedings, pages 669–680, Reykjavik, Iceland, 2011. [Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science]{}. URL <https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01215045>. G. d. B. Robinson. On the [R]{}epresentations of the [S]{}ymmetric [G]{}roup. Amer. J. Math., 600 (3):0 745–760, 1938. ISSN 0002-9327. [doi: ]{}[10.2307/2371609]{}. URL <https://doi.org/10.2307/2371609>. B. E. Sagan. The symmetric group, volume 203 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 2001. ISBN 0-387-95067-2. [doi: ]{}[10.1007/978-1-4757-6804-6]{}. URL <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-6804-6>. Representations, combinatorial algorithms, and symmetric functions. C. Schensted. Longest increasing and decreasing subsequences. Canad. J. Math., 13:0 179–191, 1961. ISSN 0008-414X. URL <https://doi.org/10.4153/CJM-1961-015-3>. A. M. Vershik and S. V. Kerov. Asymptotic behavior of the [P]{}lancherel measure of the symmetric group and the limit form of [Y]{}oung tableaux. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 2330 (6):0 1024–1027, 1977. ISSN 0002-3264. A. M. Vershik and S. V. Kerov. Asymptotic behavior of the maximum and generic dimensions of irreducible representations of the symmetric group. Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen., 190 (1):0 25–36, 96, 1985. ISSN 0374-1990. [^1]: [email protected]\ Univ. Lille, CNRS, UMR 8524 - Laboratoire Paul Painlevé, F-59000 Lille, France. [^2]: This figure is generated by DPPy [@GaBaVa18]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Inspired by Dickson’s classification of regular diagonal ternary quadratic forms, we prove that there are no primitive regular ternary $ m $-gonal forms when $ m $ is sufficiently large. In order to do so, we construct sequences of primes that are inert in a certain quadratic field and show that they satisfy a certain inequality bounding the next such prime by a product of the previous primes, a question of independent interest.' address: - 'Department of Mathematics, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong' - 'Department of Mathematics, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong' author: - Zilong He - Ben Kane title: Regular ternary polygonal forms --- [^1] Introduction ============ Representations of integers as sums of polygonal numbers have a long history going back to Fermat. Fermat famously conjectured that every integer may be written as the sum of $3$ triangular numbers, $4$ squares, $5$ pentagonal numbers and in general $m$ $m$-gonal numbers; Lagrange proved the four squares theorem, Gauss and Legendre independently showed the triangular number theorem, and Cauchy finally proved the general case. For $m\geq 3$ and $x\in{{\mathbb Z}}$, we denote by $p_{m}(x):=((m-2)x^2-(m-4)x)/2$ the $x$-th generalized $m$-gonal number and for a sequence $a_1,\dots,a_n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ we define the $m$-gonal form (or polygonal form ) $$\begin{aligned} \triangle_{m,a}(x_{1}, \cdots , x_{n}):=\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}p_{m}(x_{i}).\end{aligned}$$ Fermat’s polygonal number conjecture may then be restated by saying that for $a=(1,\dots,1)$ of length $m$, the $ m $-gonal form $ \triangle_{m,a} $ is universal , i.e., for every positive integer $\ell$, the Diophantine equation $\triangle_{m,a}(x)=\ell $ is solvable. More generally, let $ F $ be a field and $ R $ a ring. For an $n$-ary quadratic polynomial $ f(x_{1},\cdots,x_{n})\in F[x_{1},\cdots, x_{n}] $ and $\ell\in F$, we say that $\ell$ is represented by $f$ if the equation $ f(x)=\ell$ is solvable with $x\in R^n$, which we denote by $ \ell\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{R} f $, and not represented otherwise, which we denote by $ \ell\mathop{\not\rightarrow}\limits_{R} f $. It is well known that a natural number can be represented by the sum of three squares if and only if it is not of the form $ 4^{t}(8\ell+7) $, with the restriction coming from the fact that one cannot even solve the congruence equation $x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2\equiv 7\pmod{8}$. In investigating representations of integers by quadratic polynomials it is therefore natural to first exclude integers which cannot possibly be represented modulo a fixed integer and then separately investigate the “sporadic” integers for which congruence equations are always solvable but the equation over the integers is not solvable. In order to better encode this information, we let $ \mathbb{Z}_{p} $ be the $ p$-adic integers, with $\mathbb{Z}_{\infty}:=\mathbb{R}$ by convention. We say that $\ell $ is locally (resp. globally) represented by an $ n $-ary rational quadratic polynomial $ f $, if $ \ell \mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{{{\mathbb Z}}_{p}}f $ for each prime $ p $ including $ p=\infty $ (resp. if $ \ell\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}} f $). A general principle, known as the Minkowski local-global principle, states that one should “usually” find a global solution whenever one finds a local solution. The aforementioned example states that the form given by the sums of three squares always obeys the Minkowksi local-global principle. This led to L. E. Dickson [@dickson_ternary_1926] asking which other quadratic forms always obey the local to global principle. He dubbed such forms regular , starting an investigation and classification of such forms (his definition being equivalent to Jones’s definition [@jones_regularity_1931 Corollary, p.0.1cm 124]). To more formally define regularity, we adopt the following definition of Chan and Ricci [@chan_representation_2015]. A quadratic polynomial $ f $ is said to be regular if it globally represents all rational numbers that are locally represented by $ f $. We also call $ f $ irregular if $ f $ is not regular. It was shown by Jagy, Kaplansky, and Schiemann [@JKS] that there are at most 913 regular ternary (i.e., $n=3$) quadratic forms (some of these are still only conjectural, although the list has been shown to be correct by Lemke Oliver [@LemkeOliver] under the assumption of GRH), up to obvious repeats coming from multiplying a regular form by a fixed constant or by an invertible change of variables (more precisely, an isometry over ${{\mathbb Z}}$). It is hence natural to wonder how abundant regular $m$-gonal forms are. In order to exclude the obvious repeats mentioned above, we call an $m$-gonal form primitive if $ \gcd(a_{1},\cdots,a_{n})=1 $ and its discriminant is defined by $ \prod_{i=1}^{n}a_{i} $. Chan and B. K. Oh [@chan_representations_2013] showed that there are only finitely many primitive regular ternary triangular forms ($ m=3 $), a result which was later extended by Chan and Ricci [@chan_representation_2015] to finiteness results for ternary quadratic polynomials. In this paper, we improve their results by obtaining a quantitative bound in terms of $m$ on the possible choices of $(a,b,c)$ for which $\triangle_{m,(a,b,c)}$ may be regular, leading to the following theorem. \[thm0\] There exists an absolute constant $C$ such that for $m>C$, there are no primitive regular ternary $ m $-gonal forms $ \triangle_{m,(a,b,c)}$ with $(a,b,c)\in {\mathbb{N}}^3$. Due to the bound in Theorem \[thm0\] and Chan and Ricci’s results in [@chan_representation_2015], there are only finitely many tuples $(a,b,c,m)\in{\mathbb{N}}^4$ with $\gcd(a,b,c)=1$ ($m\geq 3$) for which $\triangle_{m,(a,b,c)}$ is regular. It would be interesting to try to determine this finite set explicitly. There has been recent progress in this direction, as M. Kim and B.-K. Oh [@KimOh] have just completely determined all of the regular ternary triangular forms $ \triangle_{3,(a,b,c)} $, determining that there are precisely 49 of them (see [@KimOh Theorem 4.10 and Table 4] for a full list). In the classification of primitive regular ternary quadratic forms $ ax^{2}+by^{2}+cz^{2} $ (namely, $ \triangle_{4,(a,b,c)} $) [@dickson_ternary_1926; @jones_regular_1939], to rule out most of the irregular ones, Dickson made use of an inequality involving primes of a certain type [@dickson_ternary_1926 Theorem 5]. To be more explicit, for a given positive integer $ b $, assume that $ p_{i}$’s are all the odd prime numbers not represented by $ x^{2}+by^{2} $ in ascending order and choose $i_0$ such that $$\begin{aligned} p_{1}<p_{2}<\cdots<p_{i_{0}}<b<p_{i_{0}+1}< \cdots.\end{aligned}$$ He proved the inequality $ p_{i+1}<p_{1}p_{2}\cdots p_{i} $ holds for $ i\ge i_{0} $ [@dickson_ternary_1926 footnote, p.0.1cm 336]. To give a rough illustration how such an inequality applies to the regularity of such forms, suppose that $\triangle_{4,(1,b,c)}$ is regular and $p_{i_{0}+1}$ is locally represented. Then it must be the case that $c\leq p_{i_{0}+1}$ (since otherwise $x^2+by^2+cz^2=p_{i_0+1}$ cannot be solvable), and the inequality yields an inequality on $c$ depending on $b$ (as the $p_1,\dots,p_{i_{0}}$ are all primes smaller than $b$). Inspired by this, we deal with primitive ternary $ m $-gonal forms by virtue of analogous technical inequalities involving inert primes (see ), thereby showing Theorem \[thm0\]. The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:Earnest\_trick\], we establish Lemma \[lem312\] by Earnest’s trick, which will be used to deduce the inequality involving inert primes with additional restrictions analogous to Dickson’s one. In Section \[sec:local\_representation\], we give the conditions on local representation by a (ternary) polygonal form. In Section \[sec:bound\_abc\], we prove Theorem \[thm0\] by bounding the discriminant $ abc $. Earnest’s trick {#sec:Earnest_trick} =============== Throughout this paper, we let $ D\equiv 0,1\pmod{4} $ be a non-square discriminant and set $d:=\|D\|$ for convenience. Also, for a given discriminant $ D $, we define the sets $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{P}(D)&:=\{q\,:\, \mbox{$ q $ is prime and } (D/q)=-1\},\\ \mathbb{P}_{n}(D)&:=\{q\in\mathbb{P}(D)\,:\, q\mid n \},\end{aligned}$$ where $ (D/\cdot) $ is the Kronecker symbol. Let $ k_{1}, k_{2},\ldots, k_{r} $ be pairwise relatively prime positive integers. Let $\chi_{i} $ be a Dirichlet character modulo $ k_{i} $ and $ \eta_{i}\in\{\pm 1\} $. Define $$\label{eq30} \mathcal{S}_{\chi,\eta}:=\{n\in{{\mathbb Z}}: \chi_i(n)=\eta_i\hskip 0.15cm\forall i=1,\dots,r\}.$$ For an integer $ M $ relatively prime to $ \Gamma:={\mbox{lcm}}(k_{1},k_{2},\cdots,k_{r}) $ and a nonnegative number $ x $ we furthermore set $$S_x(H):=\#\{ n\in \mathcal{S}_{\chi,\eta}: n\in (x,x+H)\text{ and } \gcd(n,M)=1\}.$$ Following Earnest’s trick [@earnest_representation_1994 p.0.1cm 855–856], we give an explicit bound on $ S_{x}(H) $. In order to state the bound, we require some notations. Let $ U=\{1,2\} $ and $ \mathbf{\alpha}=(\alpha_{1},\cdots,\alpha_{r}) $ be an element of the product set $ U^{r} $. Define $\chi_{\alpha}=\prod_{i=1}^{r}(\eta_{i}\chi_{i})^{\alpha_{i}}$. Then $ \chi_{\alpha} $ is clearly a Dirichlet character modulo $ \Gamma $. Characters $ \chi_{1},\ldots, \chi_{r} $ are said to be independent if $ \chi_{\alpha} $ is a nonprincipal character for any $ \alpha\neq \beta_{0}$, where $ \beta_{0}=(2,\cdots,2) $. We also let $\omega(n)$ denote the number of distinct prime divisors of $n$ and $\phi$ denote the Euler totient function. \[lem31\] Suppose that $ \chi_{1},\cdots, \chi_{r} $ are independent. Then $$\begin{aligned} S_{x}(H)\hskip 0.1cm\ge \hskip 0.1cm H\dfrac{\phi(\Gamma M)}{\Gamma M2^{r}}-2^{\omega(\Gamma M)-r+1}-2^{\omega(M)}\dfrac{2^{r}-1}{2^{r}}\left(\dfrac{1}{3\log 3}\sqrt{\Gamma}\log \Gamma+\dfrac{13}{2}\sqrt{\Gamma}\right). \end{aligned}$$ We need explicit estimates for character sums before showing Lemma \[lem31\] and use a version of Polya–Vinogradov inequality proved by Bachman and Rachakonda [@bachman_problem_2001 Corollary, p.0.1cm 66]. \[prop31\] Let $ k\in \mathbb{N}$. If $\chi$ is a nonprincipal character of modulus $ k $ and $x, y$ are real numbers with $ x<y $, then $$\begin{aligned} \left\|\sum_{x<n\le y}\chi(n)\right\|\hskip 0.1cm\le \hskip 0.1cm \dfrac{1}{3\log 3}\sqrt{k}\log k+\dfrac{13}{2}\sqrt{k}, \end{aligned}$$ independent of $x$ and $y$. We modify Proposition \[prop31\] slightly so that it is applicable to our situation. \[lem32\] Let $ k,M $ be integers with $ \gcd(k,M)=g $. Then for any nonprincipal character $ \chi $ of modulus $ k $, we have $$\begin{aligned} \bigg\|\sum_{\substack{x<n\le y\\ \gcd(n,M)=1}}\chi(n)\bigg\|\hskip 0.1cm\le \hskip 0.1cm 2^{\omega(M)-\omega(g)}\left(\dfrac{1}{3\log 3}\sqrt{k}\log k+\dfrac{13}{2}\sqrt{k}\right). \end{aligned}$$ Let $ g_{1} $ be the least positive integer for which $ M/g_{1} $ is an integer relatively prime to $ g $ and $ M/g_{1}=p_{1}^{\gamma_{1}}p_{2}^{\gamma_{2}}\cdots p_{r}^{\gamma_{r}} $, where $ p_{1},\ldots, p_{r} $ are distinct primes. Then, by inclusion-exclusion, we have (letting $\mu$ denote the Möbius $\mu$-function) $$\sum_{\substack{x<n\le y\\ \gcd(n,p_{1}^{\gamma_{1}}p_{2}^{\gamma_{2}}\cdots p_{r}^{\gamma_{r}} )>1}}\chi(n)=-\sum_{\substack{u\mid p_1\cdots p_r\\ u\neq 1}} \mu(u)\sum_{\substack{x<n\leq y\\ u\mid n}} \chi(n)=-\sum_{\substack{u\mid p_1\cdots p_r\\ u\neq 1}}\mu(u)\chi(u)\sum_{\substack{x/u<n<y/u}} \chi(n).$$ Hence by Proposition \[prop31\], we have $$\label{eq223} \begin{aligned} \bigg\|\sum_{\substack{x<n\le y\\ \gcd(n,M/g_{1})>1}}\chi(n)\bigg\|\hskip 0.1cm\le \hskip 0.1cm 2^{\omega(M/g_{1})-1} \left(\dfrac{1}{3\log 3}\sqrt{k}\log k+\dfrac{13}{2}\sqrt{k}\right). \end{aligned}$$ As $ g $ and $g_{1} $ have the same prime factors, we have $\omega(M/g_1)=\omega(M/g)=\omega(M)-\omega(g)$. Plugging this into and noting that $ \chi(n)=0 $ if $ \gcd(n, g_{1})>1$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \bigg\|\sum_{\substack{x<n\le y\\ \gcd(n,M)=1}}\chi(n)\bigg\|\hskip 0.1cm=\hskip 0.1cm \bigg\|\sum_{\substack{x<n\le y\\ \gcd(n,M/g_{1})=1}}\chi(n)\bigg\|&\hskip 0.1cm= \hskip 0.1cm \Bigg\|\sum_{x<n\le y}\chi(n)-\sum_{\substack{x<n\le y\\ \gcd(n,M/g_{1})>1}}\chi(n)\Bigg\| \\ &\hskip 0.1cm\le \hskip 0.1cm 2^{\omega(M)-\omega(g)}\left(\dfrac{1}{3\log 3}\sqrt{k}\log k+\dfrac{13}{2}\sqrt{k}\right), \end{aligned}$$ where in the last line we have again used Proposition \[prop31\]. 0.5cm First note that if $ n\in \mathcal{S}_{\chi,\eta}$ (defined in ), then $$\begin{aligned} \chi_{\alpha}(n)&=\prod_{i=1}^{r}(\eta_{i}\chi_{i})^{\alpha_{i}}(n)=\prod_{i=1}^{r}(\chi_{i}(n))^{2\alpha_{i}}=1\end{aligned}$$ for any $ \alpha\in U^{r} $. On the other hand, if $n\notin\mathcal{S}_{\chi,\eta}$, then there exists some $ j $ for which either $\chi_j(n)=0$ or $\eta_j\chi_j(n)=-1$. In the former case, $ \chi_{\alpha}(n)=0 $ for any $ \alpha\in U^{r} $, while in the latter case we split the cases $\alpha_j=1$ and $\alpha_j=2$ to obtain that (assuming without loss of generality that $j=r$ for ease of notation) $$\sum_{\alpha\in U^{r}}\prod_{j=1}^r(\eta_{j}\chi_{j}(n))^{\alpha_{i}}=\sum_{\alpha\in U^{r-1}}\prod_{j=1}^{r-1}(\eta_{j}\chi_{j}(n))^{\alpha_{i}}\left(\eta_r\chi_r(n)+1\right)=0.$$ Hence we see that $$\sum\limits_{\alpha\in U^{r}}\chi_{\alpha}(n)= \begin{cases} 2^{r} & \mbox{if }n\in \mathcal{S}_{\chi,\eta}, \\ 0 & \mbox{if }n\notin\mathcal{S}_{\chi,\eta}, \end{cases}$$ and so $$\begin{aligned} 2^{r}S_{x}(H)&\hskip0.1cm= \hskip 0.1cm2^{r}\sum_{\substack{x<n\le x+H \\ \gcd(n,M)=1 \\ n\in \mathcal{S}_{\chi,\eta} }} 1\\ &\hskip 0.1cm= \hskip 0.1cm \sum_{\substack{x<n\le x+H \\ \gcd(n,M)=1}}\sum\limits_{\alpha\in U^{r}}\chi_{\alpha}(n)=\sum\limits_{\alpha\in U^{r}}\sum_{\substack{x<n\le x+H \\ \gcd(n,M)=1}}\chi_{\alpha}(n)\\ &\hskip 0.1cm= \hskip 0.1cm \sum_{\substack{x<n\le x+H \\ \gcd(n,\Gamma M)=1}} 1+\sum_{\substack{\alpha\in U^{r}\\\alpha\not=\beta_{0}}}\sum_{\substack{x<n\le x+H \\ \gcd(n,M)=1}}\chi_{\alpha}(n).\end{aligned}$$ We use the inclusion-exclusion principle to bound the first term from below by $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{\substack{x<n\le x+H \\ \gcd(n,\Gamma M)=1}} 1&\hskip 0.1cm= \hskip 0.1cmH \sum\limits_{u\mid \Gamma M}\dfrac{\mu(u)}{u}-\sum\limits_{u\mid \Gamma M}\mu(u)\left(\left\{\dfrac{x}{u}\right\}+\left\{\dfrac{x+H}{u}\right\}\right) \\ &\hskip 0.1cm\ge \hskip 0.1cm H\dfrac{\phi(\Gamma M)}{ \Gamma M}-2^{\omega(\Gamma M)+1},\end{aligned}$$ where $\{y\}:=y-\lfloor y\rfloor$ denotes the fractional part of $y\in{{\mathbb R}}$. Since the $\chi_j$ are independent, all of the characters in the second term are nonprincipal, and hence Lemma \[lem32\] may be used to obtain the lower bound $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{\substack{\alpha\in U^{r}\\\alpha\not=\beta_{0}}}\sum_{\substack{x<n\le x+H \\ \gcd(n,M)=1}}\chi_{\alpha}(n)\ge -2^{\omega(M)}(2^{r}-1)\left(\dfrac{1}{3\log 3}\sqrt{\Gamma}\log \Gamma+\dfrac{13}{2}\sqrt{\Gamma}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Combining these, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} S_{x}(H)\hskip 0.1cm\ge \hskip 0.1cm H\dfrac{\phi(\Gamma M)}{\Gamma M2^{r}}-2^{\omega(\Gamma M)-r+1}-2^{\omega(M)}\dfrac{2^{r}-1}{2^{r}}\left(\dfrac{1}{3\log 3}\sqrt{\Gamma}\log \Gamma+\dfrac{13}{2}\sqrt{\Gamma}\right).\end{aligned}$$ \[re2\] Given a discriminant $ D $ and $ n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, let $ p_{1}, p_{2},\ldots, p_{s}$ be the distinct odd prime divisors of $ d$, $\nu_{0}(n):=\left(\frac{-4}{n}\right)$, $ \nu_{1}(n):=\left(\frac{8}{n}\right)$, and $ \chi_{i}(n):=(n/p_{i}) $, where $ (\cdot/p_{i}) $ is the Legendre symbol, $ i=1,\cdots,s $. Then the value of the Kronecker symbol $ (D/n) $ is determined by the value at $n$ of these characters (for $ D<0 $, see [@cox_primes_2013 Chap. 1, §3, p.0.1cm50]). 0.5cm captype[table]{} -0.45cm $ D>0 $ characters $\Gamma$ $ d $ --------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- $ D \equiv 1\pmod{4} $ $ \chi_{1},\cdots,\chi_{s} $ $ p_{1}\cdots p_{s} $ $ p_{1}^{\alpha_{1}}\cdots p_{s}^{\alpha_{s}} $ $D\equiv 0\pmod{4}$ $ D=4k $ $ k\equiv 1\pmod{4} $ $ \chi_{1},\cdots,\chi_{s} $ $ p_{1}\cdots p_{s} $ $ 4p_{1}^{\alpha_{1}}\cdots p_{s}^{\alpha_{s}} $ $ k\equiv 3\pmod{4} $ $ \nu_{0},\chi_{1},\cdots,\chi_{s} $ $ 4p_{1}\cdots p_{s} $ $ 4p_{1}^{\alpha_{1}}\cdots p_{s}^{\alpha_{s}} $ $ k\equiv 6\pmod{8} $ $ \nu_{0}\nu_{1},\chi_{1},\cdots,\chi_{s} $ $ 8p_{1}\cdots p_{s} $ $ 8p_{1}^{\alpha_{1}}\cdots p_{s}^{\alpha_{s}} $ $ k\equiv 2\pmod{8} $ $ \nu_{1},\chi_{1},\cdots,\chi_{s} $ $ 8p_{1}\cdots p_{s} $ $ 8p_{1}^{\alpha_{1}}\cdots p_{s}^{\alpha_{s}} $ $ k\equiv 4\pmod{8} $ $ \nu_{0},\chi_{1},\cdots,\chi_{s} $ $ 4p_{1}\cdots p_{s} $ $ 16p_{1}^{\alpha_{1}}\cdots p_{s}^{\alpha_{s}} $ $ k\equiv 0\pmod{8} $ $ \nu_{0},\nu_{1},\chi_{1},\cdots,\chi_{s} $ $ 8p_{1}\cdots p_{s} $ $ 2^{5+t}p_{1}^{\alpha_{1}}\cdots p_{s}^{\alpha_{s}} $ 0.5cm It is not difficult to verify that $ \Gamma/\phi(\Gamma)\le d/\phi(d) $, $ \omega(\Gamma)\le \omega(d)$, and $ \Gamma\le d $. Also, note that $ r\le \omega(\Gamma)+1 $, where $ r $ denotes the number of characters. By Lemma \[lem31\], we see that $ S_{0}(H)>0 $ if $$\begin{gathered} \label{eqn:Hbound} H>\dfrac{2dM2^{\omega(dM)}}{\phi(dM)}\left(\dfrac{1}{3\log 3}\sqrt{d}\log d+\dfrac{13}{2}\sqrt{d}+1\right)\\ \ge \dfrac{\Gamma M}{\phi(\Gamma M)}\left(2^{\omega(\Gamma M)+1}+2^{\omega(M)}(2^{r}-1)\left(\dfrac{1}{3\log 3}\sqrt{\Gamma}\log \Gamma+\dfrac{13}{2}\sqrt{\Gamma}\right)\right). \end{gathered}$$ Besides an explicit bound for $ S_{x}(H) $, we also need explicit upper bounds for $n/\phi(n)$ and $\omega(n)$, which are given by Rosser and Schoenfeld [@rosser_approximate_1962 Theorem 15] and Robin [@robin_estimation_1983 Théorème 12], respectively. \[prop32\] For $ n\ge 3 $, 0.2cm [(i).]{} $\dfrac{n}{\phi(n)}\le\dfrac{9}{5}\log\log n+\dfrac{2.51}{\log\log n} $; 0.15cm [(ii).]{} $\omega(n)\le \dfrac{\log n}{\log\log n}+1.45743\dfrac{\log n}{(\log\log n)^{2}}$. \[lem312\] For a given non-square discriminant $ D $, let $ M $ be a positive integer satisfying $ M\ge 2 $ and $ \gcd(D,M)=1 $. Then there exists some prime $ q\in (0,C_{0}d^{2/3}M^{1/6}) $ such that $ q\in \mathbb{P}(D) $ and $ \gcd(q,M)=1 $, where $ C_{0}:=20664 $ is a constant. By assumption $ D\equiv 0,1\pmod{4} $ and $ D $ is not a perfect square, so $ d\ge3 $ and hence $ dM\ge 6 $. Consider the function $ f $ in terms of $d$ and $M$ given by $$\begin{aligned} f(d,M):=\dfrac{2dM2^{\omega(dM)}}{\phi(dM)}\left(\dfrac{1}{3\log 3}\sqrt{d}\log d+\dfrac{13}{2}\sqrt{d}+1\right). \end{aligned}$$ By , we have $S_{0}(H)>0$ when $ H\ge f(d,M) $. To find an appropriate $ H $, we estimate $ f(d,M) $ explicitly term by term by virtue of Proposition \[prop32\] and prove that certain simple functions are nonnegative via a simple application of calculus. Precisely, $ 2^{\omega(dM)}\le 4 $ for $ 6\le dM<11 $, $$\label{eq31} \dfrac{1}{3\log 3}\sqrt{d}\log d+\dfrac{13}{2}\sqrt{d}+1\le 14 d^{51/100},$$ -0.4cm $$\label{eq32} \dfrac{dM}{\phi(dM)}\le \dfrac{9}{5}\log\log (dM)+\dfrac{2.51}{\log\log (dM)}\le 6(dM)^{1/168},$$ -0.4cm $$\label{eq33} 2^{\omega(dM)}\le 2^{\dfrac{\log (dM)}{\log\log (dM)}+\dfrac{1.45743\log (dM)}{(\log\log (dM))^{2}}}\le 123(dM)^{211/1400} \hskip 0.2cm (dM\ge 11).$$ It follows that $f(d,M)\le C_{0}d^{2/3}M^{1/6}$. Now, apply Lemma \[lem31\] with $ H= C_{0}d^{2/3}M^{1/6} $ and $ \eta_{i}'s $ chosen so that $ \prod_{i=1}^{r}\eta_{i}=-1 $. Then $ S_{0}(H)\ge1 $. Hence there exists an integer $ N_{0}\in(0,H) $ such that $ (D/N_{0})=-1 $ and $ \gcd(N_{0},M)=1 $. Accordingly, there exists some prime $ q $ dividing $ N_{0} $ such that $ (D/q)=-1 $ and $ \gcd(q,M)=1 $, from which we conclude that $ q\le N_{0}\le H=C_{0}d^{2/3}M^{1/6}$. Local representation over $ \mathbb{Z}_{p} $ {#sec:local_representation} ============================================ Fix an integer $m>3$. For $ \ell,\ell_{1},\ell_{2}\in\mathbb{N} $, we define the sets $$\begin{aligned} P(\ell):=\;&\mbox{all the prime factors of $ \ell $}, \\ P_{m}(\ell_{1},\ell_{2}):=\;&\mathbb{P}_{\ell_{1}}(-4\ell_{2})\backslash P(m-2),\\ G_{m}(\ell_{1},\ell_{2}):=\;&P(\gcd(\ell_{1},\ell_{2}))\backslash P(2(m-2)).\end{aligned}$$ For given positive integers $ a,b$ and $c $, write $$\begin{aligned} P_{m}(a,b,c):=\;& P_{m}(a,bc)\cup P_{m}(b,ac)\cup P_{m}(c,ab),\\ G_{m}(a,b,c):=\;&G_{m}(a,b)\cup G_{m}(a,c)\cup G_{m}(b,c).\end{aligned}$$ It is not difficult to see that $ P_{m}(a,b,c)\cap G_{m}(a,b,c)=\emptyset $. Also, set $$\begin{aligned} P_{m-2}:=\;&\mbox{the product of all primes in $ P(m-2)\backslash \{2\} $}, \\ P_{ab}:=\;&\mbox{the product of all primes in $P_{m}(a,bc)\cup P_{m}(b,ac)$}, \\ P_{ab}^{\prime}:=\;&\mbox{the product of all primes in $ (P_{m}(a,bc)\cup P_{m}(b,ac))\cap P(m-4)$},\\ P_{c}:=\;&\mbox{the product of all primes in $P_{m}(c,ab)$}, \\ P_{abc}:=\;&\mbox{the product of all primes in $P_{m}(a,b,c)$},\end{aligned}$$ and the corresponding product to be $ 1 $ if the specified set is empty. Clearly, $ P_{abc}=P_{ab}P_{c} $. The regularity of an $ m $-gonal form $ \triangle_{m,(a_{1},\cdots, a_{\ell})}$ is closely related to the quadratic form with congruence conditions given by $$\varphi_{m,(a_{1},\dots,a_{\ell})}(x_{1},\dots,x_{\ell}):=\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}a_{i}(2(m-2)x_{i}-(m-4))^{2}$$ that arises from completing the square. In this paper we are particularly interested in the case $\ell=3$. Now we introduce the regularity of such ternary quadratic polynomials, following the definition of B.-K. Oh [@oh_representations_2011]. \[def3\] Let $a,b,c$ be positive integers. If $ \varphi_{m,(a,b,c)} $ globally represents all positive integers greater than $ (m-4)^{2}(a+b+c) $ of the form $ 8(m-2)n+(m-4)^{2}(a+b+c) $ that are locally represented by $ \varphi_{m,(a,b,c)} $, then we call $ \varphi_{m,(a,b,c)}$ $(8(m-2),(m-4)^{2}(a+b+c))$ - regular (or simply, regular). \[re1\] For $ a,b,c\in\mathbb{N} $, $ \triangle_{m,(a,b,c)} $ is regular if and only if $ \varphi_{m,(a,b,c)} $ is regular. Based on the study of Dickson [@dickson_modern_1939], Jones [@jones_new_1931] and Chan and B.-K. Oh [@chan_representations_2013], we build sufficient conditions for a positive integer to be represented by $ \varphi_{m,(a,b,c)} $ over $ \mathbb{Z}_{p} $. Note that for any $ n\in\mathbb{N}$, we have $n \mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{R}} \varphi_{m,(a,b,c)} $ if $ a,b$ and $c$ are positive integers, so we may suppose $ p\not=\infty $. For convenience, we also let $ \delta=1 $ if $ {\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)\ge 2 $ and $ 0 $ otherwise, and introduce the notation $ \{2\}^{\delta} $ to mean the set $ \{2\} $ if $ \delta=1 $ and $ \emptyset $ otherwise. We require two well-known lemmas [@borevich_number_1986 Theorem 1 and Theorem 3, p.0.1cm 41–42] in order to determine necessary conditions for solvability over ${{\mathbb Z}}_p$ to occur. \[lem:congeq\_padic\] Let $ F(x_{1},\cdots,x_{\ell})\in\mathbb{Z}[x_{1},\cdots,x_{\ell}] $. Then $ F(x_{1},\cdots,x_{\ell})\equiv 0\pmod{p^{t}} $ is solvable for all $ t\ge 1 $ if and only if the equation $ F(x_{1},\cdots,x_{\ell})=0 $ is solvable in $ \mathbb{Z}_{p} $. \[lem:hensel\] Let $ F(x_{1},\cdots,x_{\ell})\in\mathbb{Z}[x_{1},\cdots,x_{\ell}] $. If $ \omega_{1},\ldots,\omega_{\ell}\in\mathbb{Z}_{p} $ is a solution of the following system of congruences $$\begin{aligned} F(\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{\ell})& \equiv 0 \pmod{p^{2t+1}}\,, \\ F_{x_{i}} (\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{\ell})& \equiv 0 \pmod{p^{t}}\,, \\ F_{x_{i}} (\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{\ell})& \not\equiv 0 \pmod{p^{t+1}}\,, \end{aligned}$$ for some $ i $ ($ 1\le i\le \ell $), where $ t $ is a nonnegative integer and $F_{x}:=\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}$ denotes the derivative with respect to $x$, then the equation $ F(x_{1},\cdots,x_{\ell})=0 $ is solvable in $ \mathbb{Z}_{p} $. \[prop311\] Let $ m, a,b,c,n $ be positive integers and $ p $ be prime. 1. Assume $\gcd(a,b,c)=1 $. If $ p\in P(2^{1-\delta}(m-2)) $, then $8(m-2)n+(m-4)^{2}(a+b+c) \mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}_{p}} \varphi_{m,(a,b,c)}$; If $ {\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)\ge 2 $ and $ n\equiv \lfloor2/\small {\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)\rfloor(a+b+c) \pmod{8} $, then $8(m-2)n+(m-4)^{2}(a+b+c) \mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}_{2}}\varphi_{m,(a,b,c)}$. 2. If $ p\notin P(2(m-2)) $ and $ p\nmid abc $, then $n \mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}_{p}} \varphi_{m,(a,b,c)}$. 3. If $p\notin P(2(m-2))$, $ p\mid c $ but $ p\nmid abn $, then $n \mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}_{p}} \varphi_{m,(a,b,c)}$. 4. If $p\notin P(2(m-2)) $, $ p\mid c $, $ p\mid n $, but $ p\nmid ab $, and if $ p\notin\mathbb{P}(-4ab) $, then $n \mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}_{p}} \varphi_{m,(a,b,c)}$. \[re4\] For $ p\in P_{m}(a,b,c) $, if $ p\nmid n $, then $ n \mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}_{p}} \varphi_{m,(a,b,c)} $ by Proposition \[prop311\] [(ii)]{} and [(iii)]{}. [(i).]{} Let $ p\in P(2(m-2)) $. Since $ \gcd(a,b,c)=1 $, we may assume without loss of generality that $ p\nmid a $. We split into cases based on ${\mbox{ord}}_2(m)$. We first consider the case ${\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)=0$. Define the polynomial $$F(x,y,z):=2\triangle_{m,(a,b,c)}(x,y,z)-2n$$ in $ \mathbb{Z}[x,y,z] $ and then $ F_{x}(x,y,z)=2a(m-2)x-a(m-4) $. Also, $ \gcd(m-2,m-4)=1 $ and $ 2\nmid (m-2)(m-4) $. Take $$(x_{0},y_{0},z_{0})= \begin{cases} (1,0,0) & \mbox{if $ p=2 $},\\ (-2n(a(m-4))^{-1},0,0) & \mbox{if $ p\mid P_{m-2}$,} \end{cases}$$ where the inverse is taken in ${{\mathbb Z}}_p$. One can compute $ F(x_{0},y_{0},z_{0})\equiv 0\pmod{p} $ but $ F_{x}(x_{0},y_{0},z_{0})\equiv -a(m-4)\not\equiv 0 \pmod{p} $. Hence $ F(x,y,z)=0 $ is solvable in $ \mathbb{Z}_{p} $ by Lemma \[lem:hensel\], and thus there also exists a solution over ${{\mathbb Z}}_p$ to the equation $ \triangle_{m,(a,b,c)}(x,y,z)=n $. We next assume that ${\mbox{ord}}_2(m)\ge1$. In this case, we define the polynomial $$\widetilde{F}(x,y,z):=\triangle_{m,(a,b,c)}(x,y,z)-n$$ in $ \mathbb{Z}[x,y,z] $. Then $ \widetilde{F}_{x}(x,y,z)=a(2^{t}m^{\prime}-2)x-a(2^{t-1}m^{\prime}-2) $, where $m'=m/2^{t}$ with $t\geq 1$ and $2\nmid m'$. Take $$(x_{0},y_{0},z_{0})= \begin{cases} (1,0,0) & \text{if $ t=1 $, $ p=2 $ and $2\nmid n$},\\ (0,0,0) & \text{if $ t=1 $, $ p=2 $ and $2\mid n$},\\ (-n(a(2^{t-1}m^{\prime}-2))^{-1},0,0) & \text{if $ p\mid P_{m-2}$.} \end{cases}$$ One can see that $ \widetilde{F}(x_{0},y_{0},z_{0})\equiv 0\pmod{p} $ while $\widetilde{F}_{x}(x_{0},y_{0},z_{0})\equiv -2a(2^{t-2}m^{\prime}-1)\not\equiv 0 \pmod{p} $. Hence $ \triangle_{m,(a,b,c)}(x,y,z)=n $ is solvable in $ \mathbb{Z}_{p} $ for $ p\mid P_{m-2} $ and $ p=2 $, $ {\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)=1 $ by Lemma \[lem:hensel\]. We finally consider the case ${\mbox{ord}}_2(m)\geq 2$ and $ p=2 $. If $ {\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)=2 $ and $ n\equiv a+b+c\pmod{8} $, then one can put $ (x_{1},y_{1},z_{1})=(1,1,1) $ and check that $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{F}(x_{1},y_{1},z_{1})&=(a+b+c)(2m^{\prime}-1)-2(m^{\prime}-1)(a+b+c)-n\\ &=a+b+c-n\equiv 0 \pmod{8}, \end{aligned}$$ while $ \widetilde{F}_{x}(x_{1},y_{1},z_{1})=2^{t-1}m^{\prime}a=2m^{\prime}a\equiv 2\pmod{4} $. Hence $ \triangle_{m,(a,b,c)}(x,y,z)=n $ is solvable in $ \mathbb{Z}_{2} $ by Lemma \[lem:hensel\] (taking $t=1$). If $ {\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)>2 $ and $ n\equiv 0\pmod{8} $, then $ 2\nmid 2^{t-2}m^{\prime}-1 $. Put $ (x_{2},y_{2},z_{2})=(0,0,0) $ in this case. One can see that $\widetilde{F}(x_{2},y_{2},z_{2})=-n\equiv 0 \pmod{8}$ while $ \widetilde{F}_{x}(x_{2},y_{2},z_{2})=-2a(2^{t-2}m^{\prime}-1)\equiv 2\pmod{4} $. Hence $ \triangle_{m,(a,b,c)}(x,y,z)=n $ is solvable in $ \mathbb{Z}_{2} $ by Lemma \[lem:hensel\]. [(ii)–(iv).]{} Assume $ p\notin P(2(m-2)) $. Since the linear map $x\mapsto 2(m-2)x-(m-4)$ is a bijection in ${{\mathbb Z}}_p$, the statements [(ii)-(iv)]{} follow immediately from Dickson’s results [@dickson_modern_1939 Lemma 3-5, p.0.1cm 107] and Lemma \[lem:congeq\_padic\]. For given positive integers $ a,b $ and $ c $ with $ \gcd(a,b,c)=1 $, since Watson’s transformations preserve the regularity of quadratic forms ([@ricci_finiteness_nodate Lemma 2.6, p.0.1cm 26-27] or see the “Descending trick" in [@chan_representations_2013] for the specific details), we may assume $ G_{m}(a,b,c)=\emptyset $. Then $8(m-2)n+(m-4)^{2}(a+b+c) \mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}_{p}} \varphi_{m,(a,b,c)}$ for $ p\in P(2^{1-\delta}(m-2)) $ and $ p\nmid abc $ by Proposition \[prop311\] [(i)]{} and [(ii)]{}. For $ p\mid abc $, without loss of generality, let $ p\mid a$. If $ (-4bc/p)=1 $, then $8(m-2)n+(m-4)^{2}(a+b+c) \mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}_{p}} \varphi_{m,(a,b,c)}$ by Proposition \[prop311\] [(iii)]{} if $ p\nmid 8(m-2)n+(m-4)^{2}(a+b+c) $ and by Proposition \[prop311\] [(iv)]{} if $ p\mid 8(m-2)n+(m-4)^{2}(a+b+c) $. Therefore, to check whether $ 8(m-2)n+(m-4)^{2}(a+b+c) $ is locally represented by $ \varphi_{m,(a,b,c)} $ or not, it is sufficient to consider the local representation over $ \mathbb{Z}_{p} $ for $ p\in P_{m}(a,b,c)\cup \{2\}^{\delta}$. Bounding the coefficients $ a $, $ b $ and $ c $ {#sec:bound_abc} ================================================ For each fixed integer $ m>3 $, we always assume that $ q_{0} $ is the smallest prime in the set $\mathbb{P}(-4ab)\backslash (P(m-2)\cup P_{m}(c,ab))$ (the existence follows from Lemma \[lem231\] [(i)]{} below) and denote by $ \{q_{i}\}_{ab,m} $ ($ i=1,2,\ldots $) the sequence of all primes in $\mathbb{P}(-4ab)\backslash P(q_{0}(m-2)) $ in ascending order for brevity. The following useful proposition may be found in [@kim_2-universal_1999 Lemma 3.5]. \[prop4\] Let $ T $ be a finite set of primes. Set $ P:=\prod_{p\in T}p $ and let $ \ell $ be an integer relatively prime to $P$. Then for any integer $u$, the number of integers in the set $$\begin{aligned} \{u,\ell+u,\cdots,\ell(n-1)+u\} \end{aligned}$$ that are relatively prime to $P$ is at least $n\phi(P)/P-2^{\omega(P)}+1.$ We next give an upper bound on the product $ab$ for a regular ternary $m$-gonal form by using Proposition \[prop4\]. To state the bound, we use the abbreviation $\rho(n):=2^{\omega(n)}n/\phi(n)$. \[lem33m\] Let $ a\le b\le c$ be positive integers for which $ \gcd(a,b,c)=1 $ and $G_m(a,b,c)=\emptyset$. If $ \triangle_{m,(a,b,c)} $ is regular, then $$\begin{aligned} a \le 8\rho(P_{abc}) \hskip0.5cm \mbox{and} \hskip 0.5cm b \le 64\cdot 11 P_{abc}\rho(P_{abc})/\phi(P_{abc}). \end{aligned}$$ Hence $ab<C_{2}P_{abc}\rho(P_{abc})^{2}/\phi(P_{abc})$, where $ C_{2}:=2^{9}\cdot 11 $ is a constant. \[rem:relprime\] At first glance, it is not obvious whether the right-hand sides of the inequalities in Lemma \[lem33m\] grow faster or slower than the left-hand sides. However, since $\frac{n}{\phi(n)}=O(n^{\varepsilon})$, the right-hand side grows like $P_{abc}^{\varepsilon}\ll (abc)^{\varepsilon}$. Thus if $c$ may be bounded as a function of $a$ and $b$ slower than $(ab)^{1/\varepsilon}$, then such a bound may be combined with Lemma \[lem33m\] to obtain a restriction on the possible choices of $a$, $b$, and $c$ for which the form $\triangle_{m,(a,b,c)}$ may be regular. If $ {\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)<2 $, we take $ w_{0}=1 $; if $ {\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)\ge 2 $, we choose $w_0$ such that $0< w_{0}\le 8 $ and $w_{0}\equiv \lfloor2/\small {\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)\rfloor(a+b+c) \pmod{8}$. Clearly, for every $v\in{\mathbb{N}}$, if $ {\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)\ge 2 $, then the integer $n=8^{\delta}v+w_{0}$ is congruent to $\lfloor2/\small {\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)\rfloor(a+b+c) $ modulo $ 8 $. We next construct a pair of integers $N_0$ and $\bar{N}_{0}$ which are locally represented by $\varphi_{m,(a,b,c)}$ and then use the regularity to obtain upper bounds for $a$ and $b$. We do so in a series of steps (a)–(c) below, first constructing them in (a), showing that they are locally represented in (b), and finally obtaining the bounds for $a$ and $b$ in (c). \(a) We first construct the integers $ N_{0} $ and $ \bar{N}_{0} $ such that $ \gcd(N_{0},P_{abc})=1 = \gcd(\bar{N}_{0},P_{abc})$. Write $ u=8(m-2)w_{0}+(m-4)^{2}(a+b+c) $. Since $ \gcd(2(m-2),P_{abc})=1 $, when $ v= \lfloor\rho(P_{abc})\rfloor $, $ v\phi(P_{abc})/P_{abc}-2^{\omega(P_{abc})}+1>0 $. By Proposition \[prop4\], there exists at least one integer $ 0\le v_{0}\le v-1 $ such that $N_{0}:=8^{\delta+1}(m-2)v_{0}+u$ is relatively prime to $P_{abc}$. We now construct $ \bar{N}_{0} $. We claim that for $ v\ge 2 $, there are at most $ 2\sqrt{2\cdot 8^{\delta}(v+1)+1/4} $ integers between $1$ and $v$ represented by $ (\triangle_{m,a}(x)-w_{0})/8^{\delta} $. Indeed, solving the inequality $$\begin{aligned} a\hskip 0.1cm \dfrac{(m-2)x^{2}-(m-4)x}{2\cdot 8^{\delta}}-\dfrac{w_{0}}{8^{\delta}}\le v \end{aligned}$$ for $ x $, we see that $ x_{-}\le x\le x_{+} $, where $$\begin{aligned} x_{\pm}=\pm\sqrt{\dfrac{2(8^{\delta}v+w_{0})}{a(m-2)}+\left(\dfrac{m-4}{2(m-2)}\right)^{2}}+\dfrac{m-4}{2(m-2)}. \end{aligned}$$ Since $ a\ge 1 $, $ m>3 $ and $ w_{0}\le 8^{\delta} $, we have $$\begin{aligned} 2\sqrt{\dfrac{2(8^{\delta}v+w_{0})}{a(m-2)}+\left(\dfrac{m-4}{2(m-2)}\right)^{2}}<2\sqrt{2\cdot 8^{\delta}(v+1)+1/4}, \end{aligned}$$ yielding the claim. Taking $v=\lfloor 11\cdot 8^{\delta} P_{abc}\rho(P_{abc})/\phi(P_{abc})\rfloor$, one can compute $$\begin{aligned} v\phi(P_{abc})/P_{abc}-2^{\omega(P_{abc})}+1&>2\sqrt{2\cdot 8^{\delta}(v+1)+1/4}. \end{aligned}$$ Since $ \gcd(2(m-2),P_{abc})=1 $, Proposition \[prop4\] implies that there exists an integer $ 0\le \bar{v}_{0}\le v-1 $ for which $ \bar{N}_{0}:=8^{\delta+1}(m-2)\bar{v}_{0}+u $ is relatively prime to $P_{abc}$ and $ \bar{v}_{0}$ is not represented by $ (\triangle_{m,a}(x)-w_{0})/8^{\delta} $; namely, $ 8^{\delta}\bar{v}_{0}+w_{0} $ is not represented by $ \triangle_{m,a}(x) $. \(b) For each prime $ p $, we have $ N_{0}\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb {Z}_{p}}\varphi_{m,(a,b,c)} $ and $ \bar{N}_{0}\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb {Z}_{p}}\varphi_{m,(a,b,c)} $. By the construction in (a), we see that $ N_{0} $ can be rewritten as $8(m-2)n_{0}+(m-4)^{2}(a+b+c)$, where $ n_{0}=8^{\delta}v_{0}+w_{0} $ is a positive integer. Clearly, when $ {\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)\le 1 $, by the first part of Proposition \[prop311\] [(i)]{}, $N_{0}\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}_{2}}\varphi_{m,(a,b,c)}$; when $ {\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)\ge2 $, $ n_{0}\equiv \lfloor2/\small {\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)\rfloor(a+b+c) \pmod{8} $ and by the second part of Proposition \[prop311\] [(i)]{} we conclude that $N_{0}\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}_{2}}\varphi_{m,(a,b,c)}$. For $ p\in P_{m}(a,b,c) $, since $ \gcd(N_{0},P_{abc})=1 $, by Remark \[re4\] we further see that $N_{0}\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb {Z}_{p}}\varphi_{m,(a,b,c)}$. Hence $N_{0}\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}_{p}}\varphi_{m,(a,b,c)}$ for each prime $ p $. Note that $ \bar{N}_{0} $ can be also rewritten as $8(m-2)\bar{n}_{0}+(m-4)^{2}(a+b+c)$, where $ \bar{n}_{0}=8^{\delta}\bar{v}_{0}+w_{0}>0 $. Repeating the above argument, we deduce that $\bar{N}_{0}\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}_{p}}\varphi_{m,(a,b,c)}$ for each prime $ p $. \(c) We finally use $N_0$ and $\bar{N}_{0}$ to bound $ a $ and $ b $. From (b), we see that $ N_{0} $ is locally represented by $ \varphi_{m,(a,b,c)}$. Since $ \varphi_{m,(a,b,c)} $ is regular, $N_{0}$ is globally represented by $ \varphi_{m,(a,b,c)}$. It follows that $ n_{0}\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}}\triangle_{m,(a,b,c)}$ from Remark \[re1\]. Hence $$a\le n_{0}= 8^{\delta}v_{0}+w_{0}\le 8^{\delta}(\rho(P_{abc})-1)+8^{\delta}\le 8\rho(P_{abc}).$$ From the construction in (a), we see that $ \bar{N}_{0} $ can be written as $8(m-2)\bar{n}_{0}+(m-4)^{2}(a+b+c)$, where $ \bar{n}_{0}=8^{\delta}\bar{v}_{0}+w_{0} $ is not represented by $ \triangle_{m,a} $. By (b), $\bar{N}_{0}$ is also locally represented by $ \varphi_{m,(a,b,c)}$ and so also globally represented from the regularity of $ \varphi_{m,(a,b,c)} $. This implies $ \bar{n}_{0}\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}}\triangle_{m,(a,b,c)} $. Since $ \bar{n}_{0}\mathop{\not\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}}\triangle_{m,a} $, it must be the case that $$\begin{aligned} b\le \bar{n}_{0}= 8^{\delta}\bar{v}_{0}+w_{0}&<8^{\delta}(11\cdot 8^{\delta}P_{abc}\rho(P_{abc})/\phi(P_{abc})-1)+8^{\delta} \\ &\leq 64\cdot 11P_{abc}\rho(P_{abc})/ \phi(P_{abc}).\qedhere \end{aligned}$$ Write $ K(a,b,c):=24P_{ab}\rho(P_{abc}) $ hereafter. \[lem231\] Let $ a,b,c $ be positive integers. Set $ C_{1}:=2^{9/5}C_{0}^{6/5}$, where $ C_{0} $ is the constant defined as in Lemma \[lem312\]. Fix an integer $ m\geq 4 $. Then the following hold. 1. We have $ q_{0}<4^{2/3}C_{0}(P_{m-2}P_{c})^{1/6}(ab)^{2/3}$. 2. There exists at least one prime $ q $ in $\{q_{i}\}_{ab,m}$ such that $$\begin{aligned} q<C_{1}P_{m-2}^{1/6}(q_{0}^{3}K(a,b,c))^{1/5}(ab)^{4/5}. \end{aligned}$$ 3. Assume that $q_{i_{0}+1} $ is the least prime in $ \{q_{i} \}_{ab,m} $ greater than $$C_{1}P_{m-2}^{1/6}(q_{0}^{3}K(a,b,c))^{1/5}(ab)^{4/5}.$$ Then the inequality $$\label{eq34} \begin{aligned} K(a,b,c)q_{0}^{2}q_{i+1}<(m-3)q_{1}q_{2}\cdots q_{i} \end{aligned}$$ holds for $ i\ge i_{0} $. Let $ t $ be the least positive integer such that $ P_{m-2}/t $ is prime to $ 4ab $. Then $ P_{m-2}=tu $, where $ u\ge 1 $ and $ \gcd(2ab,u)=1 $. [(i).]{} Take $ D=-4ab $ and $ M=P_{c}u$ in Lemma \[lem312\]. We see that there exists some prime $ q\in \mathbb{P}(-4ab)\backslash (P(m-2)\cup P_{m}(c,ab)) $ such that $$\begin{aligned} q_{0}\le q<C_{0}(4ab)^{2/3}(P_{c}u)^{1/6}\le 4^{2/3}C_{0}(P_{m-2}P_{c})^{1/6}(ab)^{2/3}. \end{aligned}$$ [(ii).]{} Taking $ D=-4ab $ and $ M=q_{0}u$ in Lemma \[lem312\], we see that there exists some prime $ q\in \mathbb{P}(-4ab)\backslash P(q_{0}(m-2)) $ such that $$\begin{aligned} q<C_{0}(4ab)^{2/3}(q_{0}u)^{1/6}&<4^{2/3}C_{0}(q_{0}P_{m-2})^{1/6}(ab)^{2/3}\\ &<C_{1}P_{m-2}^{1/6}(q_{0}^{3}K(a,b,c))^{1/5}(ab)^{4/5}. \end{aligned}$$ [(iii).]{} Now suppose that $ q_{1}q_{2}\cdots q_{j}\le K(a,b,c)q_{0}^{2}q_{j+1}/(m-3)$ for some $ j\ge i_{0} $. Taking $ D=-4ab $ and $ M=q_{1}q_{2}\cdots q_{j}q_{0}u $ in Lemma \[lem312\], one deduces that there exists some prime $ q^{\prime}\in \mathbb{P}(-4ab)\backslash P(q_{0}(m-2)) $ different from $ q_{1},q_{2},\cdots,q_{j} $ such that $$\begin{aligned} q_{j+1}\le q^{\prime} &<C_{0}(4ab)^{2/3}(q_{1}q_{2}\cdots q_{j}q_{0}u)^{1/6}\\ &<C_{0}4^{2/3} (q_{0}^{3}P_{m-2}K(a,b,c)/(m-3))^{1/6}(ab)^{2/3}q_{j+1}^{1/6}\\ &\le C_{0}4^{2/3}(2q_{0}^{3}K(a,b,c))^{1/6}(ab)^{2/3}q_{j+1}^{1/6}, \end{aligned}$$ where in the last line we bounded $P_{m-2}/(m-3)\leq (m-2)/(m-3)\leq 2$ for $m\geq 4$. It follows that $$\begin{aligned} q_{j+1}&<C_{0}^{6/5}4^{4/5} (2q_{0}^{3}K(a,b,c))^{1/5}(ab)^{4/5}\\ &\leq C_{1}P_{m-2}^{1/6}(q_{0}^{3}K(a,b,c))^{1/5}(ab)^{4/5}<q_{i_{0}+1}, \end{aligned}$$ which contradicts the assumption that $j\ge i_{0}$. \[lem322\] Let $ a,b,c $ be positive integers. Then for each $ q_{i} $ in the prime sequence $ \{q_{i}\}_{ab,m} $ ($ i=1,2,\cdots $), there exists some $ N_{i} $ such that $ {\mbox{ord}}_{q_{i}}N_{i}=1 $, $ N_{i}\equiv (m-4)^{2}(a+b) \pmod{8(m-2)}$, $ N_{i}\equiv 8(m-2)c+q_{0} \pmod{q_{0}^{2}} $ and $ \gcd(N_{i}/q_{i},P_{c})=1 $. Hence there exists a positive integer $ n_{i} $ such that $ N_{i}=8(m-2)n_{i}+(m-4)^{2}(a+b) $. Also, $ n_{i}\le K(a,b,c)q_{0}^{2}q_{i} $. If moreover $ {\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)\ge 2 $, then $ n_{i}\equiv \lfloor2/\small {\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)\rfloor (a+b+c) \pmod{8}$. Write $ P_{ab}=P_{ab}^{\prime}s $, where $ \gcd(s, P_{ab}^{\prime})=1 $. For $ i=1,2,\cdots $, observe that $\gcd(sq_{i},2(m-2)q_{0})=1$ from $2\nmid P_{ab}$, and $ \gcd(q_{i},2(m-2)q_{0}ab)=1 $. Also, $\gcd(q_{0},8(m-2))=1 $ and moreover, when $ {\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)\ge 2 $, $ \gcd(8(m-2),128)=16\mid 8(m-2) \lfloor 2/{\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)\rfloor(a+b+c).$ By the Chinese remainder theorem, the system of congruences $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} sq_{i}u&\equiv 8(m-2)c+q_{0} \pmod{q_{0}^{2}} \\ sq_{i}u&\equiv (m-4)^{2}(a+b) \pmod{8(m-2)} \\ sq_{i}u&\equiv 8(m-2)\lfloor 2/{\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)\rfloor(a+b+c)+(m-4)^{2}(a+b) \pmod{128^{\delta}} \\ \end{aligned} \right.$$ is solvable (in terms of $ u $) for each $ m>3 $. Then we take its solution, say $ u_{i} $, in the range $$(m-4)^{2}(a+b)/(sq_{i})< u_{i}\le 8^{\delta+1}(m-2)q_{0}^{2}+(m-4)^{2}(a+b)/(sq_{i}).$$ Since $8^{\delta+1}(m-2)q_{0}^{2}v+u_{i} $ is also a solution for any $ v\in\mathbb{N} $ (note that $ 128\mid 8^{\delta+1}(m-2) $ when $ {\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)\ge 2 $) and $ \gcd(2(m-2)q_{0}^{2},q_{i}P_{c}P_{ab}^{\prime})=1 $, choosing $ v=\lfloor\rho(q_{i}P_{c}P_{ab}^{\prime})\rfloor$, we see by Proposition \[prop4\] that there exists at least one integer $ 0\le v_{i} \le v-1 $ for which $ w_{i}:=8^{\delta+1}(m-2)q_{0}^{2}v_{i}+u_{i} $ satisfies $ \gcd(w_{i},q_{i}P_{c}P_{ab}^{\prime})=1 $. Take $ N_{i}:=sq_{i}w_{i} $. Since $ \gcd(sw_{i},q_{i})=1 $, ${\mbox{ord}}_{q_{i}}N_{i}=1$. Also, since $ \gcd(P_{ab}w_{i}, P_{c})=1 $, it follows that $ \gcd(N_{i}/q_{i}, P_{c})=\gcd(sw_{i},P_{c})=1 $. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:Nibound} (m-4)^{2}(a+b)< N_{i}&=sq_{i}(8^{\delta+1}(m-2)q_{0}^{2}v_{i}+u_{i})\\ \nonumber &\le sq_{i}\Big(8^{\delta+1}(m-2)q_{0}^{2}(\rho(q_{i}P_{c}P_{ab}^{\prime})-1)+\\ \nonumber &\hskip1.25cm 8^{\delta+1}(m-2)q_{0}^{2}+(m-4)^{2}(a+b)/(sq_{i})\Big) \\ \nonumber &\le sq_{i}8^{\delta+1}(m-2)q_{0}^{2}\rho(q_{i}P_{c}P_{ab}^{\prime})+(m-4)^{2}(a+b) \\ \nonumber &\le 24\cdot 8^{\delta}(m-2)q_{0}^{2}P_{ab}\rho(P_{abc})q_{i}+(m-4)^{2}(a+b), \end{aligned}$$ as $ \rho(q_{i})\le 3 $, $ s\le P_{ab} $ and $ P_{ab}^{\prime}\mid P_{ab} $. For the second part, from the last two congruences, we have $$N_{i}=sq_{i}w_{i}=8(m-2)8^{\delta}t_{i}+(m-4)^{2}(a+b)$$ for some positive integer $ t_{i} $, as $ N_{i}>(m-4)^{2}(a+b) $ by construction. Take $ n_{i}:=8^{\delta}t_{i} $. Then $ n_{i}>0 $. Since $N_{i}\le 24\cdot 8^{\delta}(m-2)q_{0}^{2}P_{ab}\rho(P_{abc})q_{i}+(m-4)^{2}(a+b)$ by , we have $$\begin{aligned} n_{i}\le 3\cdot 8^{\delta}P_{ab}\rho(P_{abc})q_{0}^{2}q_{i}\le K(a,b,c)q_{0}^{2}q_{i}. \end{aligned}$$ When $ {\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)\ge 2 $, we also have $$N_{i} \equiv 8(m-2) \lfloor 2/{\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)\rfloor(a+b+c)+(m-4)^{2}(a+b)\pmod{128},$$ which implies $ n_{i}\equiv \lfloor 2/{\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)\rfloor (a+b+c) \pmod{8}$. \[lem323\] Let $ a,b,c$ be positive integers with $ a\le b\le c $ and $ \gcd(a,b,c)=1 $. Let $ N_{i} $ be the integers as defined in Lemma \[lem322\], $ i=1,2,\cdots $. Then the following hold. 1. We have $ N_{i}\mathop{\not\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}}\varphi_{m,(a,b)}$; if $ N_{i}-8(m-2)c>0 $, then $ N_{i}-8(m-2)c\mathop{\not\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}}\varphi_{m,(a,b)}$. 2. If $ p\in P_{m}(a,bc)\cup P_{m}(b,ac)\cup \{2\}^{\delta}$, then $ N_{i}+(m-4)^{2}c\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}_{p}}\varphi_{m,(a,b,c)} $. 3. If $ p\in P_{m}(c,ab)$ and $q_i\nmid c$, then $ N_{i}+(m-4)^{2}c\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}_{p}}\varphi_{m,(a,b,c)} $. 4. If $ q_i\nmid c$ and $a$, $b$, and $c$ satisfy $G_m(a,b,c)=\emptyset$, then $ N_{i}+(m-4)^{2}c\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}_{p}}\varphi_{m,(a,b,c)} $ for each prime $ p $. Let $ N_{i}=sq_{i}w_{i} $ be as constructed in Lemma \[lem322\] for $ i=1,2,\cdots $. [(i).]{} If $ N_{i} $ is represented by $ \varphi_{m,(a,b)} $, then the equation $ N_{i}=ax^{2}+by^{2} $ is solvable (in $\mathbb{Z}$) and so is $ 4aN_{i}=x^{2}+4aby^{2} $. Hence $ x^{2}+4aby^{2}\equiv 0\pmod{q_{i}} $. But $ (-4ab/q_{i})=-1 $, which implies that $ x\equiv y\equiv 0\pmod{q_{i}} $. So $q_{i}^{2}\mid x^{2}+4aby^{2}=4aN_{i}$ and hence $ q_{i}^{2}\mid N_{i} $, which contradicts $ {\mbox{ord}}_{q_{i}}N_{i}=1 $. If $ N_{i}-8(m-2)c>0 $, then since $ N_{i}\equiv 8(m-2)c+q_{0} \pmod{q_{0}^{2}} $, we conclude that $ {\mbox{ord}}_{q_{0}}(N_{i}-8(m-2)c)=1 $. If $N_i-8(m-2)c$ is represented by $ \varphi_{m,(a,b)} $ over ${{\mathbb Z}}$, then since $(-4ab/q_0)=-1$, we again conclude by a similar argument that $q_0^2\mid N_{i}-8(m-2)c $, yielding a contradiction. [(ii).]{} Let $ p\in P_{m}(a,bc)\cup P_{m}(b,ac)$ be given, from which we conclude that $p\mid P_{ab} $ but $ p\nmid c $. We again write $P_{ab}=P_{ab}'s$, with $\gcd(P_{ab}',s)=1$, so that either $ p\mid s $ or $ p\mid P_{ab}^{\prime} $. If $ p\mid s $, then $ p\nmid m-4 $ and it follows that $ \gcd(N_{i}+(m-4)^{2}c,p)=\gcd((m-4)c,p)=1 $ and so $ N_{i}+(m-4)^{2}c\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}_{p}}\varphi_{m,(a,b,c)}$ by Remark \[re4\]. On the other hand, if $ p\mid P_{ab}^{\prime} $, then $ p\mid m-4 $ and $p\nmid s$ and hence $$\gcd(N_{i}+(m-4)^{2}c,p)=\gcd(N_{i},p)=\gcd(sq_iw_i,p)=\gcd(q_iw_i,p).$$ We then note that $ p\neq q_{i} $ because $ \gcd(q_{i},ab)=1 $ and $ \gcd(w_{i},P_{ab}^{\prime})=1 $, from which we conclude that $ \gcd(q_iw_{i},p)=1 $. So $ N_{i}+(m-4)^{2}c\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}_{p}}\varphi_{m,(a,b,c)} $ by Remark \[re4\]. Now consider $ p=2 $ and assume without loss of generality that $ {\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)\ge 2 $, since otherwise this case is covered above. Observe that $ N_{i}+(m-4)^{2}c=8(m-2)n_{i}+(m-4)^{2}(a+b+c) $ and $ n_{i}\equiv \lfloor 2/{\mbox{ord}}_{2}(m)\rfloor (a+b+c) \pmod{8}$, where $ n_{i} $ is constructed as in the proof of Lemma \[lem323\]. By the second part of Proposition \[prop311\] [(i)]{}, we have $ N_{i}+(m-4)^{2}c\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}_{2}}\varphi_{m,(a,b,c)} $. [(iii).]{} Let $ p\in P_{m}(c,ab) $ with $q_i\nmid c$ be given. Then $ p\mid P_{c} $ but $ p\nmid ab $. Since $p\mid c$, $s\mid P_{ab}$, $\gcd(w_i,P_c)=1$, and $q_i\nmid c$ by construction (and hence $q_i\neq p$), we have $$\gcd(N_{i}+(m-4)^{2}c,p)=\gcd(N_{i},p)=\gcd(sw_iq_i,p)=1.$$ Therefore $ N_{i}+(m-4)^{2}c\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}_{p}}\varphi_{m,(a,b,c)}$ by Remark \[re4\]. [(iv).]{} The statement follows immediately from parts [(ii)]{} and [(iii)]{}. Recall from Remark \[rem:relprime\] that one obtains a bound for $a$ and $b$ in a regular $\triangle_{m,(a,b,c)}$ which is non-trivial when $a$, $b$, and $c$ satisfy $G_m(a,b,c)=\emptyset$. It was then explained that obtaining a bound for $c$ in terms of $a$ and $b$ would lead to a bound for the possible choices of $a$, $b$, and $c$ for which $\triangle_{m,(a,b,c)}$ is regular. Following Dickson’s proofs of [@dickson_ternary_1926 Theorem 5, 6], we deduce such a bound for $c$. \[lem324\] Let $ a\le b\le c $ be positive integers for which $\gcd(a,b,c)=1$ and $G_m(a,b,c)=\emptyset$. If $ \triangle_{m,(a,b,c)} $ is regular, then $$\begin{aligned} (m-3)c\le C_{3}P_{m-2}^{3/5}P_{c}^{1/2}K(a,b,c)^{6/5}(ab)^{38/15} \end{aligned}$$ with the constant $ C_{3}:=4^{26/15}C_{0}^{13/5}C_{1} $, where $C_{0}$ and $C_{1} $ are defined as in Lemma \[lem312\] and \[lem231\], respectively. Consider the prime sequence $ \{q_{i}\}_{ab,m} $. By Lemma \[lem231\] (ii), we see that $$\begin{aligned} q_{1}<q_{2}<\cdots<q_{i_{0}}<C_{1}P_{m-2}^{1/6}(q_{0}^{3}K(a,b,c))^{1/5}(ab)^{4/5}<q_{i_{0}+1}<\cdots, \end{aligned}$$ for some $ i_{0}\ge 1 $. For each $ i $, we take $ N_{i}=sq_{i}w_{i}=8(m-2)n_{i}+(m-4)^{2}(a+b) $ as constructed in Lemma \[lem322\]. If $ q_j\nmid c $ for some $ 1\le j\le i_{0} $, then $N_{j}+(m-4)^{2}c\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}_{p}}\varphi_{m,(a,b,c)}$ for every prime $ p $ by Lemma \[lem323\] [(iv)]{}. But then $ n_{j}\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}_{p}}\triangle_{m,(a,b,c)} $ for each prime $ p $ and $ \triangle_{m,(a,b,c)} $ is regular so $ n_{j}\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}}\triangle_{m,(a,b,c)} $. Hence $N_{j}+(m-4)^{2}c\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}}\varphi_{m,(a,b,c)} $. Namely, $$\label{eqn:Njz0} N_{j}=\varphi_{m,(a,b)}(x_{0},y_{0})+4c(m-2)z_{0}((m-2)z_{0}-(m-4))$$ for some $ x_{0},y_{0},z_{0}\in\mathbb{Z} $. Since $ N_{j}\mathop{\not\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}}\varphi_{m,(a,b)} $ by Lemma \[lem323\] [(i)]{}, it follows that $ z_{0}\neq 0$. Moreover, since is increasing as a function of $z_0$ for $z_0>0$ and decreasing for $z_0<0$, we have $ N_j-8(m-2)c\geq \varphi_{m,(a,b)}(x_0,y_0)$. Since $N_j-8(m-2)c\equiv q_0\pmod{q_0^2}$ from Lemma \[lem322\], we have $ N_{j}-8(m-2)c>0$ and so $ N_{j}-8(m-2)c\mathop{\not\rightarrow}\limits_{\mathbb{Z}}\varphi_{m,(a,b)}$ by Lemma \[lem323\] [(i)]{}, which in turn implies that $ z_{0}\neq 1$. Hence $ N_{j}\ge \varphi_{m,(a,b)}(x_{0},y_{0})+8c(m-2)(m-3) $; that is $n_{j}\ge \triangle_{m,(a,b)}(x_{0},y_{0})+c(m-3)$ and so, using the fact that $n_j\leq K(a,b,c)q_0^2q_j$ by Lemma \[lem322\] and $q_j\leq q_{i_0}$, $$\begin{aligned} (m-3)c\le n_{j}\le K(a,b,c)q_{0}^{2}q_{j}&\le K(a,b,c)q_{0}^{2}q_{i_{0}} \\ &\le K(a,b,c) q_{0}^{2}C_{1}P_{m-2}^{1/6}(q_{0}^{3}K(a,b,c))^{1/5}(ab)^{4/5}.\end{aligned}$$ We then use Lemma \[lem231\] (i) to bound $q_0$, obtaining $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:boundc} (m-3)c &<C_{1}P_{m-2}^{1/6}K(a,b,c)^{6/5} (ab)^{4/5}\left(4^{2/3}C_{0}(P_{m-2}P_{c})^{1/6}(ab)^{2/3}\right)^{13/5}\\ &< 4^{26/15}C_{0}^{13/5}C_{1}P_{m-2}^{3/5}P_{c}^{1/2}K(a,b,c)^{6/5}(ab)^{38/15}.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Hence if there exists some $j\leq i_0$ for which $q_j\nmid c$, then we have , which implies the claim. On the other hand, if no such $j$ exists, then we have $ q_{1}q_{2}\cdots q_{i_{0}} \mid P_{c}$. We claim that for every $i\geq i_0$ we have $q_{1}q_{2}\cdots q_i\mid P_c$, leading to a contradiction because $c$ is finite. The case $i=i_0$ is assumed, and we proceed by induction. Suppose that $i\geq i_0$ and $q_1\cdots q_{i}\mid P_c$. If $q_{i+1}\nmid c$, then we again have $n_{i+1}\leq K(a,b,c)q_0q_{i+1}$ by Lemma \[lem322\] and repeating the above argument we obtain $$\begin{aligned} (m-3)q_{1}q_{2}\cdots q_{i}\le (m-3)P_{c} \le (m-3)c\le n_{i+1}\le K(a,b,c)q_{0}^{2}q_{i+1}, \end{aligned}$$ which contradicts the inequality in Lemma \[lem231\]. We conclude that $j$ must exist, and therefore follows. Proof of Theorem \[thm0\]. First suppose that $\triangle_{m,(a,b,c)}$ is regular and $G_m(a,b,c)\neq\emptyset$. As noted at the end of Section \[sec:local\_representation\], Watson’s transformations (see [@ricci_finiteness_nodate Lemma 2.6, p.0.1cm 26-27] or the “Descending trick" in [@chan_representations_2013]) then imply that there exists another regular form $\triangle_{m,(a',b',c')}$ with $G_m(a',b',c')=\emptyset$. It thus suffices to prove that there do not exist any regular forms with $G_m(a,b,c)=\emptyset$ for $m$ sufficiently large. Note that $ P_{ab}\le ab $ and $ P_{c}\le c $. Also, when $ m\ge 6 $, $ P_{m-2}^{3/5}<(m-3)^{4/5}$. By Lemma \[lem324\], $$\begin{aligned} (m-3)c&\le C_{3}P_{m-2}^{3/5}P_{c}^{1/2}K(a,b,c)^{6/5}(ab)^{38/15} \\ &< C_{3}(m-3)^{4/5}c^{1/2}(24P_{ab}\rho(P_{abc}))^{6/5}(ab)^{38/15} \\ &< C_{3}(24\rho(P_{abc}))^{6/5}(m-3)^{4/5}c^{1/2}(ab)^{56/15}.\end{aligned}$$ Namely, $ (m-3)^{2/5}c<C_{3}^{2}(24\rho(P_{abc}))^{12/5}(ab)^{112/15} $. By Lemma \[lem33m\], we deduce that $$\begin{aligned} (m-3)^{2/5}c&<C_{3}^{2}(24\rho(P_{abc}))^{12/5}(ab)^{112/15} \\ &< C_{3}^{2}(24\rho(P_{abc}))^{12/5}(C_{2}P_{abc}\rho(P_{abc})^{2}/\phi(P_{abc}))^{112/15}.\end{aligned}$$ and so $(m-3)^{2/5}c<C_{4}\rho(P_{abc})^{18}(P_{abc}/\phi(P_{abc}))^{112/15}$, where $ C_{4}=24^{12/5}C_{2}^{112/15}C_{3}^{2}$. Since $ P_{abc}/\phi(P_{abc})\ll P_{abc}^{\epsilon} $ and $ 2^{\omega(P_{abc})}\ll P_{abc}^{\epsilon} $, $$\begin{aligned} (m-3)^{2/5}a\le (m-3)^{2/5}b\le (m-3)^{2/5}c\ll P_{abc}^{\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $ (m-3)^{6/5}abc\ll P_{abc}^{\epsilon} $ and since $1\leq a\leq b\leq c$, this leads to a contradiction for $m$ sufficiently large. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== The authors would like to thank Yuk-Kam Lau for helpful discussion. [99]{} G. Bachman and L. Rachakonda, On a Problem of Dobrowolski and Williams and the P[ó]{}lya-Vinogradov Inequality , Ramanujan J. 5 (2001), 65–71. Borevich, Z.I. and Shafarevich, I.R., Number Theory , Academic Press, New York, 1986. W. K. Chan and B.-K. Oh, Representations of integral quadratic polynomials , Contemp. Math. 587 (2013), 31–46. W. K. Chan and J. Ricci, The representation of integers by positive ternary quadratic polynomials , J. Number Theory 156 (2015), 75–94. D. A. Cox, Primes of the form $x^2+ny^2$: Fermat, class field theory, and complex multiplication , second edition, 2013. L. E. Dickson, Ternary quadratic forms and congruences , Ann. Math. 28 (1926), 333–341. L. E. Dickson, Modern elementary theory of numbers , The University of Chicago press, 1939. A. G. Earnest, The representation of binary quadratic forms by positive definite quaternary quadratic forms , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 345 (1994), 853–863. W. Jagy, I. Kaplansky, and A. Schiemann, There are 913 regular ternary quadratic forms , Mathematika 44 (1997), 332–341. B. Jones, The regularity of a genus of positive ternary quadratic forms , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 33 (1931), 111–124. B. Jones, A new definition of genus for ternary quadratic forms , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 33 (1931), 92–110. B. Jones and G. Pall, Regular and semi-regular positive ternary quadratic forms , Acta. Math. 70 (1939), 165–191. B. M. Kim, M.-H. Kim, and B.-K. Oh, 2-universal positive definite integral quinary quadratic forms , Contemp. Math. 249 (1999), 51–62. M. Kim and B.-K. Oh, Regular ternary quadratic forms , preprint. R. Lemke Oliver, Representation by ternary quadratic forms , Bull. London Math. Soc. 46 (2014), 1237–1247. B.-K. Oh, Representations of arithmetic progressions by positive definite quadratic forms , Int. J. Number Theory 7 (2011), 1603–1614. J. Ricci, Finiteness results for regular rernary quadratic polynomials , Wesleyan University, Ph.D. thesis, Wesleyan University, 2014. G. Robin, Estimation de la fonction de [Tchebychef]{} $\theta$ sur le k-i[è]{}me nombre premier et grandes valeurs de la fonction $\omega$(n) nombre de diviseurs premiers de n , Acta Arith. 42 (1983), 367–389. J. Rosser and L. Schoenfeld, Approximate formulas for some functions of prime numbers , Illinois J. Math. 6 (1962), 64–94. [^1]: The research of the second author is supported by grant project numbers 17316416, 17301317, and 17303618 of the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong SAR. Part of the research was also conducted while the second author was supported by grant project number 17302515 of the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong SAR	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The full sky cosmic microwave background polarization field can be decomposed into ‘electric’ (E) and ‘magnetic’ (B) components that are signatures of distinct physical processes. We give a general construction that achieves separation of E and B modes on arbitrary sections of the sky at the expense of increasing the noise. When E modes are present on all scales the separation of all of the B signal is no longer possible: there are inevitably ambiguous modes that cannot be separated. We discuss the practicality of performing E/B decomposition on large scales with realistic non-symmetric sky-cuts, and show that separation on large scales is possible by retaining only the well supported modes. The large scale modes potentially contain a great deal of useful information, and E/B separation at the level of the map is essential for clean detection of B without confusion from cosmic variance due to the E signal. We give simple matrix manipulations for creating pure E and B maps of the large scale signal for general sky cuts. We demonstrate that the method works well in a realistic case and give estimates of the performance with data from the Planck satellite. In the appendix we discuss the simple analytic case of an azimuthally symmetric cut, and show that exact E/B separation is possible on an azimuthally symmetric cut with a finite number of non-intersecting circular cuts around foreground sources.' author: - Antony Lewis title: 'Harmonic E/B decomposition for CMB polarization maps' --- Observations of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) provide information about primordial inhomogeneities in the universe. One of the most interesting questions is whether there was a tensor (gravitational wave) component. CMB polarization measurements offer a probe of this signal [@Kamionkowski97; @Zaldarriaga97; @Hu98] via the ‘magnetic’ component of the polarization map. This offers the opportunity to distinguish between different models of single field inflation, which generically predict a significant amplitude of gravitational waves, and other competing models which predict nearly zero amplitudes. For example the ekpyrotic scenario generically predicts exponentially small amplitudes of tensor modes, as do inflation models where density perturbations originate from fluctuations in a second scalar field. Polarization of the cosmic microwave sky is produced by electron scattering, as photons decouple from the primordial plasma and during reionization. Gravitational waves produce ‘magnetic’ (B) and ‘electric’ (E) polarization components at a comparable level by anisotropic redshifting of the energy of photons. Magnetic polarization is not produced by linear scalar (density) perturbations, so detection of a magnetic component would provide strong direct evidence for the presence of a primordial gravitational wave (tensor) component. There is a non-linear contribution to the magnetic signal from gravitational lensing of E polarization, though on the scales where the tensor mode signal is large the lensing signal is sufficiently small that it is negligible for observations up to Planck[^1] sensitivity. However ultimately the lensing signal (and how well it can be subtracted) may provide a limit on the amplitude of tensor modes that can be detected [@Knox02; @Okamoto03; @Hirata:2003ka]. There are also a variety of other possible sources for tensor and vector modes generating a B mode signature [@Seljak:1997ii; @Pogosian:2003mz; @Lewis:2004ef; @Lewis:2004kg], as well as numerous systematics [@Hu:2002vu]. Inflationary models generically predict a Gaussian spectrum of linear E and B modes, in which case it is possible to use the full likelihood function to constrain the tensor amplitude without separating into E and B modes. However if there are any departures from Gaussianity, e.g. due to systematics, foregrounds, magnetic fields [@Lewis:2004ef], defects [@Seljak:1997ii; @Pogosian:2003mz] or unexpected physics, this could give misleading answers. So it is useful to have methods to separate out pure B modes for robust detections and isolation of unexpected features. For small tensor amplitudes any mixture of E and B modes would be dominated by the scalar E signal, and a joint analysis for the tensor contribution would be only marginally more optimal than using only the pure B modes. On small scales it is possible to provide excellent separation of the E and B mode power spectra using fast quadratic estimators [@Chon:2003gx; @Crittenden00]. These methods provide estimators which, when averaged over realizations, give zero if there really is no B signal. However in any given realization, such as the one we observe, there will in general be a non-zero B signal. This is a potential obstacle to clean E/B power spectrum separation on the large scales where cosmic variance is most important. CMB observations by WMAP have recently indicated a substantial optical depth to reionization [@Kogut:2003et]. If confirmed this would imply that detection of magnetic polarization could be achieved by observation of a relatively small number of high signal to noise B modes on large scales (corresponding to the horizon size at reionization). The large scales are just where cosmic variance is largest, and the effect of incompleteness of the map (e.g. due to cuts around the galaxy and foreground sources) makes the E and B modes harder to separate. There is therefore clear motivation for methods to cleanly separate the E and B modes on the largest scales, avoiding problems with cosmic-variance mixing that arises from the use of quadratic estimators, and extracting the B modes without assumptions about their distribution. In this paper we discuss various harmonic methods for performing E/B separation, equivalent to separation at the level of the map. We start in Section \[EB\] with a brief summary of the E/B decomposition. In Section \[harmonics\] we review the tensor harmonics and how the E/B mixing enters for observations over only part of the sky, and discuss the theoretical properties of the coupling matrices. In Section \[separation\] we show how to separate the modes for band limited and non-band limited fields with arbitrary sky cuts, and show that the method presented in earlier work [@Lewis01] is optimal for general cuts in the all-scales limit. For non-band limited fields there are ambiguous modes than cannot be separated. We then show how the large scale reionization magnetic modes can be extracted from a realistic map by retaining only the well supported modes. The method is computationally tractable and close to exact, and should allow robust detection of the large scale magnetic signal with future CMB polarization observations. In Section \[Planckex\] we demonstrate the performance explicitly for a complicated sky cut geometry, and provide comparative estimates of the ability of the Planck satellite to detect tensor modes using different methods. In the Appendix we review some analytic results for azimuthal cuts from Ref. [@Lewis01], show that exact separation is possible for non-intersecting combinations of azimuthal cuts, and give a slightly improved matrix method for extracting the pure E and B modes exactly. For a method similar to the general method presented here, but working explicitly in pixel space, see Ref. [@Bunn03], and other related work in Refs. [@Zaldarriaga01; @Crittenden00; @Chon:2003gx; @Park:2003kp]. Though we only discuss CMB polarization maps explicitly, the techniques could be applied to other data, for example shear distributions in weak lensing surveys. Indeed B modes in the lensing of pre-reionization gas may provide a good alternative way to detect tensor modes [@Pen:2003yv]. E/B Polarization {#EB} ================ The observable polarization field is described in terms of the two Stokes’ parameters $Q$ and $U$ with respect to a particular choice of axes about each direction on the sky. We use spherical polar coordinates, with orthonormal basis vectors $\bm{\sigma}_\theta$ and $\bm{\sigma}_\phi$. The Stokes’ parameters define a symmetric and trace-free (STF) rank two linear polarization tensor on the sphere $${\mathcal{P}}^{ab} = \frac{1}{2}[Q (\bm{\sigma}_\theta^a \bm{\sigma}_\theta^b - \bm{\sigma}_\phi^a \bm{\sigma}_\phi^b) - U (\bm{\sigma}_\theta^a \bm{\sigma}_\phi^b + \bm{\sigma}_\phi^a \bm{\sigma}_\theta^b)].$$ A two dimensional STF tensor can be written as a sum of ‘gradient’ and ‘curl’ parts $${\mathcal{P}}_{ab} = \nabla_{{\langle}a}\nabla_{b{\rangle}}P_E - \epsilon^c{}_{(a}\nabla_{b)}\nabla_c P_B.$$ where $\nabla$ is the covariant derivative on the sphere, angle brackets denote the STF part on the enclosed indices, and round brackets denote symmetrization. The underlying scalar fields $P_E$ and $P_B$ describe electric and magnetic polarization respectively and are clearly non-local functions of the Stokes’ parameters. One can define scalar quantities which are local in the polarization by taking two covariant derivatives to form $\nabla^a\nabla^b {\mathcal{P}}_{ab}= (\nabla^2+2)\nabla^2 P_E$ and $\epsilon^{b}{}_c\nabla^c\nabla^a {\mathcal{P}}_{ab} = (\nabla^2+2)\nabla^2 P_B$ which depend only on the electric and magnetic polarization respectively. For band limited data one could consider taking these derivatives of the data to extract the E and B components. The problem is that in the neighborhood of boundaries it becomes harder to measure the second derivatives, so the noise properties are not straightforward: taking the derivatives is effectively increasing the noise near the boundaries relative to the rest of the map. Rather than taking second derivatives it it useful to work with integrals over the surface. As an example we focus here on the B polarization, since this is of most interest. We define the surface integral $$B_W \equiv - 2\int_S \text{d}S \,W \epsilon^{b}{}_c\nabla^c\nabla^a {\mathcal{P}}_{ab},$$ where $W$ is a real window function defined over some patch $S$ of the observed portion of the sky. The factor of minus two is included to make our definition equivalent to that in Ref. [@Lewis01]. Integrating by parts we have $$\begin{aligned} B_W &=& \sqrt{2}\int_S \text{d}S\, W_B^{ab}{}^* {\mathcal{P}}_{ab} \nonumber\\ &-& 2\oint_{\partial S} \text{d}l^a \left(\epsilon^b{}_a W \nabla^c {\mathcal{P}}_{cb} - \epsilon^b{}_c\nabla^c W {\mathcal{P}}_{ab}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $W_{B\,ab}\equiv \sqrt{2}\epsilon^c{}_{(a} \nabla_{ b)} \nabla_{c} W$ is an STF tensor window function. Thus extraction of the B polarization amounts to measuring a well defined surface integral, and two line integrals. It is these line integrals that encode the troublesome aspect of the E/B decomposition. E/B Harmonics {#harmonics} ============= Since the E/B decomposition is inherently non-local, it is quite natural to work in harmonic space. The polarization tensor ${\mathcal{P}}_{ab}$ can be expanded over the whole sky in terms of STF tensor harmonics $${\mathcal{P}}_{ab} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sum_{lm} \left( E_{lm}\, Y_{(lm)ab}^G + B_{lm}\, Y_{(lm)ab}^C\right),$$ where $Y_{(lm)ab}^G$ and $ Y_{(lm)ab}^C$ are the gradient and curl tensor harmonics of opposite parities defined in Ref. [@Kamionkowski97]. From the orthogonality of the spherical harmonics over the full sphere it follows that $$\begin{aligned} B_{lm} = \sqrt{2}\int_{4\pi} \text{d}S\, Y_{(lm)}^{C\,ab} {\mathcal{P}}_{ab}. \label{eq:EBlm}\end{aligned}$$ In a rotationally-invariant ensemble, the expectation values of the harmonic coefficients define the power spectrum: $${\langle}B_{(lm)'}^\ast B_{lm} {\rangle}= \delta_{l'l}\delta_{m'm} C_l^{BB}.$$ When we have data over a section of the sphere, the observed data can be encoded in a set of pseudo-multipoles $\tilde{E}_{lm}$ and $\tilde{B}_{lm}$ obtained by including a window function $W$ in the integral of Eq. : $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{B}_{lm} = \sum_{(lm)'} \left(W_{+(lm)(lm)'} B_{(lm)'} - i W_{-(lm)(lm)'} E_{(lm)'}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the Hermitian coupling matrices are given by $$\begin{aligned} W_{+(lm)(lm)'} &\equiv& \int_S \text{d}S\, W Y^{C}_{(lm)ab} Y_{(lm)'}^{C\,ab} \\ W_{-(lm)(lm)'} &\equiv& i\int_S \text{d}S\,W Y^{C}_{(lm)ab}Y_{(lm)'}^{G\,ab}.\end{aligned}$$ The matrix $W_{-(lm)(lm)'}$ controls the contamination with electric polarization and can be written as a line integral around the boundary of the cut defined by $W$. The matrices can be evaluated easily numerically in term of the harmonic coefficients of the window $W_{lm}$ using[^2] $$\begin{gathered} W_{\pm (l_1m_1)(l_2m_2)} = \\ {{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}}(-1)^{m_1}\sum_{l} W_{lm} \sqrt{\frac{(2l_1+1)(2l_2+1)(2l+1)}{4\pi}}\times \quad\quad \\ \left[{{{\begin{pmatrix}}l & l_1 & l_2 \\ 0 & 2 & -2 {\end{pmatrix}}}}\pm {{{\begin{pmatrix}}l & l_1 & l_2 \\ 0 & -2 & 2 {\end{pmatrix}}}}\right] {{{\begin{pmatrix}}l & l_1 & l_2 \\ m & -m_1 & m_2 {\end{pmatrix}}}}\end{gathered}$$ where $m = m_1 - m_2$. Vectors are now denoted by bold Roman font, e.g. ${\mathbf{B}}$ has components $B_{lm}$, and matrices are denoted by bold italic font, e.g. ${\bm{W}}_\pm$ have components $W_{\pm(lm)(lm)'}$. Including the results equivalent to the above for the E polarization, we then have the harmonic relations $${\begin{pmatrix}}{\tilde{\mathbf{E}}}\\ {\tilde{\mathbf{B}}}{\end{pmatrix}}= {\begin{pmatrix}}{\bm{W}}_+ & i{\bm{W}}_- \\ -i{\bm{W}}_- & {\bm{W}}_+ {\end{pmatrix}}{\begin{pmatrix}}{\mathbf{E}}\\ {\mathbf{B}}{\end{pmatrix}}.$$ Harmonic methods of E/B separation amount to ways of solving these equations for linear combinations of the observed ${\tilde{\mathbf{E}}}$, ${\tilde{\mathbf{B}}}$ such as to give results that depend only on ${\mathbf{E}}$ or ${\mathbf{B}}$. In principle the matrices are formally infinite, though in practice we measure the components of ${\tilde{\mathbf{E}}}, {\tilde{\mathbf{B}}}$ up to some finite ${\ell_{\text{max}}}$. However the pseudo-harmonics to finite ${\ell_{\text{max}}}$ can still can contain contributions from the underlying fields at all $\ell$ unless the fields are band limited (i.e. there exists some finite ${\ell_{\text{max}}}$ above which all the components of ${\mathbf{E}}$ and ${\mathbf{B}}$ are zero), or the coupling matrices are sufficiently localized. Thus in general the ${\bm{W}}_\pm$ coupling matrices are rectangular, including the coupling to the $E$ and $B$ modes on all scales. Eigenstructure {#eigenstructure .unnumbered} -------------- For square coupling matrices the symmetry of the spherical harmonics implies that ${\bm{P}}{\bm{W}}_- {\bm{P}}= - {\bm{W}}_-^$ for the matrix $P_{(lm)(l'm')} \equiv (-1)^m \delta_{ll'}\delta_{-mm'}$ which satisfies ${\bm{P}}^2=1$. This implies that eigenvalues of ${\bm{W}}_-$ come in $\pm$ pairs: $${\bm{W}}_- {\mathbf{e}}= \lambda {\mathbf{e}}\quad\implies\quad {\bm{W}}_- {\bm{P}}{\mathbf{e}}^* = -\lambda {\bm{P}}{\mathbf{e}}^,$$ and hence $\text{Tr}({\bm{W}}_-) = 0$. These properties hold for all ${\ell_{\text{max}}}$ and are a direct result of our window on the sky being a real function. For a window function which is positive (or zero) everywhere ${\bm{W}}_+$ is positive semidefinite, and the eigenvalues are bounded between zero and one for window functions normalized to lie between zero and one. In the limit that ${\ell_{\text{max}}}\rightarrow \infty$ the coupling matrix becomes a projection operator onto the section of sky observed (from now on we assume the window function is taken to be zero or one everywhere), so $${\begin{pmatrix}}{\bm{W}}_+ & i{\bm{W}}_- \\ -i{\bm{W}}_- & {\bm{W}}_+ {\end{pmatrix}}= {\begin{pmatrix}}{\bm{W}}_+ & i{\bm{W}}_- \\ -i{\bm{W}}_- & {\bm{W}}_+ {\end{pmatrix}}^2.$$ This property is ensured by the completeness of the harmonics, and shows that $$\label{Wids} {\bm{W}}_-{\bm{W}}_+ + {\bm{W}}_+{\bm{W}}_- = {\bm{W}}_- \quad\quad {\bm{W}}_+^2 + {\bm{W}}_-^2 = {\bm{W}}_+.$$ For an eigenvector ${\mathbf{e}}_\lambda$ of ${\bm{W}}_+$, with ${\bm{W}}_+ {\mathbf{e}}_\lambda = \lambda {\mathbf{e}}_\lambda$, these relations imply that $$\begin{aligned} {\bm{W}}_-^2 {\mathbf{e}}_\lambda &=& \lambda(1-\lambda) {\mathbf{e}}_\lambda \nonumber\\ {\bm{W}}_+[{\bm{W}}_-{\mathbf{e}}_\lambda] &=& (1-\lambda) [{\bm{W}}_- {\mathbf{e}}_\lambda].\end{aligned}$$ It follows that ${\bm{W}}_- {\mathbf{e}}_\lambda$ is also an eigenvector of ${\bm{W}}_+$ with eigenvalue $1-\lambda$, and we can define ${\mathbf{e}}_{1-\lambda}$ so that ${\bm{W}}_- {\mathbf{e}}_\lambda = \sqrt{\lambda(1-\lambda)} {\mathbf{e}}_{1-\lambda}$. Hence the eigenstructure of ${\bm{W}}_-$ is given by $$\label{WMeigs} {\bm{W}}_-({\mathbf{e}}_\lambda \pm {\mathbf{e}}_{1-\lambda}) = \pm \sqrt{\lambda(1-\lambda)} ({\mathbf{e}}_\lambda \pm {\mathbf{e}}_{1-\lambda}).$$ Thus two sets of eigenvectors of ${\bm{W}}_+$ lie in the null space of ${\bm{W}}_-$: $$\begin{aligned} &{\bm{W}}_+ {\mathbf{e}}_0 = 0 \quad\quad &{\bm{W}}_- {\mathbf{e}}_0 = 0 \\ &{\bm{W}}_+ {\mathbf{e}}_1 = {\mathbf{e}}_1 \quad\quad &{\bm{W}}_- {\mathbf{e}}_1 = 0.\end{aligned}$$ The set of vectors ${\mathbf{e}}_1$ form a basis for the set of supported pure-B and pure-E modes and the ${\mathbf{e}}_0$ form a basis for modes that are zero within the observed regions and therefore cannot be measured. The remaining modes with $\lambda \notin \{0,1\}$ form a basis for a set of ambiguous modes. As $\{l,l'\} \rightarrow \infty$ the elements of the coupling matrix $W_{+(lm)(lm)'} \rightarrow W_{(lm)(lm)'}$ where ${\bm{W}}$ is the coupling matrix for the scalar harmonics (see Ref [@Mortlock00]). Completeness of the scalar harmonics implies ${\bm{W}}$ is a projection matrix and hence has a fraction $\sim{f_{\text{sky}}}$ unit eigenvalues and $\sim (1-{f_{\text{sky}}})$ zero eigenvalues, where ${f_{\text{sky}}}$ is the fraction of the sky included in the cut. Thus we expect a fraction $\sim {f_{\text{sky}}}$ of the eigenvalues of ${\bm{W}}_+$ to be unity and $\sim (1-{f_{\text{sky}}})$ to be zero, with the other eigenvalues making up a fraction $\propto 1/{\ell_{\text{max}}}$ corresponding to the boundary to area ratio. These results only apply in the limit that ${\ell_{\text{max}}}\rightarrow \infty$, however for finite ${\ell_{\text{max}}}\agt 100$ we expect a large number of eigenvalues of ${\bm{W}}_+$ close to zero or one, corresponding to modes which are either very well or very poorly supported over the observed area. Harmonic E/B separation {#separation} ======================= To measure the $B$ only we look for a matrix ${\bm{P}}_B^\dag$ such that $${\bm{P}}_B^\dag {\begin{pmatrix}}{\bm{W}}_+ \\ -i{\bm{W}}_- {\end{pmatrix}}= 0.$$ Assuming such a ${\bm{P}}_B$ can be found, we have then have a vector ${\mathbf{X}}_B$ of pure-B modes $${\mathbf{X}}_B \equiv {\bm{P}}_B^\dag {\begin{pmatrix}}{\tilde{\mathbf{E}}}\\ {\tilde{\mathbf{B}}}{\end{pmatrix}}= {\bm{P}}_B^\dag {\begin{pmatrix}}i{\bm{W}}_- \\ {\bm{W}}_+ {\end{pmatrix}}{\mathbf{B}}$$ that have no dependence on ${\mathbf{E}}$. The projection onto $E$ is generated similarly with $$\begin{aligned} {\bm{P}}_E = {{\begin{pmatrix}}{\bm{0}}&{\bm{I}}\\ -{\bm{I}}& {\bm{0}}{\end{pmatrix}}}{\bm{P}}_B, \end{aligned}$$ where ${\bm{I}}$ is the identity matrix. The pure E and B modes are then given by $${\begin{pmatrix}}{\mathbf{X}}_E \\ {\mathbf{X}}_B {\end{pmatrix}}= {\begin{pmatrix}}{\bm{P}}_E^\dag \\ {\bm{P}}_B^\dag {\end{pmatrix}}{\begin{pmatrix}}{\tilde{\mathbf{E}}}\\ {\tilde{\mathbf{B}}}{\end{pmatrix}}= {\begin{pmatrix}}{\bm{M}}{\mathbf{E}}\\ {\bm{M}}{\mathbf{B}}{\end{pmatrix}}$$ where $${\bm{M}}= {\bm{P}}_E^\dag {\begin{pmatrix}}{\bm{W}}_+ \\ -i{\bm{W}}_- {\end{pmatrix}}= {\bm{P}}_B^\dag {\begin{pmatrix}}i{\bm{W}}_- \\ {\bm{W}}_+ {\end{pmatrix}}.$$ Band limited case {#band-limited-case .unnumbered} ----------------- Here we assume there exists some ${\ell_{\text{max}}}$ for which all components of ${\mathbf{B}}$, and ${\mathbf{E}}$, are negligible for $\ell>{\ell_{\text{max}}}$. We can perform a singular value decomposition (SVD) to write $$\begin{aligned} {\begin{pmatrix}}i {\bm{W}}_- \\ {\bm{W}}_+ {\end{pmatrix}}&=& {\bm{U}}{\bm{D}}{\bm{V}}^\dag \approx {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}{\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}{\tilde{{\bm{V}}}}^\dag \label{Vdef}\\ {\begin{pmatrix}}{\bm{W}}_+ \\ -i{\bm{W}}_- {\end{pmatrix}}&=& {\bm{R}}{\bm{U}}{\bm{D}}{\bm{V}}^\dag \approx {\bm{R}}{\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}{\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}{\tilde{{\bm{V}}}}^\dag\end{aligned}$$ where $${\bm{R}}\equiv {{\begin{pmatrix}}{\bm{0}}&{\bm{I}}\\ -{\bm{I}}& {\bm{0}}{\end{pmatrix}}}.$$ The matrices ${\bm{U}}$ and ${\bm{V}}$ are column unitary, and ${\bm{D}}$ is diagonal. Since we have observations over only part of the sky, many elements of ${\bm{D}}$ will be close to zero, indicating modes that are not supported over the observed area. The tilded variables are constructed by deleting the corresponding columns and rows of ${\bm{U}}$ and ${\bm{V}}^\dag$, making ${\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}$ a smaller square matrix. The approximation can be made the same order as the numerical precision by choosing the threshold for the diagonal elements of ${\bm{D}}$ small enough. Premultiplying by ${\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}^\dag$ we then have $$\begin{aligned} {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}^\dag {{\begin{pmatrix}}{\tilde{\mathbf{E}}}\\ {\tilde{\mathbf{B}}}{\end{pmatrix}}}&\approx&{\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}{\tilde{{\bm{V}}}}^\dag {\mathbf{B}}+ i {\bm{H}}{\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}{\tilde{{\bm{V}}}}^\dag {\mathbf{E}}\\ {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}^\dag {\bm{R}}^\dag {{\begin{pmatrix}}{\tilde{\mathbf{E}}}\\ {\tilde{\mathbf{B}}}{\end{pmatrix}}}&\approx& {\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}{\tilde{{\bm{V}}}}^\dag {\mathbf{E}}- i{\bm{H}}{\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}{\tilde{{\bm{V}}}}^\dag {\mathbf{B}}\end{aligned}$$ where the Hermitian matrix ${\bm{H}}$ is defined by $$i{\bm{H}}\equiv {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}^\dag {\bm{R}}{\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}.$$ The vector ${\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}{\tilde{{\bm{V}}}}{\mathbf{B}}$ contains essentially all the observable information about ${\mathbf{B}}$. Solving we have $$\begin{aligned} {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}^\dag\left[ {\bm{I}}- {\bm{R}}{\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}{\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}^\dag {\bm{R}}^\dag \right] {{\begin{pmatrix}}{\tilde{\mathbf{E}}}\\ {\tilde{\mathbf{B}}}{\end{pmatrix}}}&\approx& (1-{\bm{H}}^2) {\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}{\tilde{{\bm{V}}}}^\dag {\mathbf{B}}\\ {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}^\dag{\bm{R}}^\dag\left[ {\bm{I}}- {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}{\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}^\dag \right] {{\begin{pmatrix}}{\tilde{\mathbf{E}}}\\ {\tilde{\mathbf{B}}}{\end{pmatrix}}}&\approx& (1-{\bm{H}}^2) {\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}{\tilde{{\bm{V}}}}^\dag {\mathbf{E}},\end{aligned}$$ which achieves the E/B separation. It is in the form of a projection operator to remove the left-range of the coupling, followed by a reduction into the basis of partially supported modes by multiplication with ${\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}^\dag$. For band limited skies in the absence of noise there is no information loss. However for modes corresponding to non-zero eigenvalues of ${\bm{H}}$ the signal to noise is decreased relative to doing no separation. This is consistent with the understanding that the noise on the second derivatives of the data needed to perform direct E/B decomposition becomes larger as you near the boundary of the region. Note that this method is not useful for extracting large scale B modes from CMB polarization observations since even though B may be effectively band limited at low $\ell$, there is also expected to be a E signal with a high band limit with ${\ell_{\text{max}}}\agt 10^3$. Vectors of harmonics are of size $n = ({\ell_{\text{max}}}+1)^2-4$ which makes the method computationally infeasible for ${\ell_{\text{max}}}\agt 200$ without simplifying symmetries. On the full sky it is possible to impose a low band limit by convolution, however on the cut sky this is not possible without mixing information from inside and outside the cut. Non-band limited case {#non-band-limited-case .unnumbered} --------------------- We now consider what happens to the above results as the band limit is removed. In the limit ${\ell_{\text{max}}}\rightarrow \infty$ we can use to show $$\begin{aligned} {\bm{H}}&\approx& -{\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}^{-1} {\tilde{{\bm{V}}}}^\dag \left( {\bm{W}}_+{\bm{W}}_- + {\bm{W}}_-{\bm{W}}_+\right) {\tilde{{\bm{V}}}}{\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}^{-1} \nonumber \\ &\rightarrow& -{\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}^{-1}{\tilde{{\bm{V}}}}^\dag {\bm{W}}_- {\tilde{{\bm{V}}}}{\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ and from that ${\tilde{{\bm{V}}}}$ diagonalizes ${\bm{W}}_+$ with ${\tilde{{\bm{V}}}}^\dag {\bm{W}}_+ {\tilde{{\bm{V}}}}= {\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}^2$. Taking ${\tilde{{\bm{V}}}}$ to have the related eigenvectors ${\mathbf{e}}_\lambda$ and ${\mathbf{e}}_{1-\lambda}$ in adjacent columns, it also follows from that ${\tilde{{\bm{V}}}}^\dag {\bm{W}}_- {\tilde{{\bm{V}}}}$ is block diagonal, where the blocks are either zero or off-diagonal $2\times 2$ matrices with eigenvalues $\pm\sqrt{\lambda(1-\lambda)}$. This implies that ${\bm{H}}$ is block diagonal, with elements or zero, and hence that ${\bm{H}}^2$ is diagonal, with elements zero or one. Thus each mode in ${\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}{\tilde{{\bm{V}}}}^\dag {\mathbf{B}}$ can either be measured exactly (for the zero eigenvalues of ${\bm{H}}^2$) or is completely lost by the $E/B$ separation (for the unit eigenvalues). The lost modes that cannot be separated correspond to the ‘ambiguous’ modes discussed in Ref. [@Bunn03]. Since the zero eigenvalues of ${\bm{H}}^2$ are determined by the null space of ${\bm{W}}_-$, in this limit $E/B$ separation amounts to projecting out the non-zero eigenvalues of ${\bm{W}}_-$, corresponding to the boundary terms. For non-band limited skies in the limit ${\ell_{\text{max}}}\rightarrow \infty$ the method for projecting out the range of ${\bm{W}}_-$ advocated in Ref. [@Lewis01] is therefore optimal for general sky patches, in addition to being optimal in the simple azimuthal case analysed in detail (see also Appendix \[azimuthal\]). In Fig. \[newmode\] we show two modes which for a band limit of ${\ell_{\text{max}}}=300$ are pure $B$, but have non-zero projection into the range of ${\bm{W}}_-$. It is clear that these are dominated by a line integral around the boundary, and as such they have significantly worse noise than the other modes due to the non-zero eigenvalue of ${\bm{H}}^2$. The line integral is sensitive to E power on scales with $\ell > {\ell_{\text{max}}}$. As the band limit increases the eigenvalue of ${\bm{H}}^2$ tends to one, and the line integrals can no longer be measured (the signal to noise goes to zero). \ For band limited skies one can use knowledge of the band limit to use the information from the modes with non-zero eigenvalues of ${\bm{W}}_-$. However in practice the $E$ polarization is effectively non-band limited as far as extracting the large scale $B$ signal is concerned. Thus one needs to find modes which lie in the null-space ${\bm{W}}_-$ to extract pure B modes. Note that it is the non-band limitedness of $E$ which implies inevitable loss due to mode separation, even in the limit of zero noise. Extracting low multipoles {#extracting-low-multipoles .unnumbered} ------------------------- \[\]\[\]\[1.7\][$\ell$]{} \[\]\[\]\[1.7\][$C_l / \mu K^2$]{} In the case where the E signal is effectively non-band limited, but we observe only a finite number $n$ of pseudo-harmonics with $\ell \le {\ell_{\text{max}}}$, a pure $B$ mode ${\mathbf{e}}^\dag {\tilde{\mathbf{B}}}$ can be extracted by finding a vector ${\mathbf{e}}$ lying in the left null space of ${\bm{W}}_-^\infty$, where ${\bm{W}}_-^\infty$ is in general an $n\times\infty$ matrix, coupling in $E$ on all scales. This requires that $$\|{\mathbf{e}}^\dag {\bm{W}}_-^\infty\|^2 = {\mathbf{e}}^\dag ({\bm{W}}_+ -{\bm{W}}_+^\infty{\bm{W}}_+^\infty{}^\dag ) {\mathbf{e}}= 0$$ where here the ${\bm{W}}_+$ is the Hermitian square $n\times n$ matrix, ${\bm{W}}_+^\infty = ({\bm{W}}_+,{\bm{X}})$ and ${\bm{X}}$ is $n\times \infty$. For a supported mode with ${\bm{W}}_+ {\mathbf{e}}= {\mathbf{e}}$ this criterion is satisfied because $\|{\mathbf{e}}^\dag {\bm{W}}_+^\infty\| \ge \|{\mathbf{e}}^\dag{\bm{W}}_+\|$ and $\|{\mathbf{e}}^\dag {\bm{W}}_-^\infty\|^2$ must be positive or zero. Note that ${\bm{W}}_+{\mathbf{e}}= {\mathbf{e}}$ is sufficient but not necessary for $\|{\mathbf{e}}^\dag {\bm{W}}_-^\infty\|$ to vanish — in the case of an azimuthal patch there is a left null space for finite ${\ell_{\text{max}}}$ even though there are no vectors satisfying ${\bm{W}}_+ {\mathbf{e}}={\mathbf{e}}$ (see Appendix \[azimuthal\]). However in general, without including information up to the band limit of the data or special symmetries, this cannot be done. The idea here is to perform E/B separation for the low multipoles without including data up to the band limit (which due to the ${\ell_{\text{max}}}^6$ scaling would be infeasible with current computers for general patches). In general for finite $n$ there will be no fully supported modes, however for an eigenvector ${\mathbf{e}}$ of ${\bm{W}}_+$ with ${\bm{W}}_+ {\mathbf{e}}= (1 - \epsilon){\mathbf{e}}$ it follows that $\|{\mathbf{e}}^\dag {\bm{W}}_-^\infty\|^2 = {\cal O}(\epsilon)$. In other words, approximately pure $B$ modes are simply the well supported modes. Note that ${\bm{W}}_-{\mathbf{e}}\approx 0$ is necessary but not sufficient since it does not ensure there is no coupling to power from $E$ on scales with $\ell >{\ell_{\text{max}}}$ in general. The signal variance of ${\mathbf{e}}^\dag {\tilde{\mathbf{B}}}$ is given by $${\langle}\|{\mathbf{e}}^\dag {\tilde{\mathbf{B}}}\|^2{\rangle}= W^+_l C^{BB}_l + W^-_l C^{EE}_l$$ where $$W^+_l \equiv \sum_m \| ({\mathbf{e}}^\dag {\bm{W}}_+)_{lm} \|^2 \quad\quad W^-_l \equiv \sum_m \| ({\mathbf{e}}^\dag {\bm{W}}_-)_{lm} \|^2.$$ The scalar contribution to the $C^{EE}_l$ power spectrum is typically between $1\text{--}100$ times larger than $C^{BB}_l$ for $\ell \alt 100$ and levels of B detectable by Planck (see Fig. \[cls\]), and remains of the same order of magnitude up to $\ell\sim 2000$. Taking $C^{EE}_l \sim \text{const}$ the E contribution to the variance is $\sim\|{\mathbf{e}}^\dag {\bm{W}}_-^\infty\|^2$, thus we require $\epsilon \ll 0.01$ for clean separation of B. However there is little point removing E to levels much lower than the experimental noise, so for noise limited observations larger values of $\epsilon$ could be used. \[\]\[\]\[1.7\][$\ell$]{} \[\]\[\]\[1.7\][$W_l^\pm$]{} In Fig. \[wins\] we show a few window functions $W^+_l$ and $W^-_l$ for nearly pure B modes, using ${\ell_{\text{max}}}= 30$ and the realistic cut discussed in the next section. This low value of ${\ell_{\text{max}}}=30$ is not sufficient to extract many well supported modes (there is only one with $\epsilon = 0.001$), however it allows us to compute the rectangular matrices ${\bm{W}}_+$ and ${\bm{W}}_-$ up to much higher $\ell$ in order to explicitly show the coupling of higher multipoles as a function of the choice of $\epsilon$. The expected behavior is demonstrated in the figure, with small values of $\epsilon$ effectively removing the coupling to E on all scales. Examples ======== We now demonstrate explicitly the extraction of large scale B modes from a realistic non-symmetric sky cut, the ‘kp2’ cut[^3] used by the WMAP analysis [@Bennett03]. This excludes the galactic region, in addition to a number of other foreground sources, in total excluding about $15\%$ of the sky, and is shown as the solid area in Fig. \[polmap\]. This may not be a good cut for polarized observations, but the cut is realistic in the sense that it does not have any artificial symmetries, and therefore is a reasonable test case for how B mode extraction can work in practice. As shown in Fig. \[cls\] the large scale reionization signal with $\ell \alt 10$ is large and has high signal to noise, at least if the optical depth really is $\agt 0.1$. We use ${\ell_{\text{max}}}=150$, which is computationally tractable ($\sim 10\text{GB}$ of memory, few days of CPU time) and sufficient to get most of the large scale reionization power. The well supported mode with $\epsilon = 0.001$ and maximal signal is shown in Fig. \[polmap\]. With more effort (e.g. distributing the computation over a cluster or more efficient algorithms) it may be possible to push to ${\ell_{\text{max}}}\sim 300$, possibly enough to extract essentially all of the separable B modes due to primordial gravitational waves. This may be essential if the reionization turns out to be less significant, and of course resolving the shape of the magnetic power spectrum is a key check that the signal really is due to primordial tensor modes. Separation on smaller scales (e.g. as a consistency check, and for studying the lensing signal) would have to proceed on azimuthally symmetric cuts over clean regions of the sky with a number of cuts around foreground sources (see Appendix \[azimuthal\]), or rely on quadratic methods that work very well for estimating the separated power spectra on small scales. Identifying the well supported modes is straightforward, and requires diagonalization of the Hermitian matrix ${\bm{W}}_+$, $${\bm{W}}_+ = {\bm{U}}_+ {\bm{D}}_+ {\bm{U}}_+^\dag.$$ Since we only need the well supported modes, in practice we only need to compute the eigenvectors with eigenvalues[^4] between $1-\epsilon$ and $1$, for some choice of $\epsilon$ and ${\ell_{\text{max}}}$. For large ${\ell_{\text{max}}}$ there are $\sim{f_{\text{sky}}}{\ell_{\text{max}}}^2$ such modes, where ${f_{\text{sky}}}$ is the fraction of the sky included in the window. For less large ${\ell_{\text{max}}}$ a significant fraction of modes will only be partially supported; losing the subset of these modes that are not contaminated with $E$ is the price we pay for a computationally tractable analysis with manageable ${\ell_{\text{max}}}$. The well supported eigenvectors define a reduced column-orthogonal matrix ${\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+$ which projects the cut-sky harmonics into the space of well supported nearly-pure B modes: $${\mathbf{X}}_B\equiv {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+^\dag {\tilde{\mathbf{B}}}\approx {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+^\dag {\mathbf{B}}.$$ A map of the nearly pure B modes can then be constructed using the harmonics ${\mathbf{B}}' = {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+ {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+^\dag {\tilde{\mathbf{B}}}$. Note that though computing ${\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+$ is time consuming for large ${\ell_{\text{max}}}$, once this has been done for a particular cut, construction of B maps for different realizations is computationally fast. In Fig. \[maps\] we show the construction of a B map for a simple simulation without noise[^5]. The recovered B map is not the same as the input map since we are only using ${\ell_{\text{max}}}=150$, and some modes are lost due to E/B separation. However it is clear than many of the large scale features are present in the recovered map, and that the method works usefully well. Noise {#noise .unnumbered} ----- In general there will be anisotropic and correlated noise on the polarization measurements. The E/B separation methods we discussed give E/B clean separation of the signal, however any interpretation of the separated modes would have to carefully model the actual noise properties in the observation under consideration. In general the E and B modes will have complicated noise correlations. However in the idealized case of isotropic uncorrelated noise on the Stokes’ parameters the noise properties are straightforward [@Lewis01]. In particular the well supported E and B modes will also have uncorrelated isotropic noise $$\begin{aligned} {\langle}{\mathbf{X}}_B {\mathbf{X}}_B^\dag {\rangle}_N &\approx &{\langle}{\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+^\dag {\mathbf{B}}{\mathbf{B}}^\dag {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+ {\rangle}_N \approx {\langle}{\mathbf{X}}_E {\mathbf{X}}_E^\dag{\rangle}_N \propto {\bm{I}}\nonumber \\ {\langle}{\mathbf{X}}_B {\mathbf{X}}_E^\dag {\rangle}_N &\approx& {\langle}{\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+^\dag {\mathbf{B}}{\mathbf{E}}^\dag {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+ {\rangle}_N \approx 0.\end{aligned}$$ The complications introduced by correlated anisotropic noise do not effect the signal* E/B separation, which is purely determined by the geometry of the sky cut. As the noise in a region inside the cut increases, some of the modes will become much more noisy. In the limit of infinite noise in this region, corresponding to an additional cut, these modes have zero signal to noise and can be removed. This removes combinations of E and B modes in such a way that the number of pure B modes that can be measured decreases, and new ambiguous modes (which are combinations of E and B with finite noise) are generated. Detection by Planck? {#Planckex .unnumbered} -------------------- Fig. \[Planck\] shows how the E/B separation method performs with regards to the detection probability[^6] for magnetic polarization due to tensor modes, taking a simple model of the Planck satellite as a test case (assuming isotropic Gaussian noise, that foregrounds can be subtracted accurately outside the cut region, and systematics are negligible). We assume the primordial tensor modes are Gaussian with scale invariant power spectrum, with $A_T$ being the variance of the transverse traceless part of the metric tensor, and that other cosmological parameters are well known. The approximate method applied to the asymmetric cut does not perform quite as well as an optimal analysis with an azimuthally symmetric cut, but the difference is not that large — equivalent to reducing a $99\%$ confidence detection to about $95\%$. The asymmetric cut is not expected to perform as well because it increases the area adjacent to a boundary and hence the number of ambiguous modes (though the approximate result may be improved slightly by taking larger ${\ell_{\text{max}}}$). The plot also shows the result of applying the non-exact method (retaining just the well supported modes) to the azimuthally symmetric cut, and shows that the results are almost identical to performing the exact separation in this case. In the exact azimuthal analysis the result is almost completely insensitive to ${\ell_{\text{max}}}$, with ${\ell_{\text{max}}}=30$ results lying on top of those shown. This is because of the small number of large signal to noise modes on large scales for a significant optical depth to reionization. In the asymmetric case much larger ${\ell_{\text{max}}}$ is needed to obtain well supported modes. For $\tau \agt 0.1$ it is clear that Planck should have a good chance of detecting tensor amplitudes $A_T \agt 10^{-10}$, corresponding to an energy scale $V^{1/4} \agt 10^{16} \text{GeV}$ at horizon crossing during inflation. The sensitivity to tensor magnetic modes however depends on the reionization optical depth, as shown in Fig. \[zre\]. If the optical depth turns out to be at the lower end, the asymmetric cut with ${\ell_{\text{max}}}\sim 150$ would not perform so well compared to the exact azimuthal case since there would be significant power on smaller scales, requiring ${\ell_{\text{max}}}\gg 100$ to construct all the well supported modes. \[\]\[\]\[1.5\][Tensor Amplitude $A_T$]{} \[\]\[\]\[1.5\][Detection Probability]{} \[\]\[\]\[1.5\][Tensor Amplitude $A_T$]{} \[\]\[\]\[1.5\][Detection Probability]{} Conclusion ========== We have demonstrated explicitly that E/B separation is possible on large scales for realistic non-symmetric sky cuts. If the reionization optical depth is large almost all the detection significance for tensor modes would come from the very largest scales, where mode mixing is most important. We showed that these modes can be separated in a computationally tractable way by retaining only the well supported modes. The ambiguous modes that cannot be separated will be dominated by the E signal if the noise is low, and whilst useful for analysis of the E polarization would not add significantly to a full likelihood analysis for magnetic polarization. With map-level separation one can also in principle study the full distribution of the B signal, for example testing for Gaussianity. Analysing a pure B map is essentially the same as analysing a temperature map, and much more more straightforward and conceptually cleaner than doing a full joint analysis. For noise limited observations, when the loss of ambiguous modes loses a significant amount of information, an analysis with E/B separated variables still provides a valuable cross-check on results from a full joint analysis, and may help to isolate systematics. I thank Ue-Li Pen for stimulating discussions, Anthony Challinor for pointing out an important error in an early draft, and Sarah Bridle for helpful suggestions. I acknowledge use of the HEALPix[^7] [@Gorski:1998vw] and LAPACK packages. Circular boundaries {#azimuthal} =================== For a circular boundary at constant latitude $\theta=\Theta$ (i.e. the boundary of an azimuthal patch), modes with different $m$ decouple, ${\bm{W}}_-$ is block diagonal, and modes with different $m$ can be handled separately. The ${\bm{W}}_-$ surface boundary integral evaluates to [@Lewis01] $$W_{-(lm)(l'm')} = -\frac{m\delta_{mm'}}{2\|m\|} \left[u_l(m) u_{l'}^\ast(m) + v_l(m) v_{l'}^\ast(m)\right]_\Theta, \label{eq:wminusdcmp}$$ where the vectors $$\begin{aligned} u_l(m) &\equiv& \sqrt{\frac{(l-2)!}{(l+2)!}}\sqrt{8\|m\|\pi} \sin\theta\frac{{\text{d}}}{{\text{d}}\theta}\left( \frac{Y_{lm}}{\sin\theta}\right) \\ v_l(m) &\equiv& \sqrt{\frac{(l-2)!}{(l+2)!}}\frac{\sqrt{8\|m\|\pi(m^2-1)}}{\sin\theta} Y_{lm}\end{aligned}$$ for $l\geq 2$ and some arbitrary $\phi$. In the ${\ell_{\text{max}}}\rightarrow\infty$ limit this is the spectral decomposition ($v_l(m)$ and $u_l(m)$ are normalized and orthogonal), which follows from the results: $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{l=\|m\|}^\infty \frac{(l-2)!}{(l+2)!} \| Y_{lm}\|^2 = \frac{ \sin^2\theta}{8\|m\|\pi(m^2-1)} \\ \sum_{l=\|m\|}^\infty \frac{(l-2)!}{(l+2)!} Y_{lm}^* \sin\theta\frac{{\text{d}}}{{\text{d}}\theta}\left(\frac{Y_{lm}}{\sin\theta}\right) = 0 \end{aligned}$$ for $\|m\| \ge 2$, and $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{l=\max(2,\|m\|)}^\infty \frac{(l-2)!}{(l+2)!}\left\|\sin\theta\frac{{\text{d}}}{{\text{d}}\theta}\left(\frac{Y_{lm}}{\sin\theta}\right) \right\|^2 = \frac{1}{8\|m\|\pi}\end{aligned}$$ for $\|m\| \ge 1$. In this limit the eigenvalues are $-{{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}}m/\|m\|$, a special case of the general analysis given in section \[harmonics\]. For a single circular boundary and finite ${\ell_{\text{max}}}$ there are at most two non-zero eigenvalues per $m$, with one for $\|m\|=1$ and none for $m=0$. The azimuthal case has the nice property that even if ${\tilde{\mathbf{E}}}$ and ${\tilde{\mathbf{B}}}$ are only available for finite ${\ell_{\text{max}}}$ one can project out exactly the cross-contamination on all scales. The matrix ${\bm{W}}_-$ truncated at a finite number of rows (but retaining an unlimited number of columns) can be written as $${\bm{W}}_- = {\bm{U}}_- {\bm{D}}_- {\bm{V}}_-^\dag$$ where ${\bm{U}}_-$ is a column unitary matrix with at most two columns per $m$, and hence the range of ${\bm{W}}_-$ can be projected out using $$\begin{aligned} {\bm{P}}_- &\equiv {\bm{I}}-{\bm{U}}_-{\bm{U}}_-^\dag \end{aligned}$$ so that $$\begin{aligned} {\bm{P}}_- {\tilde{\mathbf{E}}}&= {\bm{P}}_- {\bm{W}}_+ {\mathbf{E}}\quad\quad\quad {\bm{P}}_- {\tilde{\mathbf{B}}}&= {\bm{P}}_- {\bm{W}}_+ {\mathbf{B}}\end{aligned}$$ losing at most two modes per $m$ (per boundary). The matrix ${\bm{U}}_-$ can in practice be constructed for each $m$ by normalization and orthogonalization (e.g. using a SVD) of the two vectors $u_l(m)$ and $v_l(m)$ (which are no longer orthogonal or normalized for finite ${\ell_{\text{max}}}$). This projection is equivalent to the procedure of projecting out the non-zero eigenvalues of ${\bm{W}}_-$ in Ref. [@Lewis01], for $\|m\| \le {\ell_{\text{max}}}- 2n$, where $n$ is the number of boundaries. If ${\bm{W}}_-$ is smaller than it’s range due to a finite ${\ell_{\text{max}}}$ (i.e. for $\|m\|>{\ell_{\text{max}}}-2n$) the zero eigenvalues ${\bm{W}}_-$ do not correspond to separated modes. Two maps consisting of pure $E$ and pure $B$ can be constructed simply from $$\begin{aligned} {\tilde{\mathbf{E}}}' &= ({\bm{I}}-{\bm{U}}_-{\bm{U}}_-^\dag) {\tilde{\mathbf{E}}}, \quad\ {\tilde{\mathbf{B}}}' =& 0\quad (\text{pure E})\quad\\ {\tilde{\mathbf{B}}}' &= ({\bm{I}}-{\bm{U}}_-{\bm{U}}_-^\dag){\tilde{\mathbf{B}}}, \quad {\tilde{\mathbf{E}}}' =& 0 \quad (\text{pure B}).\quad\end{aligned}$$ If desired a map of the ambiguous modes can also be constructed from the remaining modes. The separation is computationally trivial in the azimuthal case due to the separability in $m$, and is possible up to the resolution of the experiment (typically ${\ell_{\text{max}}}> 10^3$). For $n$ co-axial circular boundaries one looses up to $4n({\ell_{\text{max}}}-n)$ modes due to the E/B separation, and the separation remains exact and separable in $m$. For non-co-axial boundaries exact separation is still possible, even though modes with different $m$ are mixed due to the rotation (i.e. with the Wigner-D matrices $D^l_{mm'}$). This is because the coupling matrix ${\bm{W}}_-$ for the entire sky made up of a set of non-intersecting cuts can be written as a finite sum of coupling matrices ${\bm{W}}_-$ each with finite range, and therefore itself has finite range which can be projected out exactly. Thus it is still possible to perform exact E/B separation at finite ${\ell_{\text{max}}}$ with azimuthal cuts containing a finite number of non-intersecting circular cuts around foreground sources. To extract a set of E and B modes for likelihood evaluation one can proceed following Ref. [@Lewis01]. We briefly review the method here with one minor enhancement. First we diagonalize ${\bm{W}}_+$ (taking it to be square) and discard the badly supported modes, to write ${\bm{W}}_+ \approx {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+ {\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}_+ {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+ ^\dag$ so $$\begin{aligned} {\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}^{-1/2}_+ {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+^\dag{\tilde{\mathbf{E}}}\approx {\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}^{1/2}_+ {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+^\dag {\mathbf{E}}+ i {\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}^{-1/2}_+ {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+^\dag {\bm{W}}_- {\mathbf{B}}\\ {\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}^{-1/2}_+ {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+^\dag{\tilde{\mathbf{B}}}\approx {\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}^{1/2}_+ {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+^\dag {\mathbf{B}}- i {\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}^{-1/2}_+ {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+^\dag {\bm{W}}_- {\mathbf{E}}.\end{aligned}$$ Then we do the diagonalization $${\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}^{-1/2}_+ {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+^\dag {\bm{W}}_- {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+ {\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}^{-1/2}_+ = {\bm{U}}_- {\bm{D}}_- {\bm{U}}_-^\dag$$ and construct the matrix ${\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_-$ by deleting the columns of ${\bm{U}}_-$ corresponding to non-zero diagonal elements of ${\bm{D}}_-$. It follows from the Hermiticity of ${\bm{W}}_-$ that ${\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_-$ is made up of vectors in the left null-space of the mode-mixing matrix ${\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}^{-1/2}_+ {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+^\dag {\bm{W}}_-$. The pure E and B modes are then given by $$\begin{aligned} {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_-^\dag {\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}^{-1/2}_+ {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+^\dag{\tilde{\mathbf{E}}}&\approx& {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_-^\dag{\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}^{1/2}_+ {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+^\dag {\mathbf{E}}\\ {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_-^\dag {\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}^{-1/2}_+ {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+^\dag {\tilde{\mathbf{B}}}&\approx& {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_-^\dag{\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}^{1/2}_+ {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+^\dag {\mathbf{B}}.\end{aligned}$$ For isotropic uncorrelated noise these modes also have isotropic and uncorrelated noise. This method is equivalent to that presented in Ref. [@Lewis01] but slightly faster as it replaces the SVD of the $ {\tilde{{\bm{D}}}}^{-1/2}_+ {\tilde{{\bm{U}}}}_+^\dag {\bm{W}}_-$ coupling matrix with a faster diagonalization of a smaller Hermitian matrix by using the Hermiticity of ${\bm{W}}_-$. Note that as mentioned above one should only include modes with $\|m\| \le {\ell_{\text{max}}}-2n$, though in practice for galactic cuts these modes are badly supported anyway. The coupling matrices for an azimuthal cut can be computed efficiently using the results given in the appendix of Ref. [@Lewis01]. [22]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{} , , , **, (), . , , (), . , , , , , (), . , , (), . , , (), . , , (), . , , , , (), . , , , , , (), . (), . (), . , , , , (), . , , , , , (), . , , , , , , (), . , , (), . , , , , (), . , , , , , (), . , , (), . (), . , , (), . , , , , (), . (), . , , , in , edited by , , (, ), pp. , . [^1]: <http://astro.estec.esa.nl/Planck> [^2]: Our sign conventions follow Ref. [@Lewis01]. [^3]: <http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/> [^4]: [^5]: Further color maps are available at <http://cosmologist.info/polar/EBsupport.html> [^6]: We follow the method used in Ref. [@Lewis01]. Due to the high signal to noise of a few of the large scale modes this may be somewhat suboptimal, and therefore pessimistic. [^7]: <http://www.eso.org/science/healpix/>	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We determine the range of neutrino masses and cosmic radiation content allowed by the most recent CMB and large-scale structure data. In contrast to other recent works, we vary these parameters simultaneously and provide likelihood contours in the two-dimensional parameter space of $N_{\rm eff}$, the usual effective number of neutrino species measuring the radiation density, and $\sum m_\nu$. The allowed range of $\sum m_\nu$ and $N_{\rm eff}$ has shrunk significantly compared to previous studies. The previous degeneracy between these parameters has disappeared, largely thanks to the baryon acoustic oscillation data. The likelihood contours differ significantly if $\sum m_\nu$ resides in a single species instead of the standard case of being equally distributed among all flavors. For $\sum m_\nu=0$ we find $2.7<N_{\rm eff}<4.6$ at 95% CL while $\sum m_\nu<0.62$ eV at 95% CL for the standard radiation content.' address: - '$^1$ Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Aarhus, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark' - '$^2$Max-Planck-Institut für Physik (Werner-Heisenberg-Institut), Föhringer Ring 6, D-80805 München, Germany' author: - 'Steen Hannestad$^{1,2}$ and Georg G. Raffelt$^2$' title: 'Neutrino masses and cosmic radiation density: Combined analysis' --- [MPP-2006-82]{} Introduction ============ The recent release of the 3-year WMAP data has stimulated several renewed analyses of cosmological neutrino mass limits. Neutrinos are known to have mass from oscillation experiments so that the unknown overall mass scale is unavoidable as a fit parameter of the standard cosmological model. The resulting mass limits range from $\sum m_\nu< 2.0$ eV (95% CL) using the WMAP-3 data alone [@fukugita] to $\sum m_\nu< 0.17$–$0.4$ eV (95% CL) when data from the Lyman-$\alpha$ forest is included [@seljak2006; @Goobar:2006xz]. Translating cosmological limits on the hot dark matter fraction into neutrino mass limits depends on the cosmic neutrino density that is fixed by standard physics and thus not an ordinary cosmic fit parameter. On the other hand, the most direct evidence for the presence of the cosmic neutrino sea derives from big-bang nucleosynthesis and from cosmological parameter fitting so that it is a natural consistency test to study if the cosmic radiation density implied by the cosmological precision parameters reproduces the standard radiation content. However, since neutrinos are known to have mass, one can not simply assume that $\sum m_\nu=0$ when extracting an allowed range for $N_{\rm eff}$, the effective number of neutrino species that is the usual measure of the radiation content. Nevertheless this has been the standard procedure in most of the recent parameter analyses based on WMAP-3 [@Spergel:2006hy; @seljak2006]. The caveat is especially relevant because we found a degeneracy between $\sum m_\nu=0$ and $N_{\rm eff}$, based on the cosmological data available in 2003 [@Hannestad:2003xv; @Hannestad:2003ye; @Crotty:2004gm; @Dodelson:2005tp]. One result of our present $\sum m_\nu$-$N_{\rm eff}$-analysis will be that this degeneracy is no longer present in the much smaller allowed range based on the 2006 data (Fig. \[fig:old\]). We will thus conclude that the current cosmological data provide essentially independent limits on $\sum m_\nu$ and $N_{\rm eff}$. [llll]{} Case & Model & $\sum m_\nu$ (95% CL)& $N_{\rm eff}$ (95% CL) 1 & $N_{\rm m} = N_{\rm eff}$ & $<$ 0.62 eV & $2.7 < N_{\rm eff} < 4.6$ 2 & $N_{\rm m} = 3$ & $<$ 0.57 eV & $3.0 \leq N_{\rm eff} < 4.6$ 3 &$N_{\rm m} = 1$ & $<$ 0.41 eV & $2.7 < N_{\rm eff} < 4.6$ Another important issue is what one actually means with $N_{\rm eff}$, as there are several different plausible cases that should be considered. One possibility is that the cosmic number density of the standard neutrinos is different from what is usually assumed, i.e. $\sum m_\nu$ is equally distributed among all species that comprise $N_{\rm eff}$ (our Case 1, see Table \[table:cases\]). Our second case is that three standard massive neutrinos have equal masses, i.e. the number of equally massive species is $N_{\rm m}=3$ so that $N_{\rm eff}-N_{\rm m}$ signifies additional radiation in some completely new form unrelated to ordinary neutrinos. Finally, we consider $N_{\rm m}=1$ that could represent a situation where the standard neutrinos are nearly massless, i.e. they have hierarchical masses with a largest mass eigenvalue given by the atmospheric scale of about 50 meV, while there is an additional massive species, perhaps a sterile neutrino. This case is largely motivated to demonstrate that the current cosmological data are sensitive to the $\sum m_\nu$ distribution among the flavors. We begin in Sec. \[sec:data\] with a brief description of the cosmological data used in our study. In Sec. \[sec:constraints\] we derive the range of $\sum m_\nu$ and $N_{\rm eff}$ allowed by these data and conclude in Sec. \[sec:summary\] with a summary of our findings. Cosmological data and likelihood analysis {#sec:data} ========================================= In order to study bounds on $\sum m_\nu$ and $N_{\rm eff}$ we use the same data as in Ref. [@Goobar:2006xz]. We use distant type Ia supernovae measured by the SuperNova Legacy Survey (SNLS) [@astier06] and large-scale structure data from the 2dF [@2dFGRS] and SDSS [@Tegmark:2003uf; @Tegmark:2003ud] surveys. From the SDSS we also include the recent measurement of the baryon acoustic oscillation feature in the 2-point correlation function [@Eisenstein2005]. Finally, we include the precision measurements of the cosmic microwave background anisotropy from the WMAP experiment [@Spergel:2006hy; @Hinshaw:2006ia; @Page:2006hz], as well as the smaller-scale measurement by the BOOMERANG experiment [@Jones:2005yb; @Piacentini:2005yq; @Montroy:2005yx]. [lcl]{} parameter & prior$\Omega=\Omega_m+\Omega_{\rm DE} + \Omega_\nu$&1&Fixed$\Omega_m$ & 0 – 1 & Top hat $h$ & 0.5 – 1.0 & Top hat $\Omega_b h^2$ & 0.014 – 0.040&Top hat$w_{\rm DE}$ & $-2.5$ – $-0.5$ & Top hat $n_s$ & 0.6 – 1.4& Top hat$\alpha_s$ & $-0.5$ – 0.5 & Top Hat $\tau$ & 0 – 1 &Top hat$Q$ & — &Free$b$ & — &Free We do not include data from the Lyman-$\alpha$ forest in our analysis. These data were used previously and very strong separate bounds on $\sum m_\nu$ and $N_{\rm eff}$ were obtained [@seljak2006]. However, the strength of these bounds is mainly related to the fact that the Lyman-$\alpha$ analysis used in Ref. [@seljak2006] leads to a much higher normalisation of the small-scale power spectrum than the WMAP data. Other analyses of the same SDSS Lyman-$\alpha$ data find a lower normalisation, in better agreement with the WMAP result [@Viel:2005eg; @Viel:2005ha; @viel2006]. In this case the Lyman-$\alpha$ data add little to the strength of the neutrino mass bound [@Goobar:2006xz]. The discrepancy between different analyses of the same data probably points to unresolved systematic issues so that we prefer to exclude the Lyman-$\alpha$ data entirely. We then perform a likelihood analysis based on a flat, dark-energy dominated model characterised by the matter density $\Omega_m$, the baryon density $\Omega_b$, the dark energy equation of state $w$, the Hubble parameter $H_0$, the spectral index of the primordial power spectrum $n_s$, the running of the primordial spectral index $\alpha_s$, and the optical depth to reionization $\tau$. Finally, the normalization of the CMB data $Q$ and the bias parameter $b$ are used as free parameters. The dark-energy density is given by the flatness condition $\Omega_{\rm DE} = 1 - \Omega_m - \Omega_\nu$. Including the neutrino mass $\sum m_\nu$, parameterised in terms of the contribution to the present energy density $\Omega_\nu h^2 = \sum m_\nu/92.8~{\rm eV}$, and the effective number of neutrino species $N_{\rm eff}$, our benchmark model has 11 free parameters. Our priors on these parameters are shown in Table \[table:priors\]. The treatment of data is exactly the same as in Ref. [@Goobar:2006xz]. When calculating constraints, the likelihood function is found by minimizing $\chi^2$ over all parameters not appearing in the fit, i.e. over all parameters other than $\sum m_\nu$ and $N_{\rm eff}$. =7.5truecm Bounds on neutrino properties {#sec:constraints} ============================= Following these procedures we find the 68%, 95%, and 99% likelihood contours for $\sum m_\nu$ and $N_{\rm eff}$ shown in Fig. \[fig:likelihood\] for the three cases discussed in the introduction and shown in Table \[table:cases\]. The top panel of Fig. \[fig:likelihood\] corresponds to a nonstandard number density of the standard neutrinos, assuming a standard velocity dispersion as in all other cases as well. In Fig. \[fig:old\] we overlay these contours with the analogous ones that we found on the basis of the data available in 2003 [@Hannestad:2003ye]. The allowed range of both parameters has shrunk dramatically as expected. Moreover, the pronounced degeneracy between $\sum m_\nu$ and $N_{\rm eff}$ that was present at that time has now completely disappeared, largely thanks to the baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements. We conclude that at the level of precision that has now been reached, the cosmological data constrain $\sum m_\nu$ and $N_{\rm eff}$ almost independently of each other. =7.5truecm Perhaps the physically best motivated case is No. 2 where we have the ordinary neutrinos with mass ($N_{\rm m}=3$) and additional radiation in some new form. In this case we have a hard lower limit $N_{\rm eff}\geq N_{\rm m}=3$. Otherwise the contours of the middle panel of Fig. \[fig:likelihood\] are very similar to Case 1 (top panel). The largest modification appears in Case 3 where we assume that all hot-dark matter mass resides in a single neutrino species. The mass limits are significantly more restrictive in this case. The reason is that for a single massive species the total neutrino energy density is larger in the semi-relativistic regime than if the mass is shared between all flavours [@Lesgourgues:2004ps]. Since the mass bound is such that neutrinos become nonrelativistic very close to the epoch of matter-radiation equality, this equality occurs later in the model with only one massive neutrino. As a consequence, small-scale structure is more suppressed, but the effect can be offset by a slight increase in the matter density. We indeed observe that the best-fit value of $\Omega_m$ is higher for $N_{\rm m}=1$. However, both the SN Ia and BAO data prefer a low value of $\Omega_m$ and consequently the model with $N_{\rm m}=1$ becomes a poor fit to this data at $\sum m_\nu$ around 0.4–0.5 eV. Table \[table:deltachi\] shows exactly this effect. Here, $\Delta \chi^2$ for $\sum m_\nu = 0.45$ eV has been broken down into individual contributions from the different data sets. As expected, the main effect comes from SN Ia and BAO data. [lcc]{} Data set & $N_m = N_{\rm eff}$ & $N_m = 1$ CMB & $-1.2$ & $-0.9$ LSS & 0.5 & 0.5 SN Ia & 1.0 & 2.3 BAO & 1.3 & 2.9 We finally note that for the case with one sterile massive state and three active, almost massless neutrinos (the LSND 3+1 case) the mass bound is 0.45 eV at 95% CL (0.93 eV at 99.99% C.L.), somewhat lower than the 0.62 eV bound in the standard case. That the bound on the 3+1 model is stronger than for the standard case is contrary to what was found in previous studies (see [@Hannestad:2003xv; @Hannestad:2003ye; @Crotty:2004gm]. The reason is the low value of $\Omega_m$ preferred by the BAO and SNI-a data. Discussion {#sec:summary} ========== We have derived likelihood contours in the two-dimensional parameter space spanned by $\sum m_\nu$ and $N_{\rm eff}$, based on the latest cosmological precision data, however excluding Lyman-$\alpha$. We consider two physically motivated cases for $N_{\rm eff}$ where either the effective number of massive neutrinos differs from the standard scenario, or where there is a new form of radiation besides $N_{\rm m}=3$ standard massive neutrinos. The results for these cases differ very little, except that in Case 2 there is hard lower limit $N_{\rm eff}\geq N_{\rm m}=3$. For the sake of principle we have also considered a third case where all the neutrino mass resides in a single species. Here, the mass limit is more restrictive, reflecting that near the limiting mass of around 0.5 eV neutrinos become nonrelativistic very close to the epoch of matter-radiation equality. For all cases we provide in Table \[table:cases\] limits on $\sum m_\nu$ after marginalizing over $N_{\rm eff}$ and limits on $N_{\rm eff}$ after marginalizing over $\sum m_\nu$. We stress that the neutrino mass scale can not be avoided as a standard cosmic fit parameter so that one should not derive limits on $N_{\rm eff}$ while enforcing the neutrino masses to vanish. In practice, because $\sum m_\nu$ and $N_{\rm eff}$ are no longer degenerate, the allowed range for $N_{\rm eff}$ is not very different if one assumes $\sum m_\nu=0$. The limits on $N_{\rm eff}$ differ little between our cases. Independently of the exact distribution of masses among the neutrino species we find $2.7 < N_{\rm eff} < 4.6$ (95% CL), except in Case 2 where the lower limit is by definition $3\leq N_{\rm eff}$. The bound is significantly stronger than the $2.5 < N_{\rm eff} < 5.6$ found with WMAP-1 data and without inclusion of the BAO data [@Hannestad:2005jj]. The standard case of three massive neutrinos without modified number density and without additional radiation is well within the 95% CL range of $N_{\rm eff}$, although it is just slightly outside the 68% CL range in Cases 1 and 2. Either way, the cosmological model with a nonstandard density of massive neutrinos or radiation is not significantly favored over the standard case. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== This work was supported, in part, by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under grant No. SFB 375 and by the European Union under the ILIAS project, contract No. RII3-CT-2004-506222. S.H. acknowledges support from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation through a Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel Award. Use of the CMBFAST code is acknowledged [@Seljak:1996is]. References {#references .unnumbered} ========== [99]{} M. Fukugita, K. Ichikawa, M. Kawasaki and O. Lahav, “Limit on the neutrino mass from the WMAP three year data,” astro-ph/0605362. U. Seljak, A. Slosar and P. McDonald, “Cosmological parameters from combining the Lyman-alpha forest with CMB, galaxy clustering and SN constraints,” astro-ph/0604335. A. Goobar, S. Hannestad, E. Mörtsell and H. Tu, “A new bound on the neutrino mass from the SDSS baryon acoustic peak,” JCAP [0606]{}, 019 (2006) \[astro-ph/0602155\]. D. N. Spergel [et al.]{}, “Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) three year results: Implications for cosmology,” astro-ph/0603449. S. Hannestad, “Neutrino masses and the number of neutrino species from WMAP and 2dFGRS,” JCAP [0305]{}, 004 (2003) \[astro-ph/0303076\]. S. Hannestad and G. Raffelt, “Cosmological mass limits on neutrinos, axions, and other light particles,” JCAP [0404]{}, 008 (2004) \[hep-ph/0312154\]. P. Crotty, J. Lesgourgues and S. Pastor, “Current cosmological bounds on neutrino masses and relativistic relics,” Phys. Rev. D [69]{}, 123007 (2004) \[hep-ph/0402049\]. S. Dodelson, A. Melchiorri and A. Slosar, “Is cosmology compatible with sterile neutrinos?,” astro-ph/0511500. P. Astier [et al.]{}, “The Supernova Legacy Survey: Measurement of $\Omega_M$, $\Omega_\Lambda$ and $w$ from the First Year Data Set,” Astron. Astrophys. [447]{}, 31 (2006) \[astro-ph/0510447\]. M. Colless [et al.]{}, “The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: Final data release,” astro-ph/0306581. M. Tegmark [et al.]{} \[SDSS Collaboration\], “The 3D power spectrum of galaxies from the SDSS,” Astrophys. J. [606]{}, 702 (2004) \[astro-ph/0310725\]. M. Tegmark [et al.]{} \[SDSS Collaboration\], “Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP,” Phys. Rev. D [69]{}, 103501 (2004) \[astro-ph/0310723\]. D. J. Eisenstein [et al.]{}, “Detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of SDSS luminous red galaxies,” Astrophys. J. [633]{}, 560 (2005) \[astro-ph/0501171\]. G. Hinshaw [et al.]{}, “Three-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Temperature analysis,” astro-ph/0603451. L. Page [et al.]{}, “Three year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Polarization analysis,” astro-ph/0603450. W. C. Jones [et al.]{}, “A Measurement of the Angular Power Spectrum of the CMB Temperature Anisotropy from the 2003 Flight of BOOMERANG,” astro-ph/0507494. F. Piacentini [et al.]{}, “A measurement of the polarization-temperature angular cross power spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background from the 2003 flight of BOOMERANG,” astro-ph/0507507. T. E. Montroy [et al.]{}, “A measurement of the CMB Spectrum from the 2003 flight of BOOMERANG,” astro-ph/0507514. M. Viel, M. G. Haehnelt and V. Springel, “Testing the accuracy of the Hydro-PM approximation in numerical simulations of the Lyman-alpha forest,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [367]{}, 1655 (2006) \[astro-ph/0504641\]. M. Viel and M. G. Haehnelt, “Cosmological and astrophysical parameters from the SDSS flux power spectrum and hydrodynamical simulations of the Lyman-alpha forest,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [365]{}, 231 (2006) \[astro-ph/0508177\]. M. Viel, M. G. Haehnelt and A. Lewis, “The Lyman-alpha forest and WMAP year three,” astro-ph/0604310. J. Lesgourgues, S. Pastor and L. Perotto, “Probing neutrino masses with future galaxy redshift surveys,” Phys. Rev. D [70]{}, 045016 (2004) \[hep-ph/0403296\]. S. Hannestad, “New constraint on the cosmological background of relativistic particles,” JCAP [0601]{}, 001 (2006) \[astro-ph/0510582\]. U. Seljak and M. Zaldarriaga, “A Line of Sight Approach to Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies,” Astrophys. J. [469]{}, 437 (1996) \[astro-ph/9603033\].	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
Island nucleation is often the first step in thin-film epitaxy and is, thus, relevant to the synthesis of a wide variety of interfacial materials. Achieving a quantitative understanding of the island morphologies ([i.e.]{}, sizes, shapes, density, spatial distribution, etc.) that develop in the initial stages of thin-film growth is also important for fundamental reasons. Since thin-film epitaxy frequently occurs away from equilibrium, the kinetics of deposition and surface diffusion play a key role in governing island morphology and there is great variety in the resulting structures. Considering shapes [@michely; @brune1; @ruggerone97; @bogicevic1; @ovesson99; @stroscio; @zhang97; @guenther], for example, islands can be fractal-like or compact and triangular, hexagonal, square, rectangular, etc.. Each of these structures is a signature of an intricate kinetic balance and reflects a complex set of interatomic interactions that is unique for each material. Despite the complexity and potentially enormous variety in growth morphologies, certain aspects of island nucleation and growth appear to be common to many different systems. In a general description, gas-phase species are deposited onto an initially bare solid substrate with a rate $F$. These species hop on the surface with a rate $D = \nu_{0}e^{-E_{b}^{0}/k_{B}T}$, where $\nu_{0}$ is the preexponential factor, $E_{b}^{0}$ is the diffusion-energy barrier for an isolated species, $k_{B}$ is Boltzmann’s constant, and $T$ is temperature. Hopping mediates the aggregation of adspecies into nuclei, which either dissociate with an energy barrier $E_{d,i}$, if they are below a critical size $i$, or grow subsequently to become stable islands. Initially, the formation of island nuclei is the main process taking place. As the surface coverage increases, it becomes increasingly likely that deposited species will add to stable islands and promote their growth instead of forming new nuclei. These general features can be captured in a mean-field theory for the stable island density $N_{x}$ [@ven73]. In the island growth regime, this expression has the form $$N_{x} \sim (F/D)^{i/(i+2)} \exp(-E_{d,i}/k_{B}T)^{1/(i+2)} . \label{eq-island-density}$$ Although the utility of a general expression cannot be overstated, Eq. \[eq-island-density\] cannot describe all aspects of thin-film epitaxy and it is important to understand its limitations. In the interest of achieving a complete and predictive model for thin-film morphology, it is clearly desirable to have an approach that is as free as possible from arbitrary parameters or assumptions. In this Letter, with an aim toward this ideal approach, we present the results of a combined kinetic Monte Carlo (kMC) and first-principles, density-functional theory (DFT) study of island nucleation in a model for the growth of Ag on a monolayer (ML) of Ag on Pt(111). Our choice of this model system was motivated by intriguing results from recent, low-temperature, scanning-tunneling microscopy (STM) studies [@fischer99; @barth; @brune95], in which Eq. \[eq-island-density\] was used to obtain the energy barrier and preexponential factor for adatom hopping. Shown in Table I are the parameters obtained in these studies. System $E_{b}^{0}$ (meV) $\nu_{0}$ (s$^{-1})$ Ref. ----------------------- ------------------- ---------------------- -------------- Al on Au(111) 30 $7 \times 10^{3}$ [@fischer99] Al on Al(111) 42 $8 \times 10^{6}$ [@barth] Ag on 1-ML-Ag/Pt(111) 60 $10^{9}$ [@brune95] : Experimentally determined diffusion-energy barriers and preexponential factors. A striking feature of the experimental results is that the preexponential factors are significantly smaller than would be anticipated for systems such as these. For example, from [ab initio]{} calculations, Ratsch and Scheffler [@ratsch98] find a preexponential factor of $\nu_{0} = 1.3 \times 10^{12}$ s$^{-1}$ for a Ag adatom on 1-ML-Ag/Pt(111), with a diffusion barrier of $E_{b}^{0}$ = 63 meV. Inserting the experimental and theoretical values for the diffusion parameters into Eq. \[eq-island-density\] in the low-temperature limit where $i = 1$ and $E_{d,i} = 0$, we see that the experimental island densities are about an order of magnitude higher than predictions based on the theoretical diffusion parameters. Here, we investigate the origins of this discrepancy. Our DFT-kMC model includes many features of the complex potential-energy surface experienced by Ag adatoms during thin-film growth and is free from several of the assumptions in Eq. \[eq-island-density\]. We find that one of these assumptions – that interactions between adsorbed species do not extend beyond a short range – is violated. For systems with low diffusion-energy barriers \[such as Ag on 1-ML-Ag/Pt(111)\], we show that these long-range, adatom-adatom interactions play an important and previously underestimated role in island nucleation and growth. The DFT calculations [@bockstedte97] are performed using the plane-wave, pseudopotential [@fuchs99] method within the generalized gradient approximation [@perdew96]. Previously, Ratsch [et al.]{} [@ratsch97] showed in DFT calculations that the diffusion-energy barrier of an Ag atom on the 1-ML-Ag/Pt(111) substrate is essentially the same as that on a strained Ag(111) substrate, in which Ag is given the lattice constant of Pt. Thus, to model the heteroepitaxial system we use strained Ag(111), in which the lattice constant is set to a value of 4.01 Å. This value is 4.61 percent smaller than our calculated lattice constant for bulk Ag. We use the supercell approach to describe the surface, which is modeled as a $(4\times 4\times 4)$ slab with a vacuum spacing of five interlayer distances. The cut-off energy is 50 Ry and we use 4 ${\bf {k}}$ points to sample the full surface Brillouin zone. The top layer of a bare slab is fully relaxed. Subsequently, an adatom is placed in a binding site (fcc and hcp three-fold hollow sites), and its height is optimized with respect to the fixed substrate. To calculate adatom interaction energies, two (or more) adatoms are placed on the relaxed (and fixed) substrate with heights fixed to values from the single-adatom calculations. In this way, we seek to isolate the electronic interaction between adatoms in binding sites. With simultaneous relaxation of both the adatoms and surface atoms, we can resolve the role of substrate-mediated, elastic interactions in the total interaction energy. Full relaxation of a few trial structures and inspection of the forces in our partially relaxed slabs indicates that elastic interactions are not highly dependent on adsorbate configuration and that our results will change by 10 meV or less with full relaxation. The total interaction energy $\Delta E$ for a periodic slab containing $N$ adatoms, of which $M$ are at binding site $a$ and $(N-M)$ are at binding site $b$, is given by $\Delta E = E_{S+N}^{a,b} - ME_{S+1}^{a} - (N-M)E_{S+1}^{b} + (N-1)E_{S}$. Here, $E_{S+N}^{a,b}$ is the total energy of a slab with $N$ adatoms, $E_{S+1}^{a}$ and $E_{S+1}^{b}$ are the total energies of slabs containing one adatom, and $E_{S}$ is the total energy of a bare slab. In the DFT supercell approach, the total interaction energy is comprised of interactions between different adatoms in the slab and interactions between adatoms in the slab and the periodic-image adatoms. We can express $\Delta E$ as a function of these interactions using the lattice-gas Hamiltonian approach (see, [e.g.]{}[@stampfl99]), which yields $$\begin{aligned} \Delta E &=& \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j}V^{(2)}({\bf{R}}_{i,j}) n_{i}n_{j} \nonumber \\ &&+\frac{1}{3} \sum_{i,j,k}V^{(3)}({\bf {R}}_{i,j}, {\bf{R}}_{i,k}) n_{i}n_{j}n_{k} + \ldots \label{eq-lattice-gas} \end{aligned}$$ Here, the summations run over all sites $i$ in the slab and all sites $j$ and $k$ in the supercell (which includes both the slab and its periodic images), $n_{m}$ is unity if site $m$ ($m = i,j,k$) is occupied and zero, otherwise, $V^{(2)}({\bf R}_{i,j})$ is the pair interaction between two adatoms on sites $i$ and $j$, and $V^{(3)}({\bf R}_{i,j}, {\bf R}_{i,k})$ is the trio interaction between three adatoms on sites $i$, $j$, and $k$. We neglect higher-order interactions. Another assumption implicit in Eq. \[eq-lattice-gas\] is that the interaction between adatoms at a fixed distance is independent of whether these atoms occupy fcc or hcp sites. We confirmed this assumption in one trial calculation. Finally, the adatom binding energies on fcc and hcp sites are virtually equal: The fcc site is favored by less than 3 meV. Thus, for a given adatom configuration, we express $\Delta E$ as a sum of pair and trio interactions with unknown coefficients. From 18 different configurations, we obtain a system of linear equations and solve these for pair-interaction coefficients up to the $13^{\rm th}$-neighbor, as well as for 5 different trio interactions. We assume that all other interaction coefficients are zero. To verify our parameterization of Eq. (2), we used our interaction parameters to predict the total interaction energy in several, additional test structures. All of the predicted values agreed well with values from DFT calculations. The pair interaction is shown in Fig. \[fig-pair-potential\], where we also show results for Ag on [unstrained]{} Ag(111). For both surfaces, this interaction is strongly attractive at the nearest-neighbor distance and repulsive at longer distances. It is interesting to consider the origins of the long-range repulsion. At these distances, the interaction could be due to substrate-mediated elastic interactions or of electronic origin [@einstein]. Since we find that elastic interactions play a small role here, the repulsion is primarily an electronic effect. Each adatom induces a small perturbation in the electron density, which decays with distance from the adatom in an oscillatory manner. The asymptotic tail, which is expected to decay with distance $d$ as $d^{-5}$ (or as $d^{-2}$, if a partially filled surface state is involved), is a Friedel-type oscillation. Friedel oscillations have been imaged as concentric, ring-like, features around defects in low-temperature STM studies of several noble-metal surfaces \[including Ag(111)\] [@briner]. We expect the Friedel tail to extend to much longer distances than can be probed in DFT calculations. However, interactions associated with the Friedel tail should be weaker than those probed here. Thus, the central-ring interaction resolved here will have the most significant ramifications for thin-film morphology. From Fig. \[fig-pair-potential\](a), we see that the magnitude of the repulsive ring for Ag on strained Ag(111) is comparable to the diffusion-energy barrier for an isolated adatom. For Ag on Ag(111), it appears that the repulsive interaction is weaker and the diffusion-energy barrier is larger. The diffusion barriers reported here are obtained with full relaxation of both the first-layer slab atoms and the adatom. Our barriers are in good agreement with experimental values [@brune95] for Ag on 1-ML-Ag/Pt(111) (60 meV) and on Ag(111) (97 meV) and with those of Ratsch and Scheffler [@ratsch98]. If the interaction energy and the diffusion barrier are of comparable size, we expect interatomic interactions to significantly influence adatom diffusion and island formation. Since Eq. \[eq-island-density\] neglects the influence of long-range interactions, it is unclear if this expression is accurate under these circumstances. To resolve the effect of long-range interactions on thin-film growth, we developed a kMC model employing the general method of Fichthorn and Weinberg [@fichthorn91] and incorporating the pair potential for Ag on strained Ag(111) shown in Fig. \[fig-pair-potential\](a). In the initial stages of thin-film epitaxy, the surface coverage is low and pair interactions are likely to be the only significant interactions governing island nucleation and growth[@comment1]. In our kMC model, atoms are deposited onto a fcc(111) substrate with a rate of $F = 0.1$ ML/s. An adatom hops from site $i$ to site $j$ with a rate given by $D_{i\rightarrow j} = \nu_{0}e^{-E_{i \rightarrow j}/k_{B}T}$, where $E_{i \rightarrow j}$ is the energy barrier to hop from site $i$ to $j$. For the hopping-rate parameters, we use $\nu_{0} = 10^{12}$ s$^{-1}$ [@ratsch98]. The energy barrier is given by $E_{i \rightarrow j} = E^{\ddagger}_{i,j} - E_{i}$, where $E_{i}$ is the energy with an atom at site $i$ and $E^{\ddagger}_{i,j}$ is the energy of the transition state between sites $i$ and $j$. In general, $E^{\ddagger}_{i,j}$ should depend on both $E_{i}$ and $E_{j}$. Considering possible permutations of adatom configurations with $13^{\rm th}$-neighbor interactions, $\sim 10^{14}$ different, diffusion-energy barriers could occur. To make the problem tractable, we adopt a simple model, in which $E_{i \rightarrow j} = E_{b}^{0} + \frac {1}{2}(E_{j} - E_{i})$. All of the quantities in this equation are obtained from DFT calculations. We have tested this equation for a trial geometry in which an adatom with four fcc $9^{\rm th}$ neighbors hops to a nearest-neighbor hcp site where it has two $7^{\rm th}$ and two $12^{\rm th}$ neighbors. From our simple model, we find $E_{i \rightarrow j}$ = 53 meV, which is in remarkable agreement with the value of 46 meV from DFT calculations. We simulated thin-film epitaxy over temperatures ranging from 40-70 K and determined island densities in the beginning of the island growth regime. These low temperatures are in the range of the experimental studies (cf., Table I). At such low temperatures, Eq. \[eq-island-density\] reduces to the form $N_{x} \sim (F/D)^{1/3}$. Fig. \[fig-kMC\] shows an Arrhenius plot of the island density from our DFT-kMC model as a function of temperature. Also shown in Fig. \[fig-kMC\] is the island density predicted by nucleation theory for the values of $F$, $\nu_{0}$, and $E_{b}^{0}$ used here. To quantitatively compare nucleation theory with the simulations, a proportionality coefficient $\eta$ is needed in Eq. \[eq-island-density\] ([i.e.]{}, $N_{x} = \eta(F/D)^{1/3}$). This coefficient is related to the efficiency of the islands in capturing adatoms. Using a self-consistent approach, $\eta$ = 0.25 [@bales] and values of $\eta$ ranging from 0.2 to 0.23 have been found in kMC simulations of Ag island nucleation on Pt(111) [@brune99]. Here, we use $\eta$ = 0.25. In Fig. 2, we see that the DFT-kMC island densities are an order of magnitude (or more) above the theoretical values. To understand this, we construct a caricature model, in which we replace the set of pair interactions shown in Fig. \[fig-pair-potential\](a) with a nearest-neighbor attractive interaction and a uniform, repulsive ring of strength $\varepsilon_{R}$ at distances 10-13. By varying the magnitude of $\varepsilon_{R}$, we span the entire range of possible behaviors in this system. As $\varepsilon_{R} \rightarrow \infty$, the island density assumes a constant, maximum value that is independent of temperature (cf., Fig. \[fig-kMC\]). This is because island nucleation can only occur when one atom is deposited within the repulsive ring of another and it is governed by the temperature-independent deposition rate. In this regime, many adatoms are isolated by repulsion in the initial stages of deposition. Each isolated adatom becomes a stable island when another atom is deposited into its ring and the resulting island density is significantly higher than in the absence of such a ring. As $\varepsilon_{R}$ is decreased, diffusing adatoms are increasingly able to surmount the ring barrier and a second channel for island nucleation and growth (via long-range, adatom diffusion) opens up. The extent to which long-range diffusion contributes to island nucleation and growth depends on the temperature. In Fig. \[fig-kMC\], we see that at 40 K, the DFT-kMC island density is the same as that for an infinitely repulsive ring ([i.e.]{}, diffusing adatoms are unable to penetrate the ring on the time scale for nucleation). As the temperature increases, adatoms are increasingly able to penetrate the ring barrier to aggregate and add to existing islands via long-range diffusion. Consequently, the island density decreases with increasing temperature. It is interesting to note that for the conditions studied, even a relatively weak repulsive ring with $\varepsilon_{R}$ = 25 meV can lead to significantly higher island densities than those predicted by nucleation theory. Returning to our discussion of the experimental results shown in Table I, we point out that the order-of-magnitude difference between the island densities predicted from [ab initio]{} calculations [@ratsch98] and those found experimentally for Ag on 1-ML-Ag/Pt(111) [@brune95] is also seen in our study, comparing the island densities predicted by nucleation theory to those found in our DFT-kMC “computer experiments” (cf., Fig. \[fig-kMC\]). Thus, we conclude that our results can explain the theoretical-experimental gap in the island density for Ag on 1-ML-Ag/Pt(111). Further, our results indicate that for Ag on Ag(111), the theoretical-experimental gap should be weaker or non-existent. This result is also consistent with a comparison of theoretical diffusion parameters for Ag on Ag(111) [@ratsch98; @ratsch97] ($\nu_{0}=8.2 \times 10^{11} $s$^{-1}$, $E_{b}^{0}= 82$ meV) to experimental values [@brune95] obtained using Eq. \[eq-island-density\] ($\nu_{0}= 2 \times 10^{11} $s$^{-1}$, $E_{b}^{0}=$ 97 meV). Finally, Bogicevic and co-workers[@competition] recently found similar DFT and kMC results for both Al(111) and Cu(111) homoepitaxy. Thus, we conclude that long-range, electronic, substrate-mediated adatom interactions exist and, if their strength is comparable to the diffusion barrier, they can significantly influence surface diffusion and the growth morphology in thin-film epitaxy. For Ag on strained Ag(111), the adatom pair interaction becomes repulsive past the short range and the repulsion forms a ring around isolated adatoms. The magnitude of the repulsion is comparable to the diffusion barrier. By inhibiting island nucleation and growth via long-range adatom diffusion, these interactions lead to island densities that are substantially larger than those predicted by nucleation theory. We acknowledge helpful conversations with A. Bogicevic, H. Brune, P. Kratzer, C. Ratsch, A. Seitsonen, and C. Stampfl. Support for this work is from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the NSF (DMR-9617122). T. Michely, M. Hohage, M. Bott, and G. Comsa, Phys. Rev. Lett. [70]{}, 3943 (1993). H. Brune, C. Romainczyk, and H. Röder, Nature [369]{}, 469 (1994); H. Brune, H. Röder, and J. N[ø]{}rskov, Surf. Sci. [349]{}, L115 (1996). P. Ruggerone, C. Ratsch, and M. Scheffler, in [Growth and Properties of Ultrathin Epitaxial Layers]{}, Eds. D.A. King, D.P. Woodruff. The Chemical Physics of Solid Surfaces, Vol. 8. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (1997), p 490. A. Bogicevic, J. Strömquist, and B. I. Lundqvist, Phys. Rev. Lett. [81]{}, 637 (1998). S. Ovesson, A. Bogicevic, and B.I. Lundqvist, Phys. Rev. Lett. [83]{}, 2608 (1999). J. A. Stroscio, D. T. Pierce, and R. A. Dragoset, Phys. Rev. Lett. [70]{}, 3615 (1993). C.-M. Zhang, M. C. Bartelt, J.-M. Wen, J. W. Evans, and P. A. Thiel, J. Crystal Growth [174]{}, 851 (1997). S. Günther, E. Kopatzki, M. C. Bartelt, J. W. Evans, and R. J. Behm, Phys. Rev. Lett. [73]{}, 553 (1994). J. A. Venables, Phil. Mag. [27]{}, 697 (1973). B. Fischer, H. Brune, J. V. Barth, A. Fricke, and K. Kern, Phys. Rev. Lett. [82]{}, 1732 (1999). J. V. Barth, H. Brune, B. Fischer, J. Weckesser, and K. Kern, Phys. Rev. Lett. [84]{}, 1732 (2000). H. Brune, [et al.]{}, Phys. Rev. B [52]{}, R14380 (1995). C. Ratsch and M. Scheffler, Phys. Rev. B [58]{}, 13163 (1998). M. Bockstedte, A. Kley, J. Neugebauer, and M. Scheffler, Comput. Phys. Comm. [107]{}, 187 (1997). M. Fuchs and M. Scheffler, Comput. Phys. Commun. [119]{}, 67 (1999). J. P. Perdew, K. Burke and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. [77]{}, 3865 (1996). C. Ratsch, A. P. Seitsonen, and M. Scheffler, Phys. Rev. B [55]{}, 6750 (1997). C. Stampfl, H. J. Kreuzer, S. H. Payne, H. Pfnür, and M. Scheffler, Phys. Rev. Lett. [83]{}, 2993 (1999). T. L. Einstein and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. B [7]{}, 3629 (1973); T. L. Einstein, [Handbook of Surface Science]{}, W. N. Unertl, Ed. (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1996), Vol. 1, p. 577. See, [e.g.]{}, B.G. Briner [et al.]{}, Europhysics News [28]{}, 97 (1997) and references therein. We find that trio interactions are attractive and significant at high adatom densities. They are unimportant at the medium and longer distances probed here and we will discuss them elsewhere. K. A. Fichthorn and W. H. Weinberg, J. Chem. Phys. [95]{}, 1090 (1991). G. S. Bales and D.C. Chrzan, Phys. Rev. B [50]{}, 6057 (1994). H. Brune, G. S. Bales, J. Jacobsen, C. Boragno, and K. Kern, Phys. Rev. B [60]{}, 5991 (1999). A. Bogicevic, S. Ovesson, P. Hyldgaard, B. I. Lundqvist, and D. R. Jennison (preprint).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We study the arbitrage opportunities in the presence of transaction costs in a sequence of binary markets approximating the fractional Black-Scholes model. This approximating sequence was constructed by Sottinen and named fractional binary markets. Since, in the frictionless case, these markets admit arbitrage, we aim to determine the size of the transaction costs needed to eliminate the arbitrage from these models. To gain more insight, we first consider only 1-step trading strategies and we prove that arbitrage opportunities appear when the transaction costs are of order $o(1/\sqrt{N})$. Next, we characterize the asymptotic behavior of the smallest transaction costs ${\lambda}_c^{(N)}$, called “critical” transaction costs, starting from which the arbitrage disappears. Since the fractional Black-Scholes model is arbitrage-free under arbitrarily small transaction costs, one could expect that ${\lambda}_c^{(N)}$ converges to zero. However, the true behavior of ${\lambda}_c^{(N)}$ is opposed to this intuition. More precisely, we show, with the help of a new family of trading strategies, that ${\lambda}_c^{(N)}$ converges to one. We explain this apparent contradiction and conclude that it is appropriate to see the fractional binary markets as a large financial market and to study its asymptotic arbitrage opportunities. Finally, we construct a $1$-step asymptotic arbitrage in this large market when the transaction costs are of order $o(1/N^H)$, whereas for constant transaction costs, we prove that no such opportunity exists.' address: - 'Faculty of Technology, University of Bielefeld, Universitätsstr. 25, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany' - 'Department of Mathematics, ETH Zurich, Rämistrasse 101, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland' author: - Fernando Cordero - 'Lavinia Perez-Ostafe' bibliography: - 'reference.bib' title: 'Critical transaction costs and 1-step asymptotic arbitrage in fractional binary markets' --- Introduction {#1} ============ Significant academic research shows that the use of price models driven by fractional Brownian motion substantially increased, even if this was until recently rejected as these models are not free of arbitrage (see [@Rog]). Despite this drawback, these models are thought to describe real world markets in a better way. This is because, when the Hurst parameter is strictly bigger than $1/2$, the fractional Brownian motion exhibits self-similarity and long-range dependence, properties that were observed in empirical studies of financial time series (see [@Con] and [@WiTaTe] for a discussion on the relevance of these properties in financial modelling). Moreover, when one introduces transaction costs, the arbitrage opportunities disappear (see for ex. [@G:R:S:2008]), which makes it then possible to deduce a valuation theory that is built on no arbitrage arguments. A typical example of such market is the fractional Black-Scholes model, which is in fact a Black-Scholes type model where the randomness of the risky asset comes from a fractional Brownian motion. There is extensive literature around the properties of this model, in particular, explicit arbitrage opportunities can be found in [@Nu], [@SoVa], [@Che] and [@BeSoVa]. Additionally, as shown by Sottinen in [@Sotti], the fractional Black-Scholes model can be approximated by a sequence of binary models, called “fractional binary markets”. This result is based on an analogue of the Donsker’s theorem, which, in this case, states that the fractional Brownian motion can be approximated by a “disturbed” random walk. The markets in this approximating sequence will be our object of study in this paper. The motivation lies not only in the fact that these models behave asymptotically as the fractional Black-Scholes model, but also in their simplicity, coming from their binary structure. A $N$-step binary market is a market in which the stock price $(S_n)_{n=0}^N$ is an adapted stochastic process with strictly positive values and such that at time $n$ the stock price evolves from $S_{n-1}$ to either $\alpha_n\, S_{n-1}$, in which case we say that the stock price process takes a step up, or $\beta_n\, S_{n-1} $, in which case we say that the stock price process takes a step down, where $\beta_n <\alpha_n$. In addition, the parameters $\alpha_n$ and $\beta_n$, for $n\in\{1,..,N\}$, depend only on the past, which means that they can be seen as real valued functions on $\{-1,1\}^{n-1}$. One advantage of working with binary models is that the study of arbitrage, in the frictionless case, reduces to the study of a family of conditions imposed on the nodes of the binary tree $\cup_{n=1}^{N}\{-1,1\}^{n-1}$ (see [@Dzh]). When one of these conditions is not verified in a node of the binary tree, we call this node an arbitrage point. In this context, we call $N$-fractional binary market the $N$-step binary market in the sequence of fractional binary markets. Sottinen showed in [@Sotti] that the fractional binary markets without friction admit arbitrage and such an opportunity is explicitly constructed using the path information starting from time zero. Moreover, in the recent work [@CKP], it was proved that the asymptotic proportion of arbitrage points in the fractional binary markets is strictly positive and a characterization of that quantity, in terms of the Hurst parameter, is provided. In the present paper we aim to analyse the sensibility of the arbitrage condition to the presence of proportional transaction costs, first referring to each fixed $N$-fractional binary market and then considering the whole sequence as a large financial market. In the latter case, the notion of arbitrage is replaced by the concept of “asymptotic arbitrage”, which was introduced by Kabanov and Kramkov in [@Kab:Kra:94] and [@Kab:Kra:1998] and further studied in [@K:S:1996] and [@K:Sch:1996] for frictionless markets and in [@Le:Os] and [@Kl:Le:Pe] for the case of transaction costs. We first treat independently each market in the sequence and we look for arbitrage opportunities under transaction costs. More precisely, we study the smallest transaction costs ${\lambda}_c^{(N)}$, called “critical” transaction cost, starting from which the $N$-fractional binary market is arbitrage free. Since the arbitrage opportunities disappear when arbitrarily small transaction costs are introduced in the fractional Black-Scholes model, one can expect that, asymptotically, the same behavior occurs also in the fractional binary markets. This would be the case if the sequence of critical transaction costs converges to zero. Surprisingly, the behavior will be opposite to what is expected as we will show that, in fact, ${\lambda}_c^{(N)}$ converges to one and not to zero. We will approach this problem in two steps. First, in order to get some intuition, we study the existence of arbitrage under transaction costs in our models, when we restrict ourselves to use only $1$-step self-financing strategies. We know from [@Sotti] that, if the price process takes steps down (up) till some time $n_0$, with $n_0$ big enough, then the price will decrease (respectively, increase) from time $n_0$ to time $n_0+1$. An arbitrage is then explicitly constructed, in the frictionless case, by going short (respectively, long) at time $n_0$ and liquidating at time $n_0+1$. Using the same idea, we construct 1-step arbitrage opportunities in the fractional binary markets, which are subject to transaction costs of order $o(1/\sqrt{N})$. In a second step, we look to more general, but still elementary, self-financing strategies. The key point in the construction of the new arbitrage opportunities is that, if the stock price process takes only steps down a proportional number of $N$ times, $\gamma N$, then starting from this time the stock price will decrease a proportional number of $N$ times, $P_\gamma N$. We can then construct an arbitrage (in the frictionless case) by short-selling one unit of stock at time $\gamma N$ and then liquidating the position at the later time $\gamma N +P_\gamma N$. Next, we extend the previous construction, in the natural way, to the case with friction, and we prove that, if the transaction costs $\lambda_N$ are smaller than $1-e^{-C\sqrt{N}}$, for some constant $C>0$, then the corresponding self-financing strategy provides an arbitrage opportunity in the $N$-fractional binary market. As a consequence, we deduce that ${\lambda}_c^{(N)}$ converges to $1$. This does not contradict the absence of arbitrage in the fractional Black-Scholes with friction and we provide an explanation for that. In this context, the notion of asymptotic arbitrage seems to reflect better the abovementioned property of the limit market. Following this line, we construct a 1-step asymptotic arbitrage of first kind in the fractional binary markets when the transaction costs are of order $o(1/N^H)$ and we show that if we consider constant transaction costs these possibilities disappear. The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[2\], we start by recalling some notations and definitions concerning binary markets that we will use along this work. When talking about arbitrage opportunities with proportional transaction costs, the concepts of arbitrage, self-financing system and critical transaction cost are introduced. Moreover, the concept of asymptotic arbitrage is recalled. We end this part with a brief presentation of fractional binary markets and recall some estimates obtained in [@CKP] for the involved quantities. In Section \[3\], Section \[4\] and Section \[5\] are concentrated the main results. In Section \[3\], we construct a sequence of 1-step self-financing strategies leading to arbitrage opportunities in the fractional binary markets, when they are subject to transaction costs converging fast enough to zero. In Section \[4\], we show that the sequence of critical transaction costs associated to the fractional binary markets converges to $1$, by constructing a new well-chosen sequence of trading strategies leading to arbitrage opportunities under “big” transaction costs. We end this paper with Section \[5\], which contains some conclusions on the existence of 1-step asymptotic arbitrage in the sequence of fractional binary markets under small transaction costs. Preliminaries {#2} ============= Binary markets {#bmao} -------------- Let $(\Omega,{{\mathcal F}},{({{\mathcal F}}_n)}_{n=0}^N, P)$ be a finite filtered probability space. By a binary market we mean a market in which two assets (a bond $B$ and a stock $S$) are traded at successive times $t_0=0<t_1<\cdots<t_N$. The evolution of the bond and stock is described, for $n\in\{1,...,N\}$, by: $$\label{stock} B_n=(1+r_n)B_{n-1}\,\textrm{ and }\,S_n= \left(a_n+(1+X_n)\right)S_{n-1},$$ where $r_n$ and $a_n$ are the interest rate and the drift of the stock. Here, $B_n$ and $S_n$ denote the value of $B$ and $S$ in the time interval $[t_n,t_{n+1})$. The value of $S$ at time $0$ is given by a constant, i.e. $S_0=s_0$. From now on we assume, for the sake of simplicity, that the bond plays the role of a numéraire, and, in this case, that it is equal to $1$ at every time $n$ ($r_n=0$). The process $(X_n)_{n=0}^N$ is an adapted stochastic process starting at $X_0=x_0$ and such that, at each time $n$, $X_n$ can take only two possible values $u_n$ and $d_n$ with $d_n<u_n$. When $X_n$ equals $u_n$, we say that the price process takes a step up, and when $X_n$ is given by $d_n$, we say that the price process takes a step down. While $a_n$ from is deterministic, the values of $u_n$ and $d_n$ may depend on the path of $X$ up to time $n-1$. Note that the history of the process before time $n$ can be encoded by a vector in ${\{-1,1\}}^{n-1}$, where having $1$ (respectively $-1$) in position $k$ means that at time $k$ the process takes a step up (respectively down). Consequently, the parameters $u_n$ and $d_n$ can be seen as real valued functions on ${\{-1,1\}}^{n-1}$ ($u_1$ and $d_1$ are constants). Arbitrage opportunities under transaction costs {#2.2} ----------------------------------------------- From now on we consider binary markets $S$ as introduced in Section \[bmao\] but with proportional transaction costs $\lambda\in[0,1]$, meaning that the bid and ask price of the stock $S$ are modeled by the processes ${((1-\lambda)S_n)}_{n=0}^N$ and ${(S_n)}_{n=0}^N$ respectively. More precisely, we consider without loss of generality that we pay ${\lambda}$ transaction costs only when we sell, and not when we buy. The notion of arbitrage can be seen in an intuitive way as the possibility to make a profit in a financial market without risk and without net investment of capital. This idea is formalized for our framework, i.e for a binary market, where the bond plays the role of a numéraire, in the following definitions. \[sfs\] Given $\lambda\in[0,1]$, a $\lambda$-self-financing strategy for the process ${(S_n)}_{n=0}^N$ is an adapted process ${\varphi}={({\varphi}_n^0,{\varphi}_n^1)}_{n=-1}^N$ satisfying, for all $n\in\{0,...,N\}$, the following condition: $$\label{selffin} {\varphi}_n^0-{\varphi}_{n-1}^0\leq -{({\varphi}_n^1-{\varphi}_{n-1}^1 )}^+\,S_n\, +\, (1-\lambda)\,{({\varphi}_n^1-{\varphi}_{n-1}^1 )}^-\,S_n.$$ Here ${\varphi}^0$ denotes the number of units we hold in the bond and ${\varphi}^1$ denotes the number of units in the stock. \[arb\] Given $\lambda\in[0,1]$, we say that the process ${(S_n)}_{n=0}^N$ admits for a $\lambda$-arbitrage, or arbitrage under transaction costs $\lambda$, if there is a $\lambda$-self-financing strategy ${\varphi}={({\varphi}_n^0,{\varphi}_n^1)}_{n=-1}^N$ starting at $({\varphi}_{-1}^0,{\varphi}_{-1}^1)=(0,0)$ verifying the following conditions: - $V_N^{\lambda}({\varphi})\geq 0\quad P-a.s.$ - $P\left(V_N^{\lambda}({\varphi})>0\right)>0$, where $V_n^{\lambda}({\varphi})$ represents the liquidated value of the portfolio at time $n$ and is given, for each $n\in\{0,\ldots,N\}$, by $$V_n^{\lambda}({\varphi}):={\varphi}_n^0+(1-{\lambda})({\varphi}_n^1)^+S_n-({\varphi}_n^1)^-S_n.$$ If ${\lambda}=0$, we simply write $V_n({\varphi})$ instead of $V_n^0({\varphi})$. \[1step\] Along this work, when constructing arbitrage opportunities, special interest will be attributed to a certain kind of self-financing trading strategy, for which one does nothing till a fixed time point, then, depending on the position in the binary tree, we go long or short in the stock and immediately liquidate this position at the very next time step. We call this type of strategy “1-step” self-financing strategy. In the context of frictionless binary markets, the arbitrage condition can be expressed in terms of the parameters of the model. More precisely, we know by Proposition 3.6.2 in [@Dzh] that a binary market excludes arbitrage opportunities if and only if for all $n\in\{1,...,N\}$ and $x\in{\{-1,1\}}^{n-1}$, we have: $$\label{nac1} d_n(x)<-a_n< u_n(x).$$ If for some $n\in\{1,...,N\}$ and $x\in{\{-1,1\}}^{n-1}$, the above condition is not verified, then $x$ is called an “arbitrage point”. Note that if $x$ is not an arbitrage point, then starting from $x$, the price process takes a step up (down) if and only if its value strictly increases (respectively decreases) at the next time. However, this is not anymore true if $x$ is an arbitrage point. In the friction case, the arbitrage condition was studied in [@CKO], where the authors provide a characterization of the smallest transaction costs, called “critical” transaction costs and denoted by ${\lambda}_c$, needed to remove arbitrage opportunities, i.e $$\label{lac} \lambda_c=\inf\{\lambda\in[0,1]:\textrm{ there is no ${\lambda}$-arbitrage}\}.$$ More precisely, from [@CKO Corollary 5.1] we know that $$\lambda_c=1-\sup\limits_{Q\in {{\mathcal P}}_1(\Omega)}\rho(Q),$$ where ${{\mathcal P}}_1(\Omega)$ denotes the space of all probability measures on $(\Omega,{{\mathcal F}})$ and the function $\rho:{{\mathcal P}}_1(\Omega)\rightarrow [0,1]$ is defined by means of the parameters of the model $\{a_n,u_n,d_n\}_{n\geq 1}$. Therefore, the problem of computing $\lambda_c$ leads to solve an optimization problem, which, depending on the structure of the market, can be very difficult. Nevertheless, for 1-step binary markets, $\lambda_c$ can be explicitly computed. In addition, if we decompose a multi-step binary market in 1-step sub-markets, one can obtain the following lower bound for $\lambda_c$ (see [@CKO Proposition 3.1]): $$\begin{aligned} \label{lowbd} \lambda_c&\geq1-\min\limits_{n\in\{1,...,N\}}\left\{\min\limits_{x\in{\{-1,1\}}^{n-1}}\left\{(1+a_n+u_n(x))\wedge\frac{1}{1+a_n+d_n(x)}\wedge 1\right\}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ In general, the study of $\lambda$-arbitrage opportunities is much more complex than only looking for ${\lambda}$-arbitrage opportunities in the 1-step sub-binary markets and the previous lower bound can be not very accurate. We also point out, that all the aforementioned results are obtained by means of a dual approach, in which the existence of arbitrage opportunities (resp. ${\lambda}$-arbitrage opportunities) is related to the existence of an equivalent martingale measure (resp. a $ {\lambda}$-consistent price system). In particular, this dual approach does not provide explicit arbitrage opportunities. Our approach will be based on the construction of explicit families of self-financing strategies. In this respect, an important role will be played by the following notion. \[sfsm\] A self-financing system for the process ${(S_n)}_{n=0}^N$ is a family $\Phi=\{{\varphi}({\lambda})\}_{{\lambda}\in[0,1]}$, where for all ${\lambda}\in[0,1]$, ${\varphi}({\lambda})$ is a ${\lambda}$-self-financing strategy. Given a self-financing system $\Phi=\{{\varphi}({\lambda})\}_{{\lambda}\in[0,1]}$, we define $$\label{laPhi} {\lambda}(\Phi):=\inf\{{\lambda}\in[0,1]:{\varphi}({\lambda})\textrm{ is not a ${\lambda}$-arbitrage}\}.$$ \[ilplc\] Note that if $\Phi=\{{\varphi}({\lambda})\}_{{\lambda}\in[0,1]}$ is a self-financing system, then ${\lambda}(\Phi)$ can be expressed as follows $${\lambda}(\Phi)=\inf\{{\lambda}\in[0,1]:P(V_N^{\lambda}({\varphi}({\lambda}))>0)=0\textrm{ or }P(V_N^{\lambda}({\varphi}({\lambda}))<0)>0\}.$$ In addition, from their definitions, we have that ${\lambda}(\Phi)\leq {\lambda}_c$. Therefore, the construction of self-financing systems provides lower bounds for ${\lambda}_c$. In particular, if a self-financing system $\Phi=\{{\varphi}({\lambda})\}_{{\lambda}\in[0,1]}$ verifies that ${\lambda}(\Phi)>0$, we can conclude that, for all ${\lambda}\in[0,{\lambda}(\Phi))$, ${\varphi}({\lambda})$ provides a ${\lambda}$-arbitrage opportunity. Asymptotic arbitrage under transaction costs -------------------------------------------- In this paper, we don’t limit our study only to the arbitrage opportunities for an $N$-fractional binary market, but we are also interested in obtaining answers to this problem when the time grid of the approximating sequence of fractional binary markets becomes finer and finer, i.e. $N\to\infty$. We first look to this problem by studying the limit behavior of the sequence of critical transaction costs associated to the fractional binary markets. In a second approach, we interpret the sequence of fractional binary markets as a large financial market and, in this case, replace the notion of arbitrage, as presented in Section \[2.2\], by a new concept. Kabanov and Kramkov defined it as “asymptotic arbitrage”, [@Kab:Kra:94], and distinguished between two kinds: asymptotic arbitrage of the first kind (AA1) and asymptotic arbitrage of the second kind (AA2). We recall now their definitions. For a detailed presentation we refer the reader to [@K:S:1996], [@K:Sch:1996] and [@Kab:Kra:1998] for the frictionless case and to [@Kl:Le:Pe] for markets with friction. Consider a sequence of markets ${\{S^N\}}_{N\geq 1}$, where $S^N=(S_n^N)_{n=0}^N$, and fix a sequence ${\{\lambda_N\}}_{N\geq 1}$ of real numbers $0<\lambda_N<1$. \[AA1d\] There exists an asymptotic arbitrage of the first kind (AA1) with transaction costs ${\lambda}_N$ if there exists a subsequence of markets (again denoted by $N$) and self-financing strategies ${\varphi}^N=({\varphi}^{N,0}, {\varphi}^{N,1})$ with zero endowment for $S^N$ such that 1. [($c_N$-admissibility condition)]{} For all $i=0,\ldots,N$, $$V^{{\lambda}_N}_i({\varphi}^N)\geq-c_N,$$ 2. $\lim_{N\to\infty}P^N(V_{N}^{{\lambda}_N}({\varphi}^N)\geq C_N)>0$ where $c_N$ and $C_N$ are sequences of strictly positive real numbers with $c_N\to0$ and $C_N\to\infty$. \[AA2d\] There exists an asymptotic arbitrage of the second kind (AA2) with transaction costs ${\lambda}_N$ if there exists a subsequence of markets (again denoted by $N$) and self-financing strategies ${\varphi}^N=({\varphi}^{N,0}, {\varphi}^{N,1})$ with zero endowment for $S^N$ and $\alpha>0$ such that 1. [($1$-admissibility condition)]{} For all $i=0,\ldots,N$, $$V^{{\lambda}_N}_i({\varphi}^N)\geq-1,$$ 2. $\lim_{N\to\infty}P^N(V^{{\lambda}_N}_{N}({\varphi}^N)\geq \alpha)=1$. These two types of asymptotic arbitrage can be intuitively explained as follows. AA1 can be seen as the opportunity of getting arbitrarily rich with strictly positive probability by taking an arbitrarily small risk. AA2 gives the opportunity of gaining at least something, even if only a very small amount, with probability arbitrarily close to one, while taking the risk of losing an amount of money which is uniformly bounded in time. The key difference between the two notions is that in the latter, although the chance of profit is very likely, the risk is not vanishing any more. Fractional binary markets ------------------------- Sottinen introduces in [@Sotti] the fractional binary markets as a sequence of binary markets approximating the fractional Black-Scholes model. By the latter we mean a Black-Scholes type model in which the randomness of the risky asset comes from a fractional Brownian motion, i.e. the dynamics of the bond and stock are given by: $$\label{fbse} dB_t=r(t)\,B_t\, dt\quad\textrm{and}\quad dS_t^H=(a(t)+\sigma\,dZ^H_t)\, S_t^H,$$ where $\sigma>0$ is a constant representing the volatility and $Z^H$ is a fractional Brownian motion of Hurst parameter $H>1/2$. The functions $r$ and $a$ are deterministic and represent the interest rate and the drift of the stock. We assume in the sequel that $r=0$ and that $a$ is continuously differentiable. Since all the parameters of the model are understood to depend on the Hurst parameter $H$, we will avoid to mention this dependence. For the sake of simplicity, we make use of the results obtained in [@CKP] to provide here an alternative, but equivalent definition of the fractional binary market. First, we consider a sequence of i.i.d. random variables $\{\xi_i\}_{i\geq 1}$ such that $$P(\xi_1=-1)=P(\xi_1=1)=1/2,$$ and we define the filtration $\{{{\mathcal F}}_{i}:=\sigma(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_i)\}_{i\geq 1}$. For each $N>1$, the $N$-fractional binary market is the binary market in which the bond and the stock are traded at times $\{0, \frac{1}{N},...,\frac{N-1}{N}, 1\}$ under the dynamics: $$B_n^{(N)}=1\quad\textrm{and}\quad S_n^{(N)}=\left(1+a_n^{(N)}+\frac{X_n}{N^H}\right)\, S_{n-1}^{(N)},\quad 1\leq n\leq N$$ where $a_n^{(N)}=\frac{1}{N}a(n/N)$ and $S_0^{(N)}=s_0$. As shown in [@CKP], the process $(X_n)_{n\geq 1}$ can be expressed as $$\label{scale} X_n:=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n-1}j_n(i)\,\xi_i+g_n\xi_n,$$ where $$j_n(i):=\sigma\, c_H \left(H-\frac12\right)\int\limits_{i-1}^{i}x^{\frac{1}{2}-H}\left(\int\limits_0^1 (v+n-1)^{H-\frac{1}{2}} (v+n-1-x)^{H-\frac{3}{2}}dv\right) dx,$$ and $$g_n:=\sigma\, c_H \left(H-\frac12\right)\int\limits_{n-1}^{n}x^{\frac{1}{2}-H}(n-x)^{H-\frac{1}{2}}\left(\int\limits_0^1 (y(n-x)+x)^{H-\frac{1}{2}}y^{H-\frac{3}{2}}dy\right)dx,$$ with $c_H$ a normalizing constant given by $$\label{ch} c_H:=\sqrt{\frac{2H\,\Gamma\left(\frac{3}{2}-H\right)}{\Gamma\left(H+\frac{1}{2}\right)\,\Gamma(2-2H)}}.$$ From , we see that $X_n$ is the sum of a process depending only on the information until time $n-1$ and a process depending only on the present. More precisely, $X_n={{\mathcal Y}}_n+g_n\xi_n$, where $${{\mathcal Y}}_n:=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}j_n(i)\xi_i.$$ In the same way, we define for each $(x_1,\dots,x_{n-1})\in{\{-1,1\}}^{n-1}$ $${{\mathcal Y}}_n(x_1,\dots,x_{n-1}):=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}j_n(i)x_i.$$ Note that from definition ${{\mathcal Y}}_n={{\mathcal Y}}_n(\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_{n-1})$. Using these notations, the parameters of the binary market $u_n^{(N)}$ and $d_n^{(N)}$, already introduced in Section \[bmao\], can be expressed as functions on ${\{-1,1\}}^{n-1}$ by setting, for $\vec{x}\in{\{-1,1\}}^{n-1}$: $$u_n^{(N)}(\vec{x}):=\frac{{{\mathcal Y}}_{n}(\vec{x})+g_n}{N^H}\quad\textrm{ and }\quad d_n^{(N)}(\vec{x}):=\frac{{{\mathcal Y}}_{n}(\vec{x})-g_n}{N^H}.$$ In order to simplify the presentation, we sometimes use the notation $\vec{\xi}_k$ to denote the random vector $(\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_k)$ in $\{-1,1\}^k$. We also use $\vec{1}_k$ to denote the vector in ${{\mathbb R}}^k$ with all its coordinates equal to $1$. ### Some useful estimations {#est} We briefly recall some estimations obtained in [@CKP] for the quantities involved in the definition of the fractional binary markets, i.e., $a_n^{(N)}$, $j_n$ and $g_n$. We avoid the proofs and we invite the reader to directly consult [@CKP]. \[ej1\] For all $1\leq i\leq n-1< N$, we have $$c_* \,(n-1)^{H-\frac{1}{2}}\,I_n(i)\leq j_n(i)\leq c_\, n^{H-\frac{1}{2}}\,I_n(i),$$ where $c_:=\sigma c_H$, $$I_n(i):=\int\limits_{i-1}^i x^{\frac{1}{2}-H}{\varphi}_n(x)dx\quad \textrm{and}\quad {\varphi}_n(x):=(n-x)^{H-\frac{1}{2}} -(n-1-x)^{H-\frac{1}{2}}.$$ \[eg1\] For all $1< n\leq N$, we have $$g\,\leq g_n\leq g\,\left(1+\frac{1}{n-1}\right)^{H-\frac{1}{2}}\leq g\,2^{H-\frac{1}{2}},$$ where $g:=\frac{\sigma c_H}{H+\frac12}$. In particular, $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}g_n=g.$ For the drift term $a_n^{(N)}$, it is straightforward from its definition and the continuity of the function $a$ that: $$\label{ea} \|a_n^{(N)}\|\leq \frac{{\|\|a\|\|}_\infty}{N},\qquad n\in\{1,...,N\}.$$ This inequality together with Lemma \[eg1\] indicates that, given the past $\vec{\xi}_{n-1}$, the contribution of $a_n^{(N)}$ is asymptotically neglictable with respect to the contribution of the last jump $\frac{g_n}{N^H}\,\xi_n$. In addition, since we are interested in asymptotic properties of the fractional binary markets, the problem can be simplified by studying the case without the drift. Therefore, we assume henceforth that $a_n^{(N)}=0$ for all $1\leq n\leq N$. 1-step arbitrage opportunities under small transaction costs {#3} ============================================================ In this section, we assume that each $N$-fractional binary market is subject to proportional transaction costs ${\lambda}_N$. We aim to show, using $1$-step ${\lambda}_N$-self-financing strategies, the existence of $\lambda_N$-arbitrage opportunities when ${\lambda}_N$ converges to $0$ fast enough. We do this in two steps. First we construct, on each $N$-fractional binary market, a $1$-step self-financing system $\Phi^N=\{{\varphi}^N({\lambda})\}_{{\lambda}\in[0,1]}$. Next, we define ${\lambda}(\Phi^N)$ as in . From its definition, we have that for any $\lambda\in[0,\lambda(\Phi^{N}))$, the self-financing strategy ${\varphi}^{N}(\lambda)$ leads to a $\lambda$-arbitrage in the $N$-fractional binary market. Our problem reduces therefore to studying the asymptotic behavior of the quantity $\lambda(\Phi^{N})$. To achieve our goal, we follow the same idea as Sottinen in [@Sotti], who constructed 1-step arbitrage opportunities in the frictionless fractional binary markets. More precisely, Sottinen proves in [@Sotti Theorem 5] that there is $n_H\geq 1$ such that, for all $N\geq n_H$ and for any $n\in\{n_H,\dots,N\}$, $$\label{albad} u_{n}^{(N)}(-\vec{1}_{n-1})=\frac1{N^H}\left(-\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}j_n(i)+g_{n}\right)< 0.$$ This means that, if the stock price takes jumps only down till time $n-1$, the price process will decrease from time $n-1$ to time $n$. Based on this result, the Sottinen’s arbitrage opportunity is constructed in the following way. We chose a level $n_0\geq n_H$ and we don’t do anything until time $n_0-2$. If the stock price took only steps down until time $n_0-1$, at that time we short-sell one unit of stock and at the next time we buy one unit of stock. Otherwise we don’t do anything. In any case, starting with time $n_0+1$ we don’t do anything. From it is straightforward to see that this self-financing strategy provides an arbitrage in the frictionless case. Now, we introduce transaction costs $\lambda$ in the $N$-fractional binary market, we fix $n_0\in\{n_H,\dots,N\}$ and we construct our candidate for a ${\lambda}$-arbitrage opportunity ${\varphi}^{N}({\lambda},n_0)=({\varphi}^{N,0}({\lambda},n_0),{\varphi}^{N,1}({\lambda},n_0))$ as follows: - For any time $1\leq i\leq n_0-2$ 1. ${\varphi}_{i}^{N,0}({\lambda},n_0):={\varphi}_{i}^{N,1}({\lambda},n_0):=0.$ - At time $n_0-1$ we short-sell one unit of stock, in which case 1. ${\varphi}_{n_0-1}^{N,0}({\lambda},n_0):=(1-{\lambda})S^{(N)}_{n_0-1}{{\bf 1}}_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_0-1}=-\vec{1}_{n_0-1}\}},$ 2. ${\varphi}_{n_0-1}^{N,1}({\lambda},n_0):=-{{\bf 1}}_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_0-1}=-\vec{1}_{n_0-1}\}}.$ - At time $n_0$ we liquidate the position, which means buying one unit of stock. In this case 1. ${\varphi}_{n_0}^{N,0}({\lambda},n_0):=(1-{\lambda})S^{(N)}_{n_0-1}{{\bf 1}}_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_0-1}=-\vec{1}_{n_0-1}\}}-S^{(N)}_{n_0}{{\bf 1}}_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_0-1}=-\vec{1}_{n_0-1}\}},$ 2. ${\varphi}_{n_0}^{N,1}({\lambda},n_0):=0.$ - After time $n_0$ we don’t do anything, i.e. for any $n\in\{n_0+1,\ldots,N\}$ 1. ${\varphi}_n^{N,0}({\lambda},n_0):={\varphi}_{n_0}^{N,0}({\lambda},n_0),$ 2. ${\varphi}_{n}^{N,1}({\lambda},n_0):={\varphi}_{n_0}^{N,1}({\lambda},n_0)=0.$ Note that the self-financing strategies given by $\{{\varphi}^{N}(0,n_0)\}_{N\geq 1}$ correspond to the arbitrage strategies proposed by Sottinen in [@Sotti]. The next result extends this idea to the case of “small” transaction costs. \[Sot\] If ${\lambda}_N=o\left(\frac1{\sqrt{N}}\right)$, then for all $N$ big enough, the $1$-step self-financing strategy ${\varphi}^{N}(\lambda_N,N)$ leads to a ${\lambda}_N$-arbitrage in the $N$-fractional binary market. As announced at the beginning of this section, if we define the self-financing system $\Phi^{N}(n_0):=\{{\varphi}^{N}({\lambda},n_0)\}_{{\lambda}\in[0,1]}$, it is enough to show that $$\lambda\left(\Phi^{N}(N)\right)\geq \frac{C}{\sqrt{N}},$$ for some appropriate constant $C>0$. Note first that, for $n_0\geq n_H$, the value process of ${\varphi}^{N}({\lambda},n_0)$ at maturity is given by $$V_N^{{\lambda}}\left({\varphi}^N({\lambda},n_0)\right)=(1-{\lambda})S^{(N)}_{n_0-1}{{\bf 1}}_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_0-1}=-\vec{1}_{n_0-1}\}}-S^{(N)}_{n_0}{{\bf 1}}_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_0-1}=-\vec{1}_{n_0-1}\}}.$$ In order to have an arbitrage we need that $$V_N^{{\lambda}}\left({\varphi}^N({\lambda},n_0)\right)\geq 0\quad\textrm{a.s. and}\quad P\left(V_N^{{\lambda}}\left({\varphi}^N({\lambda},n_0)\right)>0\right)>0.$$ First, observe that $$\begin{aligned} V_N^{{\lambda}}\left({\varphi}^N({\lambda},n_0)\right)&={{\bf 1}}_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_0-1}=-\vec{1}_{n_0-1}\}}\left((1-{\lambda})S^{(N)}_{n_0-1}-S^{(N)}_{n_0}\right)\\ & =S^{(N)}_{n_0-1}{{\bf 1}}_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_0-1}=-\vec{1}_{n_0-1}\}}\left(-{\lambda}-\frac{X_{n_0}(-\vec{1}_{n_0-1},\xi_{n_0})}{N^H}\right)\\ & \geq S^{(N)}_{n_0-1}{{\bf 1}}_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_0-1}=-\vec{1}_{n_0-1}\}}\left(-{\lambda}-u_{n_0}^{(N)}(-\vec{1}_{n_0-1})\right),\\\end{aligned}$$ and then $V_N^{{\lambda}}\left({\varphi}^N({\lambda},n_0)\right)\geq0$ a.s. iff $${\lambda}\leq-u_{n_0}^{(N)}(-\vec{1}_{n_0-1}).$$ Observe that the right-hand side is strictly positive by . Additionally, since $u_{n_0}^{(N)}(-\vec{1}_{n_0-1})>d_{n_0}^{(N)}(-\vec{1}_{n_0-1})$, for each ${\lambda}\leq -u_{n_0}^{(N)}(-\vec{1}_{n_0-1})$ we also have $$\label{prob} P\left(V_N^{{\lambda}}\left({\varphi}^N({\lambda},n_0)\right)>0\right)\geq P\left(V_N^{{\lambda}}\left({\varphi}^N({\lambda},n_0)\right){{\bf 1}}_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_0}=-\vec{1}_{n_0}\}}>0\right)=\frac1{2^{n_0}}>0.$$ Therefore, we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{laphin} {\lambda}\left(\Phi^{N}(n_0)\right)=-u_{n_0}^{(N)}(-\vec{1}_{n_0-1})=\frac1{N^H}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n_0-1}j_{n_0}(i)-g_{n_0}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Using Lemma \[ej1\], we see that $$\sum_{i=1}^{n_0-1}j_{n_0}(i)\geq c_* (n_0-1)^{H-\frac{1}{2}}\int\limits_0^{n_0-1}x^{\frac{1}{2}-H}{\varphi}_{n_0}(x)dx.$$ In addition, we have that $$\int\limits_{0}^{n_0-1} x^{\frac{1}{2}-H} (n_0-x)^{H-\frac{1}{2}} dx= n_0\int\limits_{0}^{\frac{n_0-1}{n_0}} u^{\frac{1}{2}-H} (1-u)^{H-\frac{1}{2}} du,$$ and $$\int\limits_{0}^{n_0-1} x^{\frac{1}{2}-H} (n_0-1-x)^{H-\frac{1}{2}} dx= (n_0-1)\int\limits_{0}^{1} u^{\frac{1}{2}-H} (1-u)^{H-\frac{1}{2}} du.$$ Thus, we obtain: $$\label{integ} \int\limits_{0}^{n_0-1} x^{\frac{1}{2}-H}{\varphi}_{n_0}(x)dx=\int\limits_{0}^{1} u^{\frac{1}{2}-H} (1-u)^{H-\frac{1}{2}} du- n_0 \int\limits_{1-\frac{1}{n_0}}^{1} u^{\frac{1}{2}-H} (1-u)^{H-\frac{1}{2}} du.$$ Moreover, it is straightforward to show that there is a constant $\hat{c}>0$ such that $$\label{ineq} 0<n_0 \int\limits_{1-\frac{1}{n_0}}^{1} u^{\frac{1}{2}-H} (1-u)^{H-\frac{1}{2}} du \leq \frac{\hat{c}}{n_0^{H-\frac{1}{2}}}.$$ Thus, for $n_0$ big enough and an appropriate constant $\tilde{c}>0$, we have that $$\sum_{i=1}^{n_0-1}j_{n_0}(i)\geq \tilde{c}\, n_0^{H-\frac{1}{2}}.$$ Going back to and using the estimates given in Lemma \[eg1\], we obtain: $$\begin{aligned} \label{lbctstr} {\lambda}\left(\Phi^{N}(n_0)\right)\geq\hat{c}_* \frac{n_0^{H-\frac{1}{2}}}{N^H},\end{aligned}$$ for some appropriate constant $\hat{c}_>0$ and $n_0\geq n_H$ big enough. One can see from that the bigger we choose $n_0$, the better the lower bound becomes. In particular, when $n_0=N$, we have that $${\lambda}\left(\Phi^{N}(N)\right)\geq\frac{\hat{c}_}{\sqrt{N}}.$$ The proof is now complete. Asymptotic behavior of the critical transaction costs {#4} ===================================================== The goal of this section is to study the asymptotic behavior of the critical transaction costs associated to the fractional binary markets. More precisely, on each $N$-fractional binary market, we define ${\lambda}_c^{(N)}$ as in , i.e. $$\label{la} \lambda_c^{(N)}=\inf\{\lambda\in[0,1]: \nexists\textrm{ ${\lambda}$-arbitrage in the $N$-fractional binary market}\},$$ and we study the limit of $\lambda_c^{(N)}$ when $N$ tends to infinity. Since the arbitrage opportunities disappear when we introduce arbitrarily small transaction costs in the fractional Black Scholes, meaning that the corresponding critical transaction cost is $0$, one can expect that also ${\lambda}_c^{(N)}\to0$ as $N\to\infty$. However, a completely opposite behavior will be observed. Note that, from Remark \[ilplc\] we have, for any self-financing system $\Phi^N$, that $$\label{ctc} {\lambda}(\Phi^{N})\leq{\lambda}_c^{(N)}.$$ Therefore, one way to achieve our goal, at least partially, would be to construct appropriate self-financing systems. If we apply to the self-financing system defined in the proof of Theorem \[Sot\], $\Phi^N(N)$, we deduce that $$\label{lbct} {\lambda}_c^{(N)}\geq \frac{C}{\sqrt{N}},$$ where $C>0$ is an appropriate constant. This result can be derived also using the lower bound . Indeed, the lower bound given in together with the estimations presented in Section \[est\] for the involved quantities lead us exactly to . However, the advantage of the method given in Section \[3\] is that explicit 1-step arbitrage opportunities under transaction costs are provided. Now, we proceed to the construction of a new sequence of self-financing systems $\{\Psi^N\}_{N\geq 1}$. Let’s first go back to the frictionless case. Fix $\gamma\in(0,1)$ and assume that the price process takes jumps only down till time $\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor$. If $\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor\geq n_H$, we know from that the stock price process will decrease from time $\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor$ to time $\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+1$. This is the idea behind the Sottinen’s arbitrage strategy. However, we would like to do something better. We would like to prove that we can choose $k_N$ with $k_N\to\infty$ ensuring that the stock price will decrease until time $\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+k_N$. If this is possible, we can construct an arbitrage by going short in one unit of stock at time $\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor$ and buying one unit at time $\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+k_N$. Hence, we want to choose $k_N$ such that $$\begin{aligned} u_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+k}^{(N)}\left(-\vec{1}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor},\vec{x}_{k-1}\right)=\frac{{{\mathcal Y}}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+k}(-\vec{1}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor},\vec{x}_{k-1})+g_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+k}}{N^H}\leq\,0,\end{aligned}$$ for all $k\leq k_N$ and $\vec{x}_{k-1}\in\{-1,1\}^{k-1}$. Equivalently, $$\begin{aligned} u_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+k}^{(N)}(-\vec{1}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor},\vec{1}_{k-1})=\frac{{{\mathcal Y}}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+k}(-\vec{1}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor},\vec{1}_{k-1})+g_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+k}}{N^H}\leq\,0\end{aligned}$$ for any $k\leq k_N$. This is again equivalent to $$\begin{aligned} \label{acres} A_{\gamma}^N(k):&={{\mathcal Y}}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+k}(-\vec{1}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor},\vec{1}_{k-1})+g_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+k}\nonumber\\ &=-\sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}j_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+k}(i)+\sum_{i=\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+1}^{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+k-1}j_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+k}(i)+g_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+k}\leq0,\end{aligned}$$ for any $k\leq k_N$. The next result tells us how $k_N$ has to be chosen in order for equation to hold true. \[arbi\] For all $\gamma\in(0,1)$, there exist $P_{\gamma}\in(0,1-\gamma]$, $C_{\gamma},\widehat{C}_{\gamma}>0$ and $N_0^\gamma\in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that for all $N\geq N_0^{\gamma}$ and all $1\leq k\leq \lfloor P_{\gamma}N\rfloor$ the following holds: $$\label{acres1} A_{\gamma}^{(N)}(k)\leq-C_{\gamma}N^{H-\frac{1}{2}}+\widehat{C}_{\gamma}\leq0.$$ First, we denote ${\alpha}:=H-\frac{1}{2}\in(0,\frac{1}{2})$, $\gamma_N:=\frac{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}}{N}$ and we choose $n_\gamma>1$ such that, for all $N\geq n_\gamma$, we have $\gamma_N>\gamma/2$. Now, we proceed to obtain a lower bound for the first term in . From Lemma \[ej1\] we have, for all $1\leq k\leq N-{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}$, that $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{i=1}^{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}}j_{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k}(i)&\geq c_\left({{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k-1\right)^{{\alpha}}\int\limits_0^{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}}x^{-{\alpha}}{\varphi}_{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k}(x)dx. \end{aligned}$$ After a change of variables, and denoting $I(x):=\int_0^x v^{-{\alpha}}(1-v)^{{\alpha}}dv$, we obtain that $$\begin{aligned} \label{paft} \int\limits_0^{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}}&x^{-{\alpha}}{\varphi}_{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k}(x)dx=\nonumber\\ &\qquad=\left({{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k\right)\,I\left(\frac{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}}{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k}\right)-\left({{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k-1\right)\,I\left(\frac{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}}{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k-1}\right)\nonumber\\ &\qquad=N\left[\left(\gamma_N+\frac{k}{N}\right)\,I\left(\frac{\gamma_{N}}{\gamma_{N}+\frac{k}{N}}\right)-\left(\gamma_{N}+\frac{k}{N}-\frac1{N}\right)\,I\left(\frac{\gamma_{N}}{\gamma_{N}+\frac{k}{N}-\frac1{N}}\right)\right]\nonumber\\ &\qquad=N\,F_{\frac{k}{N}}\left(\frac1{N}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where, for $y\in(0,1)$, the function $F_y:(0,y)\rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}$ is given by: $$F_y(h):=(\gamma_{N}+y)\,I\left(\frac{\gamma_{N}}{\gamma_{N}+y}\right)-(\gamma_{N}+y-h)\,I\left(\frac{\gamma_{N}}{\gamma_{N}+y-h}\right).$$ Note that $$\label{fpeg} F'_y(h)=G\left(\frac{\gamma_{N}}{\gamma_{N}+y-h}\right),$$ where $G:(0,1)\rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}$ is the function defined by $G(z):=I(z)-(1-z)^{{\alpha}}z^{1-{\alpha}}$. One can easily check that $G$ is strictly increasing in $(0,1)$. Consequently, we have, for all $N\geq n_\gamma$ and $y\leq 1-\gamma_N$, that $$\label{gmg} G\left(\frac{\gamma_{N}}{\gamma_{N}+y-h}\right)\geq G(\gamma_{N})> G(\gamma/2)>G(0+)=0.$$ Plugging and in , and using that $F_{\frac{k}{N}}(0)=0$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \int\limits_0^{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}}x^{-{\alpha}}{\varphi}_{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k}(x)dx&=N\left[F_{\frac{k}{N}}\left(\frac1{N}\right)-F_{\frac{k}{N}}(0)\right]=N\int\limits_0^{\frac1{N}}F'_{\frac{k}{N}}(h)dh\\ &> N\int\limits_0^{\frac1{N}}G(\gamma/2)dh=G(\gamma/2)>0.\end{aligned}$$ Returning to our initial inequality, we get, for all $N\geq n_\gamma$ and $k\leq N-{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}$, that $$\label{sum1} \sum_{i=1}^{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}}j_{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k}(i)\geq c_({{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k-1)^{{\alpha}}G(\gamma/2)\geq c_\,G(\gamma/2)\,{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}^{{\alpha}}.$$ For the second sum in , we again use the estimates given in Lemma \[ej1\] and after an appropriate change of variables we deduce that $$\begin{aligned} \label{sum2} \sum_{i={{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+1}^{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k-1}j_{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k}(i)&\leq c_({{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k)^{{\alpha}}\int\limits_{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}}^{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k-1}x^{-{\alpha}}{\varphi}_{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k}(x)dx\nonumber\\ &\leq c_\frac{({{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k)^{{\alpha}}}{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}^{{\alpha}}}\int\limits_{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}}^{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k-1}{\varphi}_{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k}(x)dx\nonumber\\ &= c_\frac{({{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k)^{{\alpha}}}{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}^{{\alpha}}}\frac{[k^{{\alpha}+1}-1-(k-1)^{{\alpha}+1}]}{{\alpha}+1}\nonumber\\ &\leq c_\frac{({{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k)^{{\alpha}}}{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}^{{\alpha}}}k^{{\alpha}}.\end{aligned}$$ Using , and the upper bound for $g_{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k}$ given in Lemma \[eg1\], we obtain, for all $N\geq n_\gamma$ and $1\leq k\leq N-{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}$, that $$\begin{aligned} A_{\gamma}^N(k)&\leq -c_{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}^{{\alpha}}G(\gamma/2)+c_\frac{({{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k)^{{\alpha}}}{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}^{{\alpha}}}k^{{\alpha}}+\frac{c_}{{\alpha}+1}\frac{({{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k)^{{\alpha}}}{({{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}+k-1)^{{\alpha}}}\\ &\leq c_\left[-{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}^{{\alpha}}G(\gamma/2)+\gamma_N^{-{\alpha}}k^{{\alpha}}+\frac1{{\alpha}+1} \gamma_N^{-{\alpha}}\right]\\ &\leq c_\left[-N^{{\alpha}}\left((\gamma/2)^{{\alpha}}G(\gamma/2)-(\gamma/2)^{-{\alpha}}\left(\frac {k}{N}\right)^{{\alpha}}\right)+\frac1{{\alpha}+1}(\gamma/2)^{-{\alpha}}\right].\end{aligned}$$ Define $\widehat{C}_{\gamma}:=c_(\gamma/2)^{-{\alpha}}/({\alpha}+1)$. It is now clear that is satisfied if $k\leq N-{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}$ and, for some $C_\gamma>0$, we have $$(\gamma/2)^{{\alpha}}G(\gamma/2)-(\gamma/2)^{-{\alpha}}\left(\frac {k}{N}\right)^{{\alpha}}\geq \frac{C_\gamma}{c_}.$$ If we choose $C_\gamma:=c_(\gamma/2)^{{\alpha}}G(\gamma/2)/2$, the previous condition, can be written as $$k\leq\,\left[\frac{(\gamma/2)^{2{\alpha}}G(\gamma/2)}{2}\right]^{\frac1{{\alpha}}}\,N.$$ Therefore, it is enough to define $$P_\gamma:=(1-\gamma)\wedge\left[\frac{(\gamma/2)^{2{\alpha}}G(\gamma/2)}{2}\right]^{\frac1{{\alpha}}}\quad\textrm{and}\quad N_0^\gamma:=n_\gamma\vee\left(\left\lfloor\left(\frac{\widehat{C}_\gamma}{C_\gamma}\right)^{\frac1{\alpha}}\right\rfloor+1\right),$$ to finish the proof. The above result tells us how long the stock price process will decrease starting from time $\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor$, given that until that time the price only jumped down. In what follows, using this knowledge, we construct a sequence of self-financing systems leading to good lower bounds for the critical transaction costs. Consider, for each ${\lambda}\in[0,1]$ and $N\geq 1$, the following ${\lambda}$-self-financing strategy $\psi^{N}({\lambda})=(\psi^{N,0}({\lambda}),\psi^{N,1}({\lambda}))$: - Before time $\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor$ we don’t do anything, i.e. for any $i\in\{1,...,\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor-1\}$ 1. $\psi_{i}^{N,0}({\lambda}):=\psi_{i}^{N,1}({\lambda}):=0$. - At time $\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor$ we short-sell one unit of stock, in which case 1. $\psi_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}^{N,0}({\lambda}):=(1-{\lambda})S^{(N)}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}{{\bf 1}}_{\{\vec{\xi}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}=-\vec{1}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}\}},$ 2. $\psi_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}^{N,1}({\lambda}):=-{{\bf 1}}_{\{\vec{\xi}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}=-\vec{1}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}\}}.$ - Starting with $\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+1$ we let the price evolve, and we don’t do anything till $\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+\lfloor P_\gamma N\rfloor$ when we liquidate the position, which means buying one unit of stock. In this case 1. $\psi_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+\lfloor P_\gamma N\rfloor}^{N,0}({\lambda}):=\left((1-{\lambda})S^{(N)}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}-S^{(N)}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+\lfloor P_\gamma N\rfloor}\right){{\bf 1}}_{\{\vec{\xi}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}=-\vec{1}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}\}},$ 2. $\psi_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+\lfloor P_\gamma N\rfloor}^{N,1}({\lambda}):=0.$ - Starting from time $\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+\lfloor P_\gamma N\rfloor+1$ we don’t do anything again, i.e. for all $i\in\{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+\lfloor P_\gamma N\rfloor+1,..,N\}$ 1. $\psi_{i}^{N,0}({\lambda}):=\psi_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+\lfloor P_\gamma N\rfloor}^{N,0}({\lambda}),$ 2. $\psi_{i}^{N,1}({\lambda}):=\psi_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+\lfloor P_\gamma N\rfloor}^{N,1}({\lambda})=0.$ Using the previous self-financing strategies, we define, on each $N$-fractional binary market, the self-financing system $\Psi^N:=\{\psi^N({\lambda})\}_{{\lambda}\in[0,1]}$. With the help of these self-financing systems, we obtain the following characterization of the asymptotic behavior of the critical transaction costs. \[lac1\] There exists a constant $C_{\gamma}^>0$ such that for $N$ big enough $${\lambda}_c^{(N)}\geq 1-e^{-C_{\gamma}^* \sqrt{N}}.$$ In particular, we have that $$\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\lambda_c^{(N)}=1.$$ We start by looking, for each ${\lambda}\in[0,1]$ and $N\geq 1$, at the value process at maturity of the trading strategy $\psi^{N}({\lambda})$. Note that, if we set, for $j\geq\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor$, $\vec{\xi}_j^N=(\xi_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+1},\ldots,\xi_{j})$ and $\vec{1}_j^N=\vec{1}_{j-\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}$ (with the convention $\vec{\xi}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}^N=\vec{1}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}^N=\emptyset$), we obtain $$\begin{aligned} & V_N^{{\lambda}}(\psi^{N}({\lambda}))={{\bf 1}}_{\{\vec{\xi}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}=-\vec{1}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}\}}\left[(1-{\lambda})S^{(N)}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}-S^{(N)}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+\lfloor P_\gamma N\rfloor}\right]\\ &={{\bf 1}}_{\{\vec{\xi}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}=-\vec{1}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}\}}S^{(N)}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}\left[1-{\lambda}-\prod_{j=\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+1}^{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+\lfloor P_\gamma N\rfloor}\left(1+\frac{{{\mathcal Y}}_j(-\vec{1}_{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}},\vec{\xi}_{j-1}^N)+g_j\xi_j}{N^H}\right)\right]\\ &\geq{{\bf 1}}_{\{\vec{\xi}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}=-\vec{1}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}\}}S^{(N)}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}\left[1-{\lambda}-\prod_{j=\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+1}^{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+\lfloor P_\gamma N\rfloor}\left(1+\frac{{{\mathcal Y}}_j(-\vec{1}_{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}},\vec{1}_{j-1}^N)+g_j}{N^H}\right)\right]\\ &={{\bf 1}}_{\{\vec{\xi}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}=-\vec{1}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}\}}S^{(N)}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}\left[1-{\lambda}-\prod_{k=1}^{\lfloor P_\gamma N\rfloor}\left(1+\frac{A_{\gamma}^{N}(k)}{N^H}\right)\right].\end{aligned}$$ The previous inequality is an equality if and only if $$\vec{\xi}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}\neq-\vec{1}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}\quad\textrm{or}\quad\vec{\xi}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+\lfloor P_\gamma N\rfloor}=\left(-\vec{1}_{{{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}},\vec{1}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+\lfloor P_\gamma N\rfloor}^N\right).$$ Consequently, $V_N^{{\lambda}}(\psi^{N}({\lambda}))\geq0$ $a.s.$ if and only if $$1-{\lambda}-\prod_{k=1}^{\lfloor P_\gamma N\rfloor}\left(1+\frac{A_{\gamma}^{N}(k)}{N^H}\right)\geq0.$$ Or equivalently, $${\lambda}\leq1-\prod_{k=1}^{\lfloor P_\gamma N\rfloor}\left(1+\frac{A_{\gamma}^{N}(k)}{N^H}\right).$$ In which case, we have $$P\left(V_N^{{\lambda}}(\psi^{N}({\lambda}))>0\right)\geq \frac1{2^{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}-\frac1{2^{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor+\lfloor P_\gamma N\rfloor}}>0,$$ and therefore, $\psi^{N}({\lambda})$ provides a ${\lambda}$-arbitrage. Consequently, we obtain that $$\begin{aligned} {\lambda}(\Psi^{N})=1-\prod_{k=1}^{\lfloor P_\gamma N\rfloor}\left(1+\frac{A_{\gamma}^{N}(k)}{N^H}\right),\end{aligned}$$ and by it follows that $${\lambda}_c^{(N)}\geq1-\prod_{k=1}^{\lfloor P_\gamma N\rfloor}\left(1+\frac{A_{\gamma}^{N}(k)}{N^H}\right).$$ Using Lemma \[arbi\], we deduce that $$\begin{aligned} \prod_{k=1}^{\lfloor P_\gamma N\rfloor}\left(1+\frac{A_{\gamma}^{N}(k)}{N^H}\right)&\leq \prod_{k=1}^{\lfloor P_\gamma N\rfloor}\left(1-\frac{C_{\gamma}\,N^{H-\frac{1}{2}}}{N^H}+\frac{\widehat{C}_{\gamma}}{N^H}\right)\\ &=\left(1-\frac{C_{\gamma}}{\sqrt{N}}+\frac{\hat{C}_{\gamma}}{N^H}\right)^{\lfloor P_{\gamma} N\rfloor}\\ &=e^{\lfloor P_{\gamma} N\rfloor\ln\left(1-\frac{C_{\gamma}}{\sqrt{N}}+\frac{\widehat{C}_{\gamma}}{N^H}\right)}\\ &\leq e^{-C_{\gamma}^* \sqrt{N}},\end{aligned}$$ for some well-chosen constant $C_{\gamma}^>0$ and $N$ sufficiently large. This concludes the proof. Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered} ----------- In this section, we have proved that the sequence of critical transaction costs in the fractional binary markets converges to $1$. More precisely, we have constructed an explicit sequence of self-financing systems $\{\Psi^N\}_{N\geq 1}$ verifying that $$\lambda_c^{(N)}\geq \lambda(\Psi^N)\xrightarrow[N\rightarrow\infty]{} 1.$$ In particular, for each $\lambda\in(0,1)$, the trading strategy $\psi^N({\lambda})$ provides a ${\lambda}$-arbitrage in the $N$-fractional binary market, when $N$ is sufficiently large. As pointed out in the introduction, this result is in apparent contradiction with the fact that the fractional binary markets approximate the fractional Black-Scholes model, which is free of arbitrage under arbitrarily small transaction costs. To explain this, we first note that $$P\left(V_N^{{\lambda}}(\psi^{N}({\lambda}))>0\right)\leq\frac1{2^{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}}\xrightarrow[N\rightarrow\infty]{}0.$$ In other words, the probability of getting a strictly positive profit using the trading strategy $\psi^N({\lambda})$ vanishes in the limit when $N$ tends to $\infty$. Additionally, we observe that $$0<{{\bf 1}}_{\{\vec{\xi}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}=-\vec{1}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}\}}S^{(N)}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}\leq\left(1-\frac{g}{N^H}\right)^{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}\xrightarrow[N\rightarrow\infty]{} 0,$$ which implies that $$0\leq V_N^{{\lambda}}(\psi^{N}({\lambda}))\leq {{\bf 1}}_{\{\vec{\xi}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}=-\vec{1}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}\}}S^{(N)}_{\lfloor\gamma N\rfloor}\xrightarrow[N\rightarrow\infty]{} 0.$$ This means that the profit obtained using the trading strategy $\psi^{N}({\lambda})$ converges to zero. Summarizing, the self-financing strategies constructed in this section provide arbitrage opportunities in the fractional binary markets under, arbitrarily close to one, transaction costs. However, the probability of getting such an arbitrage and the magnitude of the corresponding gain, both converge to zero. Stated differently, the arbitrage opportunities disappear in the limit. Therefore, our results are not in contradiction with the behavior under friction of the fractional Black-Scholes model. This also tells us that, even though the notion of critical transaction cost permits to characterize the existence of arbitrage in a fixed binary market, the study of critical transaction costs in a sequence does not imply any information about the behavior under friction of an eventual limit market. Moreover, any suitable notion of “sequential” arbitrage should impose that: (1) the probabilities of getting strictly positive profits are uniformly bounded from below by a strictly positive constant, and (2) the corresponding gains are uniformly strictly positive. The concept of asymptotic arbitrage introduced in Section \[2\] satisfies these conditions and then, it is worth to study the fractional binary markets from this perspective. 1-step asymptotic arbitrage opportunities {#5} ========================================= In this section, we aim to study the existence of asymptotic arbitrage opportunities in the fractional binary markets, when we are constrained to use only sequences of 1-step self-financing strategies (as defined in Remark \[1step\]). When such an opportunity exists, we call it 1-step asymptotic arbitrage. From its definition, a 1-step ${\lambda}$-self-financing strategy in the $N$-fractional binary market can be expressed, for some fixed $n\in\{1,...,N-1\}$, $A\subset \{-1,1\}^n$ and $q:\{-1,1\}^n\rightarrow{{\mathbb R}}_+$, as follows: $$\begin{aligned} {\varphi}_i^{0,N}&={\varphi}_i^{1,N}=0,\quad \textrm{for all } i<n,\\ {\varphi}_n^{0,N}&=\sum\limits_{\vec{x}\in A}1_{\{\vec{\xi}_n=\vec{x}\}}(1-{\lambda})S_n^{(N)}(\vec{x})q(\vec{x})-\sum\limits_{\vec{x}\in A^c}1_{\{\vec{\xi}_n=\vec{x}\}}S_n^{(N)}(\vec{x})q(\vec{x}),\\ {\varphi}_n^{1,N}&=-\sum\limits_{\vec{x}\in A}1_{\{\vec{\xi}_n=\vec{x}\}}q(\vec{x})+\sum\limits_{\vec{x}\in A^c}1_{\{\vec{\xi}_n=\vec{x}\}}q(\vec{x}),\\ {\varphi}_{n+1}^{0,N}&=\sum\limits_{\vec{x}\in A}1_{\{\vec{\xi}_n=\vec{x}\}}\left[(1-{\lambda})S_n^{(N)}(\vec{x})-S_{n+1}^{(N)}(\vec{x},\xi_{n+1})\right]q(\vec{x})\\ &\quad-\sum\limits_{\vec{x}\in A^c}1_{\{\vec{\xi}_n=\vec{x}\}}\left[S_n^{(N)}(\vec{x})-(1-{\lambda})S_{n+1}^{(N)}(\vec{x},\xi_{n+1})\right]q(\vec{x})\\ {\varphi}_{n+1}^{1,N}&=0,\\ {\varphi}_k^{0,N}&={\varphi}_{n+1}^{0,N}\quad \textrm{for all } n+1<k\leq N,\\ {\varphi}_k^{1,N}&={\varphi}_{n+1}^{1,N},\quad \textrm{for all } n+1<k\leq N.\end{aligned}$$ In other words, we don’t do anything before time $n$; at time $n$, depending on the position $\vec{x}$, we go short or long in $q(\vec{x})$ units of stock; at time $n+1$ we liquidate the position; and after $n+1$ we don’t do anything. In particular, the value process at maturity, is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{gvp} V_N^{\lambda}({\varphi}^N)&=\sum\limits_{\vec{x}\in A}1_{\{\vec{\xi}_n=\vec{x}\}}\left[(1-{\lambda})S_n^{(N)}(\vec{x})-S_{n+1}^{(N)}(\vec{x},\xi_{n+1})\right]q(\vec{x})\nonumber\\ &\quad-\sum\limits_{\vec{x}\in A^c}1_{\{\vec{\xi}_n=\vec{x}\}}\left[S_n^{(N)}(\vec{x})-(1-{\lambda})S_{n+1}^{(N)}(\vec{x},\xi_{n+1})\right]q(\vec{x}).\end{aligned}$$ 1-step asymptotic arbitrage of first kind under small transaction costs ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In this section, we construct a 1-step asymptotic arbitrage when the transaction costs converge fast enough to zero. Our construction is based on the 1-step self-financing systems given in Section \[3\]. Note first that, as shown in Section \[3\], the trading strategies $\{{\varphi}^N({\lambda}_N,N)\}_{N\geq 1}$ verify, when ${\lambda}_N=o(1/\sqrt{N})$, that $$P\left(V_N^{{\lambda}_N}({\varphi}^{N}({\lambda}_N,N))>0\right)=\frac1{2^{N-1}}\xrightarrow[N\rightarrow\infty]{}0,$$ and then, they can not provide a 1-step asymptotic arbitrage. A different behavior is obtained, when we use the self-financing strategies $\{{\varphi}^N({\lambda}_N,n_H)\}_{N\geq 1}$ which verify, this time under transaction costs ${\lambda}_N=o(1/N^H)$, that $$P\left(V_N^{{\lambda}_N}({\varphi}^{N}({\lambda}_N,n_H))>0\right)=\frac1{2^{n_H-1}}>0.$$ However, from the calculations in the proof of Theorem \[Sot\], it is straightforward to see that $$V_N^{{\lambda}_N}({\varphi}^{N}({\lambda}_N,n_H))\leq \frac{C}{N^H},$$ which means that the profit vanishes in the limit. On the other hand, in an asymptotic arbitrage of first kind, we have to get arbitrarily rich with a strictly positive probability. Thus, the trading strategies $\{{\varphi}^N({\lambda}_N,n_H)\}_{N\geq 1}$ do not provide such an asymptotic arbitrage. This problem can be solved, if instead of going short in 1-unit of stock, we go short in a sufficiently large amount of units of stock. However, we have to be careful, because if this amount of units of stock is too big, the admissibility condition can fail. These ideas are reflected in the next result. Consider ${\lambda}_N=o(1/N^H)$ and let ${\{q_N\}}_{N\geq 1}$ be a sequence of strictly positive numbers, verifying that $$\frac{q_N}{N^H}\xrightarrow[N\rightarrow\infty]{}\infty\quad\textrm{and}\quad {\lambda}_N q_N\xrightarrow[N\rightarrow\infty]{}0.$$ The self-financing strategies $\{\widehat{{\varphi}}^N\}_{N\geq 1}$, defined by $\widehat{{\varphi}}^N:=q_N \,{\varphi}^{N}({\lambda}_N,n_H)$, provide a 1-step ${\{{\lambda}_N\}}_{N\geq 1}$-asymptotic arbitrage of first kind. Let’s fix ${\{{\lambda}_N\}}_{N\geq 1}$ and ${\{q_N\}}_{N\geq 1}$ as in the statement. Note that the value process of the self-financing strategy $\widehat{{\varphi}}^N$ satisfies $$V_i^{{\lambda}_N}(\widehat{{\varphi}}^{N})=q_N\,V_i^{{\lambda}_N}({\varphi}^{N}({\lambda}_N,n_H)),\quad{i=1,...,N}.$$ In particular, from the estimations in the proof of Theorem \[Sot\], we obtain that $$\label{vpmat} V_N^{{\lambda}_N}(\widehat{{\varphi}}^{N})\geq q_N\, S^{(N)}_{n_H-1}{{\bf 1}}_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_H-1}=-\vec{1}_{n_H-1}\}}\left(-{\lambda}_N+\frac{\theta_{n_H}}{N^H}\right),$$ where $\theta_{n_H}=\sum_{i=1}^{n_H-1}j_{n_H}(i)-g_{n_H}$, which, from , is strictly positive. From the properties of ${\lambda}_N$ and $q_N$ it follows that $$q_N\left(-{\lambda}_N+\frac{\theta_{n_H}}{N^H}\right)\xrightarrow[N\rightarrow\infty]{}\infty.$$ Additionally, we have that $$S^{(N)}_{n_H-1}(-\vec{1}_{n_H-1})=\prod\limits_{k=1}^{n_H-1}\left(1-\frac{\left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^{k-1}j_{k}(i)+g_{k}\right)}{N^H} \right)s_0\xrightarrow[N\rightarrow\infty]{}s_0.$$ Therefore, if we define $$C_N:=q_N\left(-{\lambda}_N+\frac{\theta_{n_H}}{N^H}\right)\,S^{(N)}_{n_H-1}(-\vec{1}_{n_H-1})\xrightarrow[N\rightarrow\infty]{}\infty,$$ we deduce that $$P\left(V_N^{{\lambda}_N}(\widehat{{\varphi}}^{N})\geq C_N\right)=\frac{1}{2^{n_H-1}}.$$ It remains only to check the admissibility conditions. Before time $n_H-1$, the value process is zero and then any admissibility condition is verified. Similarly, after time $n_H-1$ the value process is equal to the value process at maturity, which from is bigger or equal than zero, at least for $N$ large enough. Thus, we have only to check an appropriate admissibility at time $n_H-1$. Note that $$V_{n_H-1}^{{\lambda}_N}(\widehat{{\varphi}}^{N})=-{\lambda}_N\,q_N\,S^{(N)}_{n_H-1}(-\vec{1}_{n_H-1}){{\bf 1}}_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_H-1}=-\vec{1}_{n_H-1}\}},$$ and then, if we define $c_N:={\lambda}_N\,q_N\,S^{(N)}_{n_H-1}(-\vec{1}_{n_H-1})$, we have that $c_N\xrightarrow[N\rightarrow\infty]{} 0$ and that, the self-financing strategy $\widehat{{\varphi}}^{N}$ is $c_N$-admissible. The proof is then concluded. Absence of asymptotic arbitrage when the transaction costs converge slowly to zero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, we are interested to provide a condition, in the sequence of transaction costs, avoiding the 1-step asymptotic arbitrage opportunities. The next result gives us an important estimate in order to deal with this problem. \[ubx\] There is a constant $c_X>0$, such that, for all $n>1$, we have $$\|X_n\|\leq c_X\, n^{H-\frac{1}{2}}.$$ The result is obtained following a similar calculation as in Theorem \[Sot\]. More precisely, for all $n\geq2$, using , and the upper estimate given in Lemma \[ej1\], we have that $$\begin{aligned} \|X_n\|&\leq \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}j_n(i)+g_n\leq c_n^{H-\frac12}\int_0^{n-1}x^{\frac12-H}{\varphi}_n(x)dx+g_n\\ &=c_n^{H-\frac12}\left(\int\limits_{0}^{1} u^{\frac{1}{2}-H} (1-u)^{H-\frac{1}{2}} du- n \int\limits_{1-\frac{1}{n}}^{1} u^{\frac{1}{2}-H} (1-u)^{H-\frac{1}{2}}du\right)+g_n\\ &< c_n^{H-\frac12}\int\limits_{0}^{1} u^{\frac{1}{2}-H} (1-u)^{H-\frac{1}{2}} du+g2^{H-\frac12}\\ &\leq \frac{c_}{\frac32-H}n^{H-\frac12}+gn^{H-\frac12}=c_Xn^{H-\frac12}, \end{aligned}$$ where $c_X:=\frac{c_}{\frac32-H}+g$. If the sequence of positive real numbers ${\{{\lambda}_N\}}_{N\geq 1}$ verifies that $${\lambda}_N \sqrt{N}\xrightarrow[N\rightarrow\infty]{}\infty,$$ then there are neither 1-step ${\{{\lambda}_N\}}_{N\geq 1}$-asymptotic arbitrage opportunities of first kind nor 1-step ${\{{\lambda}_N\}}_{N\geq 1}$-asymptotic arbitrage opportunities of second kind. Consider ${\{{\lambda}_N\}}_{N\geq 1}$ as in the statement and, for each $N\geq 1$, a 1-step ${\lambda}_N$-self-financing strategy ${\varphi}^N$. From the discussion at the beginning of this section and , we know that the value process of ${\varphi}^N$ at maturity has the following form $$\begin{aligned} V_N^{{\lambda}_N}({\varphi}^N)&=\sum\limits_{\vec{x}\in A_N}1_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_N}=\vec{x}\}}\left[(1-{\lambda}_N)S_{n_N}^{(N)}(\vec{x})-S_{n_N+1}^{(N)}(\vec{x},\xi_{n_N+1})\right]q_N(\vec{x})\\ &\quad-\sum\limits_{\vec{x}\in A_N^c}1_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_N}=\vec{x}\}}\left[S_{n_N}^{(N)}(\vec{x})-(1-{\lambda}_N)S_{n_N+1}^{(N)}(\vec{x},\xi_{n_N+1})\right]q_N(\vec{x}).\end{aligned}$$ where $n_N\in\{1,...,N-1\}$, $A_N\subset \{-1,1\}^{n_N}$ and $q_N:\{-1,1\}^{n_N}\rightarrow{{\mathbb R}}_+$. In particular, we have, for all $\vec{x}\in A_N$, that $$V_N^{{\lambda}_N}({\varphi}^N)1_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_N}=\vec{x}\}}=1_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_N}=\vec{x}\}}S_{n_N}^{(N)}(\vec{x})\left[-{\lambda}_N-\frac{X_{n_N+1}(\vec{x},\xi_{n_N+1})}{N^H}\right]q_N(\vec{x}).$$ Similarly, for each $\vec{x}\in A_N^c$, we have $$V_N^{{\lambda}_N}({\varphi}^N)1_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_N}=\vec{x}\}}=1_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_N}=\vec{x}\}}S_{n_N}^{(N)}(\vec{x})\left[-{\lambda}_N+\frac{(1-{\lambda}_N)X_{n_N+1}(\vec{x},\xi_{n_N+1})}{N^H}\right]q_N(\vec{x}).$$ Using the two previous identities and Lemma \[ubx\], we obtain that $$V_N^{{\lambda}_N}({\varphi}^N)\leq S_{n_N}^{(N)}(\vec{\xi}_{n_N})\left(-{\lambda}_N+\frac{c_X}{\sqrt{N}}\right)q_N(\vec{\xi}_{n_N}).$$ From the asymptotic behavior of ${\lambda}_N$, we conclude, for all $N$ sufficiently large, that $$V_N^{{\lambda}_N}({\varphi}^N)\leq 0\quad \textrm{a.s.}.$$ And this implies that the sequence $\{{\varphi}^N\}_{N\geq 1}$ does not provide an asymptotic arbitrage of first kind nor an asymptotic arbitrage of second kind. The result follows from the arbitrariness of this sequence. The proof of the previous proposition also shows that, if $${\lambda}_N \sqrt{N}\xrightarrow[N\rightarrow\infty]{}\infty,$$ then for all $N$ sufficiently large, the $N$-fractional binary market is free of 1-step arbitrage opportunities. In particular, if we define $${\lambda}_{c,1}^{(N)}:=\inf \{{\lambda}\in[0,1]: \nexists\textrm{ 1-step ${\lambda}$-arbitrage in the $N$-fractional binary market }\},$$ then we have that $${\lambda}_{c,1}^{(N)}\xrightarrow[N\rightarrow\infty]{}0.$$ Absence of asymptotic arbitrage of second kind in the frictionless case ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In this section, we study the asymptotic arbitrage opportunities of second kind in the frictionless case. More precisely, we will prove that such opportunities do not exist when the Hurst parameter $H$ is close enough to $1/2$. First, let us introduce the following sets $${{\mathcal A}}_n^{u,H}:=\{\vec{x}\in {\{-1,1\}}^{n-1}: u_n^{(N)}(\vec{x})\leq 0\}=\{\vec{x}\in {\{-1,1\}}^{n-1}: \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n-1}j_{n}(i)x_i+g_{n}\leq 0\},$$ and $${{\mathcal A}}_n^{d,H}:=\{\vec{x}\in {\{-1,1\}}^{n-1}: d_n^{(N)}(\vec{x})\geq 0\}=\{\vec{x}\in {\{-1,1\}}^{n-1}: \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n-1}j_{n}(i)x_i-g_{n}\geq 0\}.$$ The set ${{\mathcal A}}_n^H:={{\mathcal A}}_n^{u,H}\cup{{\mathcal A}}_n^{d,H}$ is the set of arbitrage points at level $n$ in the fractional binary markets with Hurst parameter $H$. Note that these sets do not depend on $N$, and the reason is that the sign of $u_n^{(N)}$ and $d_n^{(N)}$ does not depend on $N$. This simplification comes from the fact that we are treating the fractional binary markets without drift, i.e. $a_n^{(N)}=0$. Now define $$\nu_H:=\sup\limits_{n\geq 1}\frac{\|{{\mathcal A}}_n^H\|}{2^{n-1}}\leq 1\quad\textrm{and}\quad H_:=\inf\{H\in(1/2,1]: \nu_H=1\}.$$ \[apap\] We have that $H_\in(1/2,1]$. It is straightforward to see that $$\|{{\mathcal A}}_1^H\|=0.$$ On the other hand, we know from [@CKP] that for $n>1$ $$Var({{\mathcal Y}}_n)\leq \sigma^2\left(1- \frac{c_H^2}{(H+\frac{1}{2})^2}\right),$$ and that $$\frac{\|{{\mathcal A}}_n^H\|}{2^{n-1}}=P(\|{{\mathcal Y}}_n\|\geq g_n).$$ Therefore, using Tchebysheff’s inequality and Lemma \[eg1\], we deduce that $$\frac{\|{{\mathcal A}}_n^H\|}{2^{n-1}}\leq \frac{\left(H+\frac12\right)^2}{c_H^2}-1.$$ From and the properties of the Gamma function, it follows that $c_H$ converges to $1$ when $H$ tends to $1/2$. As a consequence, we obtain that $$\lim\limits_{H\rightarrow\frac{1}{2}}\,\sup\limits_{n\geq 1}\frac{\|{{\mathcal A}}_n^H\|}{2^{n-1}}=0.$$ The result follows from the continuity of the function $H\in(1/2,1)\mapsto c_H$. \[aa2fc\] If $H\in(1/2,H_)$, there is no 1-step asymptotic arbitrage of second kind in the sequence of fractional binary markets without friction. Fix $H\in(1/2,H_)$ and let $\{{\varphi}^N\}_{N\geq 1}$ be a sequence of 1-step self-financing strategies. We know from that the value process of ${\varphi}^N$ at maturity has the following form $$\begin{aligned} V_N({\varphi}^N)&=\sum\limits_{\vec{x}\in A_N}1_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_N}=\vec{x}\}}\left[S_{n_N}^{(N)}(\vec{x})-S_{n_N+1}^{(N)}(\vec{x},\xi_{n_N+1})\right]q_N(\vec{x})\\ &\quad-\sum\limits_{\vec{x}\in A_N^c}1_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_N}=\vec{x}\}}\left[S_{n_N}^{(N)}(\vec{x})-S_{n_N+1}^{(N)}(\vec{x},\xi_{n_N+1})\right]q_N(\vec{x}).\end{aligned}$$ where $n_N\in\{1,...,N-1\}$, $A_N\subset \{-1,1\}^{n_N}$ and $q_N:\{-1,1\}^{n_N}\rightarrow{{\mathbb R}}_+$. In particular, we have, for all $\vec{x}\in A_N$, that $$V_N({\varphi}^N)1_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_N}=\vec{x}\}}=-1_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_N}=\vec{x}\}}\frac{\left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n_N}j_{n_N+1}(i)x_i+g_{n_N+1}\xi_{n_N+1}\right)}{N^H}S_{n_N}^{(N)}(\vec{x})q_N(\vec{x}).$$ Similarly, for each $\vec{x}\in A_N^c$, we have $$V_N({\varphi}^N)1_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_N}=\vec{x}\}}=1_{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_N}=\vec{x}\}}\frac{\left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n_N}j_{n_N+1}(i)x_i+g_{n_N+1}\xi_{n_N+1}\right)}{N^H}S_{n_N}^{(N)}(\vec{x})q_N(\vec{x}).$$ Now we analyze the different situations. If $\vec{x}\in A_N\cap{{\mathcal A}}_{n_N+1}^{u,H}$ or $\vec{x}\in A_N^c\cap{{\mathcal A}}_{n_N+1}^{d,H}$, we have $$P\left(\{V_N({\varphi}^N)\geq 0\}\cap{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_N}=\vec{x}\}}\right)=\frac{1}{2^{n_N}}.$$ If $\vec{x}\in A_N\cap{{\mathcal A}}_{n_N+1}^{d,H}$ or $\vec{x}\in A_N^c\cap{{\mathcal A}}_{n_N+1}^{u,H}$, $$P\left(\{V_N({\varphi}^N)> 0\}\cap{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_N}=\vec{x}\}}\right)=0.$$ If $\vec{x}\in \left({{\mathcal A}}_{n_N+1}^H\right)^c$, then $$P\left(\{V_N({\varphi}^N)\geq 0\}\cap{\{\vec{\xi}_{n_N}=\vec{x}\}}\right)=\frac{1}{2^{n_N+1}}.$$ Consequently, for any $\alpha>0$, we have $$\begin{aligned} P\left(V_N({\varphi}^N)\geq \alpha\right)&\leq \frac{\|{{\mathcal A}}_{n_N+1}^H\|}{2^{n_N}}+ \frac{\|\left({{\mathcal A}}_{n_N+1}^H\right)^c\|}{2^{n_N+1}}\\ &=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\times \frac{\|{{\mathcal A}}_{n_N+1}^H\|}{2^{n_N}}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, using Lemma \[apap\], we deduce that $$P\left(V_N({\varphi}^N)\geq \alpha\right)<\frac{1+\nu_H}{2}<1.$$ Therefore, we conclude that $\{{\varphi}^N\}_{N\geq 1}$ does not provide an asymptotic arbitrage of second kind. The proposition follows from the generality of the 1-step self-financing strategies $\{{\varphi}^N\}_{N\geq 1}$. The problem of determining if $H_*<1$ is, at our knowledge, still an open problem. Future research {#future-research .unnumbered} --------------- Having studied the existence of 1-step asymptotic arbitrage opportunities, it seems natural to analyze the asymptotic arbitrage under more general sequences of trading strategies. In particular, one could be interested in the existence of a stronger form of asymptotic arbitrage. This is the content of a forthcoming paper.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Internet of Things (IoT) systems may be deployed to monitor spatially distributed quantities of interests (QoIs), such as noise or pollution levels. This paper considers a fog-based IoT network, in which active IoT devices transmit measurements of the monitored QoIs to the local edge node (EN), while the ENs are connected to a cloud processor via limited-capacity fronthaul links. While the conventional approach uses preambles as metadata for reserving communication resources, here we consider assigning preambles directly to measurement levels across all devices. The resulting Type-Based Multiple Access (TBMA) protocol enables the efficient remote detection of the QoIs, rather than of the individual payloads. The performance of both edge and cloud-based detection or hypothesis testing is evaluated in terms of error exponents. Cloud-based hypothesis testing is shown theoretically and via numerical results to be advantageous when the inter-cell interference power and the fronthaul capacity are sufficiently large.' author: - '\' bibliography: - 'Biblio.bib' title: \| Fog-Based Detection for Random-Access IoT Networks with Per-Measurement Preambles\ [^1] --- Random Access, IoT, Fog-RAN, Hypothesis Testing Introduction {#sec:introduction} ============ The density of connected wireless devices is expected to continue growing as 5G and beyond-5G systems are deployed, especially for Internet-of-Things (IoT) services supported by massive Machine-Type Communications [@ding20196g]. This motivates the investigation of access schemes that support high device densities without penalizing the end-to-end performance for specific IoT services. In this paper, we address this problem by considering the fog-radio access network deployment illustrated in Fig. 1, in which IoT devices monitor distributed Quantities of Interest (QoIs), such as noise or pollution levels. The devices access the network through their local Edge Nodes (ENs), e.g., access points, which are in turn connected via fronthaul links to a cloud processor. Devices are interrogated periodically from the corresponding EN, and they only transmit their measurements of the QoIs if active. The goal of the network is to detect the distributed QoIs based on hypothesis testing at either ENs or at the cloud. A conventional approach would prescribe a random access protocol, such as ALOHA, through which devices communicate individual payloads to the local ENs. In case two or more devices select the same preamble during the random access phase, a collision would occur and no information would be delivered to the network. As recognized for single-cell systems in [@anandkumar2007type; @mergen2006tbma; @tbma_sayeed], when the goal is estimating a common QoI measured at multiple devices, the requirement of distinct preambles per active user for a successful transmission is unnecessary. In such a case, it is in fact potentially more efficient to assign a specific preamble to each measurement level: in this way, devices making the same measurement contribute energy to the same preamble, potentially reinforcing its detection signal-to-noise ratio. The estimate of the QoI can then be obtained from the histogram of the received measurements [@anandkumar2007type; @mergen2006tbma; @tbma_sayeed]. The outlined protocol can be considered as a form of joint source-channel coding, and is known as Type-Based Multiple Access (TBMA). In this paper, we investigate the performance of TBMA in a multi-cell fog-based system, as seen in Fig. 1 and detailed in Sec. II and Sec. III. A key new aspect of this type of network deployments is that detection, via hypothesis testing, of the distributed QoIs can be either carried out locally at the ENs or centrally at the cloud. Edge detection is impaired by inter-cell interference, while cloud detection is subject to fronthaul capacity constraints. In contrast to recent works that considered distributed hypothesis testing over wireless channels [@distributed_hypothesis_1; @distributed_hypothesis_2], the goal in this paper is to detect the value of the QoI and not the joint distribution of all QoIs. The error exponent analysis presented in this paper (Sec. IV) provides insights into the performance comparison between edge and cloud processing, and the presented numerical results (Sec. V) validate our findings. Additional results can be found in the extended version of this paper [@rahif_information_centric]. Notation: Lower-case and upper case bold characters represent vectors and matrices respectively. $\mathbf{A}^{\mathsf{T}}$ denotes the transpose of matrix $\mathbf{A}$. $\|\mathbf{A}\|$ denotes the determinant of matrix $\mathbf{A}$. $A(i,j)$ denotes the element of $\mathbf{A}$ located at the $i$-th row and $j$-th column. $\mathcal{CN}(x\|\mu,\sigma^2)$ is the probability density function (pdf) of a complex Gaussian random variable (RV) with mean $\mu$ and standard deviation $\sigma$. $C(f_1\|\|f_2)$ represents the Chernoff information for the probability distributions $f_1$ and $f_2$. Given $a < b$, $[a,b]$ represents the segment of values between $a$ and $b$.$\langle a(t),b(t)\rangle = \int a(t)b(t) dt$ represents the correlation as applied to the given correlation interval. System and Signal Model ======================= System Model: As illustrated in Fig. \[fig:system\_model\], we study a multi-cell fog-based IoT system that aims at detecting QoIs, such as pollution level, based on measurements received from IoT devices. There are $K$ cells, with a single-antenna EN and multiple IoT devices per cell. We assume that each QoI is described in each cell $c \in \{1, \ldots, K \}$ by a Random Variable (RV) $\theta^c$. RVs $\{\theta^c\}_{c=1}^{K}$ are arbitrarily correlated across cells, and each device in cell $c$ makes a noisy measurement of $\theta^c$. In this paper, we assume for simplicity of notation and analysis that each QoI can take two possible values, denoted as $\theta_0$ and $\theta_1$. The IoT devices are interrogated periodically by their local EN during $L$ collection intervals, which are synchronized across all cells. In each collection interval, a random number of devices in each cell $c$ transmit their measurements in the uplink using a grant-free access protocol based on TBMA [@anandkumar2007type]. Mathematically, in any collection interval $l=1,\ldots,L$, each IoT device in cell $c$ is active probabilistically, , so that the total number $N_l^c$ of devices active in collection interval $l$ in cell $c$ is a Poisson RV with mean $\lambda$. All devices share the same spectrum and hence their transmissions generally interfere, both within the same cell and across different cells. We compare two different architectures to perform hypothesis testing in order to detect the QoIs: (i) Edge-based Hypothesis Testing (EHT): Estimation of each QoI $\theta^c$ is done locally at the EN in cell $c$ based on the uplink signals received from the IoT devices, producing a local estimate $\hat{\theta}^c$ (see Fig. \[fig:system\_model\]); and (ii) Cloud-based Hypothesis Testing (CHT): The ENs are connected with orthogonal finite-capacity digital fronthaul links to a cloud processor with fronthaul capacity of $C\ \mathrm{[bit/s/Hz]}$. Each EN forwards the received signal upon quantization to the cloud processor using the fronthaul link. Unlike conventional C-RAN systems, here the goal is for the cloud to estimate all QoIs $\{ \theta^c \}_{c=1}^{K}$ (see Fig. \[fig:system\_model\]). Signal Model: When active, an IoT device $i$ in cell $c$ during the $l$-th collection makes a measurement $X_{i,l}^{c}$. We assume that the measurement takes values in an alphabet $\{1,2, \ldots, M \}$ of size $M$. The distribution of each observation $X_{i,l}^{c}$ depends on the underlying QoI as $$\begin{aligned} &\mathrm{Pr}[X^c_{i,l}=m\|\theta^c=\theta_0]=p_0^c(m)\\ \mathrm{and }\ \ &\mathrm{Pr}[X^c_{i,l}=m\|\theta^c=\theta_1]=p_1^c(m), \label{eq:dist} \end{aligned}$$ for $m=1,\ldots, M$. In words, devices in cell $c$ make generally noisy measurements with $\theta^c$-dependent distributions $p^c_0(\cdot)$ and $p^c_1(\cdot)$. When conditioned on QoIs $\{\theta^c\}$, measurements $X_{i,l}^{c}$ are i.i.d. across all values of the cell index $c$, device index $i$, and the collection index $l$. We denote by $H_{i,l}^c \sim \cal{CN}$ $(\mu_{H}, \sigma^{2}_{H})$ the flat-fading Ricean fading channel, with mean $\mu_H$ and variance $\sigma^2_H$, from device $i$ to the $\mathrm{EN}$ in the same cell $c$ during collection interval $l$; and by $G_{i,l}^{c,c^\prime} \sim \mathcal{CN}(\mu_{G}, \sigma^{2}_{G})$, with mean $\mu_G$ and variance $\sigma^2_G$, the flat-fading Ricean fading channel from device $i$ in cell $c^\prime \neq c$ to the EN in cell $c$ during collection interval $l$. All channels are assumed i.i.d. across indices $i,l$ and $c$. Communication protocol and metrics {#sec:protocol_metrics} ================================== In this section, we detail the communication protocol and the performance metrics used. Communication Protocol ---------------------- Within the available bandwidth and time per-collection interval, as in [@mergen2006tbma], we assume the presence of $M$ orthogonal waveforms $\{ \phi_m(t), m= 1,\ldots,M\}$, or preambles, with unit energy. According to TBMA, each waveform $\phi_m(t)$ encodes the value $m \in \{1,\ldots, M \}$ of the observations of a device. The signal transmitted by a device $i$ in cell $c$ that is active in interval $l$ is then given as $S_{i,l}^c(t) = \sqrt{E_s} \phi_{X_{i,l}^c}(t),$ that is, we have $S_{i,l}^c(t) = \sqrt{E_s} \phi_{m}(t)$ if the observed signal is $X_{i,l}^c(t)=m$, where $E_s$ is the transmission energy of a device per collection interval. Devices observing the same value $m$ hence transmit using the same waveform. As a result, the spectral resources required by TBMA scale with the number $M$ of observations values rather than with the total amount of packets sent by all the active devices, which may be much larger than $M$. The received signal at the $\mathrm{EN}$ in cell $c$ during the $l$-th collection can be written as $$Y_l^c(t) = \sum_{i=1}^{N_l^c} H_{i,l}^{c} S_{i,l}^c (t)+ \sum_{\substack{c^\prime=1 \\ c^\prime \neq c}}^{K}\sum_{i=1}^{N_l^{c^\prime}} G_{i,l}^{c,c^\prime} S_{i,l}^{c^\prime}(t) + W_l^c(t), \label{eq:ylc}$$ where $W_l^c(t)\sim\mathcal{CN}(0,W_0)$ is white Gaussian noise, i.i.d. over $l$ and $c$, with power $W_0$. The first term in represents the contribution from the IoT devices in the same cell $c$, while the second term represents the contribution from devices from the remaining cells $c^\prime$. We emphasize that contributions related to the same preamble from different devices are not necessarily added coherently, but they only contribute to the average received energy for the preamble. Given the orthogonality of the waveforms $\{ \phi_m (t) \}_{m=1}^{M}$, a demodulator based on a bank of matched filters can be implemented at each EN without loss of optimality [@anandkumar2007type] (see [@JSC_MP_grant_free_IoT] for extensions). After matched filtering of the received signal with all waveforms $\{\phi_{m}(t)\}_{m=1}^{M}$ each EN $c$ obtains the $M \times 1$ vector $$\begin{aligned} \mathbf{Y}_l^c &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{E_s}} [\langle \phi_1(t),Y_l^c(t)\rangle, \ldots , \langle \phi_M(t),Y_l^c(t)\rangle]^{\mathsf{T}} \\ &= \sum_{i=1}^{N_l^c} H_{i,l}^{c} \mathbf{e}_{X_{i,l}^c}+ \sum_{\substack{c^\prime = 1 \\ c^\prime \neq c }}^{K}\sum_{i=1}^{N_l^{c^\prime}} G_{i,l}^{c, c^\prime} \mathbf{e}_{X_{i,l}^{c^\prime}} + \mathbf{W}_l, \label{eq:Yc}\\ \end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{W}_l$ is a vector with i.i.d. $\mathcal{CN}(0, \mathrm{SNR}^{-1})$ elements, with $\mathrm{SNR}= E_s/W_0$; and $\mathbf{e}_m$ represents an $M \times 1$ unit vector with all zero entries except in position $m$. For detection of the QoIs, we study both EHT and CHT: EHT: Each EN $c$ produces an estimate $\hat{\theta^c}$ of the RV $\theta^c$ based on the received signals $\mathbf{Y}^c_l$ for all collection intervals $l=1,\ldots,L$, where $\mathbf{Y}^l_c$ is given in . CHT: Each EN $c$ compresses the received signals $\{ \mathbf{Y}^c_l \}^{L}_{l=1}$ across all $L$ collection intervals and sends the resulting compressed signals $\{ \hat{\mathbf{Y}}^c_l \}_{l=1}^{L}$ to the cloud. The cloud carries out joint detection of all QoIs $\{\theta^c \}_{c=1}^{K}$ producing estimates $\{ \Hat{\theta}^c\}_{c=1}^{K}$. Performance Metrics ------------------- The performance of CHT and EHT will be evaluated in terms of the error exponent that describes the scaling of the joint error probability $\mathrm{P}_e$ as a function of the number $L$ of collections. The joint error probability is given by $$\mathrm{P}_e = \mathrm{Pr}[\cup_{c=1}^{K} \{\hat{\theta^c} \neq \theta^c \}], \label{eq:joint_probability}$$ where $\hat{\theta}^c$ is the estimate of the QoI $\theta^c$ obtained at $\mathrm{EN}$ $c$ or at the cloud, for EHT and CHT respectively. From large deviation theory, the detection error probability $P_e$ decays exponentially as [@cover2012elements] $$\mathrm{P}_e = \mathrm{exp}(-L E+ o(L))\ \ \ \mathrm{with}\ L\to\infty, \label{eq:Pe}$$ where $o(L)/L \to 0$ as $L \to \infty$, for some error exponent $E$. We will hence be interested in the rest of this paper in computing analytically the error exponent $E$ for EHT and CHT. Asymptotic Performance {#sec:asymptotic_performance} ====================== In this section, we derive the error exponent $E$ in for the optimal detection when the number of collection intervals $L$ grows to infinity. In order to simplify the analysis, as in [@anandkumar2007type], we will take the assumption of large average number of active devices, i.e., of large $\lambda$. This scenario is particularly relevant for mMTC [@ding20196g]. Edge-based Hypothesis Testing {#sec:edge_detection_asymptotic} ----------------------------- With EHT, each $\mathrm{EN}$ in cell $c$ performs the binary test $$\mathcal{H}_0^c: \theta^c = \theta_0\ \mathrm{versus}\ \mathcal{H}_1^c:\theta^c = \theta_1 \label{eq:test_1}$$ based on the available received signals $\mathbf{Y}^c=\{\mathbf{Y}_l^c \}_{l=1}^{L}$ in . The optimum Bayesian decision rule that minimizes the probability of error at each EN chooses the hypothesis with the Maximum A Posteriori (MAP) probability. The error exponent $E$ in using EHT can be lower bounded as shown in the following proposition. Proposition 1: Under the optimal Bayesian detector, the error exponent $E$ in in the large-$\lambda$ regime and for any $0 < \rho < 1$ is lower bounded as $E \geq E^{edge} = \mathrm{min}_{c \in \{1,\ldots,K\}}E^c$, where $$\begin{aligned} E^c & = \min_{ \mathbf{k} \in \{ 0,1\}^{K-1}} \max_{\alpha \in [0,1]} \\ & \Bigg[\frac{1}{2} \sum_{m=1}^{M} \log\Big(\frac{\alpha \Sigma_{0,\mathbf{k}}^c(m,m) + (1-\alpha)\Sigma_{1,\mathbf{k}}^c(m,m)}{(\Sigma_{0,\textcolor{black}{\mathbf{k}}}^{c}(m,m))^{\alpha} (\Sigma_{1,\mathbf{k}}^{c}(m,m))^{\textcolor{black}{1-\alpha}}} \Big) \\& +\frac{\alpha(1- \alpha)}{2} \sum_{m=1}^{M} \frac{(\mu_{0,\mathbf{k}}^c(m) - \mu_{1,\mathbf{k}}^c (m))^2}{(\alpha \Sigma_{0,\mathbf{k}}^c(m,m) + (1-\alpha) \Sigma_{1,\mathbf{k}}^c (m,m) )} \Bigg] \label{eq:expo_edge} \end{aligned}$$ with $\mathbf{k} = \{k_{c^\prime}\}_{c^\prime = 1, c^\prime \neq c}^{K}$ $$\mu_{k_c,\mathbf{k}}^c(m) = \mu_H \lambda p_{k_c}^c(m) + \mu_G \lambda \sum_{c=1, c \neq c^\prime}^{K}p_{k_{c^\prime}}^{c^\prime}(m), \label{eq:dist_edge} \vspace{-5 mm}$$ and $$\Sigma^c_{k_c,\mathbf{k}}(m,m)= \sigma^2_H \lambda p_{k_c}^c(m) + \sigma^2_G \lambda \sum_{c^\prime=1, c^\prime \neq c}^{K} p_{k_{c^\prime}}^c(m) + \frac{1}{\mathrm{SNR}}. \label{eq:BigSigma}$$ Proof: In a manner similar to [@anandkumar2007type Theorem 3], the proof of the above theorem relies on the Central Limit Theorem (CLT) with random number of summands [@cover2012elements p. 369] and on the Chernoff Information [@cover2012elements]. We refer to the Appendix for more details. The term in being optimized over $\mathbf{k}$ corresponds to the Chernoff information [@cover2012elements Chapter 11] for the binary hypothesis test between the distributions of the received signal $\mathbf{Y}^c_l$ under hypotheses $\theta^c = \theta_0$ and $\theta^c = \theta_1$ when $\theta^{c^\prime}=\theta_{k_{c^\prime}}$. In fact, for large values of $\lambda$, when $\theta^c = \theta_{k_c}$ and $\theta^{c^\prime} = \theta_{k_{c^\prime}}$, the received signal $\mathbf{Y}^c_l$ in can be shown to be approximately distributed as $\mathcal{CN}(\boldsymbol{\mu}_{k_c,\mathbf{k}}^c,\mathbf{\Sigma}_{k_c,\mathbf{k}}^c)$, with mean vector $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{k_c,\mathbf{k}}^c = [\mu_{k_c,\mathbf{k}}^c(1) , \ldots , \mu_{k_c,\mathbf{k}}^c(M) ]^{\mathsf{T}}$ and diagonal covariance matrix $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{k_c,\mathbf{k}}^c$ with diagonal elements $\Sigma_{k_c,\mathbf{k}}^c (m,m)$. Cloud-based Hypothesis Testing {#sec:cloud_detection} ------------------------------ The cloud tackles the $2^K$-ary hypothesis testing problem of distinguishing among hypotheses $\mathcal{H}_{k_1, \ldots, k_K}:(\theta^1,\ldots,\theta^K) = (\theta_{k_1},\ldots,\theta_{k_K})$ for $k_c \in \{0,1 \}$ on the basis of the quantized signals $\{ \hat{\mathbf{Y}}_l \}^{L}_{l=1}$ received from both ENs on the fronthaul links. Following a standard approach, see, e.g., [@bookcransimeone], the impact of fronthaul quantization is modeled as an additional quantization noise. In particular, the signal received at the cloud from EN $c$ can be written accordingly as $\hat{\mathbf{Y}}_{l}^c = \mathbf{Y}^{c}_{l} + \mathbf{Q}^c_l$, where $\mathbf{Q}^c_l$ represents the quantization noise vector. As in most prior references (see, e.g., [@bookcransimeone]), the quantization noise vector $\mathbf{Q}^c_l$ is assumed to have i.i.d. elements being normally distributed with zero mean and variance $\sigma^2_{q^c}$. Furthermore, from rate-distortion theory, the fronthaul capacity constraint implies the following inequality, for each EN $c$ $$M C \geq I(\mathbf{Y}^c_{l} ; \hat{\mathbf{Y}}^c_{l}). \label{eq:capacity_contraint}$$ This is because the number of bits available to transmit each measurement $\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^c_l$ is given by $C$ bits per symbol, or, equivalently, per orthogonal spectral resource; that is, $MC$ bits in total for all $M$ resources. From , one can in principle derive the quantization noise power $\sigma^2_{q^c}$. However, evaluating the mutual information in directly is difficult due to the non-Gaussianity of the received signals $\mathbf{Y}_l^c $. To tackle this issue, we bound the mutual information term in using the property that the Gaussian distribution maximizes the differential entropy under covariance constraints [@cover2012elements], obtaining the following Lemma. In what follows, we denote $\mathbf{k}=\{k_c\}_{c=1}^{K}$. Lemma 1: The quantization noise power can be upper bounded as $\sigma^2_{q^c} \leq \Bar{\sigma}^2_{q^c}$, where $\Bar{\sigma}^2_{q^c}$ is obtained by solving the non-linear equation $$\begin{aligned} & MC = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{m=1}^{M} \log \\ & \Bigg( \frac{ \sum_{\mathbf{k} \in \{0,1\}^K} \mathrm{Pr}( \theta^1 = \theta_{k_1},\ldots,\theta^K = \theta_{k_K}) \Sigma^{c}_{\mathbf{k}} (m,m) + \sigma_{q^c}^2}{(\sigma_{q^c}^2)^M} \Bigg). \label{eq:tosolve_quantization} \end{aligned}$$ with $\Sigma^{c}_{\mathbf{k}}$ given in equation . Proof: See [@rahif_information_centric Appendix A] for details.\ Proposition 2: Under optimal detection, the error exponent $E$ in in the large-$\lambda$ regime for CHT can be lower bounded as $E \geq E^{cloud} = \mathrm{min}_{\mathbf{k} \in \{0,1 \}^K} E_{\mathbf{k}}$, where $$\begin{aligned} E_{\mathbf{k}} &=\min_{ \mathbf{k}^\prime \neq \mathbf{k}} \max_{\alpha \in [0,1]} \Big[ \frac{1}{2} \mathrm{log} \frac{\|\alpha \mathbf{\Sigma}_{\mathbf{k}} + (1-\alpha)\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\mathbf{k}^\prime}\|}{\|\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\mathbf{k}}\|^\alpha\|\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\mathbf{k}^\prime}\|^{1-\alpha}} \\&+ \frac{\alpha (1-\alpha)}{2}(\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\mathbf{k}} - \boldsymbol{\mu}_{\mathbf{k}^\prime})^{\mathsf{T}}(\alpha \mathbf{\Sigma}_{\mathbf{k}} + (1-\alpha)\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\mathbf{k}^\prime})^{-1} \\ & \times (\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\mathbf{k}} - \boldsymbol{\mu}_{ \mathbf{k}^\prime}) \Big], \label{eq:expo_cloud} \end{aligned}$$ where the entries of the $KM \times 1$ vector $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\mathbf{k}}$ are defined as $$\mu_{\mathbf{k}}(m^\prime) = \mu_{\mathbf{k}}^c(m)\ \ \mathrm{for}\ m^\prime=(c-1)M,\ldots,cM \label{eq:cloud_mu}$$ with $\mu_{\mathbf{k}}^c(m)$ defined in , and the entries of the $2M \times 2M$ covariance matrix $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\mathbf{k}}$ given as $$\begin{aligned} &\Sigma_{\mathbf{k}} (m^{\prime},m^{\prime}) = \Sigma_{\mathbf{k}}^1 (m,m) + \sigma^2_{q^c} \ \ \mathrm{for }\ m^{\prime}=(c-1)M,\ldots,cM,\\ & \Sigma_{\mathbf{k}} (m^\prime,M+m^\prime) = \Sigma_{\mathbf{k}} (M+m^\prime,m^\prime) = \\& p_{k_c}^{c}(m)(1-p_{k_c}^{c}(m)) \lambda \mu_H \mu_G + p_{k}^{c^\prime}(m)(1 - p_{k}^{c^\prime}(m))\lambda \mu_H \mu_G\ \ \\ & \mathrm{for }\ m=1,\ldots,M,\ \mathrm{and}\ m^{\prime}=(c-1)M,\ldots,cM, \label{eq:param_cloud_2} \end{aligned}$$ where $\Sigma^c_{\mathbf{k}}(m,m)$ is defined in and all other entries of matrix $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\mathbf{k}}$ are zero. Proof: The proof follows in a manner similar to Proposition 1 and uses Sanov’s Theorem [@cover2012elements p. 362] as detailed in [@rahif_information_centric Appendix C]. The term in being optimized over $ \mathbf{k}^{\prime} \in \{0,1\}^K$ corresponds to the Chernoff information for the binary test between the distribution of the signal received at the cloud under hypotheses $\mathcal{H}_{\mathbf{k}}:(\theta^1 = \theta_{k_1},\ldots,\theta^{K} = \theta_{k_K})$ and $\mathcal{H}_{\mathbf{k^\prime}}:(\theta^1 = \theta_{k_1^\prime},\ldots,\theta^{K} = \theta_{k_K^\prime})$. As discussed above, for large $\lambda$, the signal received at the cloud under hypothesis $\mathcal{H}_{\mathbf{k}}$ is approximately distributed as $\mathcal{CN}(\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\mathbf{k}},\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\mathbf{k}})$, where the elements of the mean vector $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\mathbf{k}}$ and covariance matrix $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\mathbf{k}}$ are described in and . Numerical Results {#sec:numerical_results} ================= In this section, we provide numerical simulations to evaluate the performance of both CHT and EHT. Unless specified otherwise, we fix the following values for the parameters $\mu_H=1,\sigma^2_H=1,\mu_G=0$, $\lambda=4$ and $K=2$ cells. The joint distribution of QoIs is defined as $$f (\theta^c , \theta^{c^\prime}) = \frac{\rho}{2} 1_{\{ \theta^c = \theta^{c^\prime}\}} + \frac{1-\rho}{2} 1_{\{\theta^c \neq \theta^{c^\prime}\}} \label{eq:param_dist}$$ where $ 0 \leq \rho \leq 1$ represents a “correlation" parameter that measures the probability that the two QoIs have the same value, i.e., $\rho = \mathrm{Pr} [\theta^c = \theta^{c^\prime}]$. Note that under , both values of the QoI are equiprobable, i.e., $\mathrm{Pr}(\theta^c = \theta_j)=0.5$ for $j \in \{0,1\}$ and $c \in \{1, 2\}$. Furthermore, when $\rho=0.5$, the two QoIs are independent. In Fig. \[fig:expo\_sigma2G\], we plot the error exponent for both EHT and CHT with different values of $C$ as function of the inter-cell power gain $\sigma^2_G$. As $\sigma^2_G$ increases, the performance of edge detection is seen to decrease, since interference from the other cell is treated as noise by the edge. In contrast, inline with the theoretical results in Theorem 1, CHT is able to benefit from a sufficiently large inter-cell interference due to centralized processing. We note that, the same U-shaped behavior is observed for the uplink throughput in C-RAN as function of the inter-cell interference [@simeone2012cooperative]. Furthermore, a larger fronthaul capacity leads to an improved detection performance, since measurements are received at the cloud with a better resolution. In Fig. \[fig:expo\_C\], we plot the error exponent as function of the fronthaul capacity $C$. For low values of $C$, EHT outperforms CHT since in this regime, the quantization noise is large and thus measurements are received with low resolution. In contrast, CHT outperforms EHT for high enough values of $C$. Conclusions {#sec:conclusions} =========== This paper considers the problem of detection of Quantities of Interest (QoIs) at the edge or the cloud of a fog-based IoT network. The performance of cloud-based detection was demonstrated analytically and via numerical results to be superior to edge-based detection for sufficiently high fronthaul capacity and inter-cell interference. As for future research directions, we mention the study of the coexistence of heterogeneous IoT services with different service requirements. Appendix: Proof of Proposition 1 {#sec:appendix_a .unnumbered} ================================ From the union bound $P_e \leq \sum_{c=1}^{K} P_e^c$ with $P_e^c = \mathrm{Pr}[\hat{\theta}^c \neq \theta^c]$ and the identity $P_e^c = \frac{1}{2^{K-1}} \sum_{\mathbf{k}\in \{0,1\}^{K-1}} \mathrm{Pr}[\hat{\theta}^c \neq \theta^c \| \{\theta^{c^\prime} = \theta_{k_c^\prime},\ \mathrm{for}\ c^\prime \neq c \in \{1,\ldots,K\}\}]$, we directly obtain the lower bound on the error exponent $$E \geq \min_{c \in \{1,\ldots,K \}} \min_{ \mathbf{k} \in \{0,1 \}^{K-1}} E^c , \label{eq:E_edge_bound}$$ where $E^c=- \lim_{L \to \infty} \frac{1}{L} \log \mathrm{Pr}[\hat{\theta}^c \neq \theta^c \|\{\theta^{c^\prime} = \theta_{k_c^\prime},\ \mathrm{for}\ c^\prime \neq c \in \{1,\ldots,K\}\}]$ is the error exponent for detection of QoI $\theta^c$ conditioned on the condition $\theta^{c^\prime}=\theta_{k_{c^\prime}}$ for $c^\prime \neq c$. Under optimal Bayesian detection, the error exponent $E^c_k$ is given by the Chernoff information [@cover2012elements Chapter 11] as $$E^c = C(f_{0,\mathbf{k}}(\mathbf{Y}^c_l),f_{1,\mathbf{k}}(\mathbf{Y}^c_l)), \label{eq:E_edge_chernoff}$$ where we have denoted $f_{k_c,\mathbf{k}}(\mathbf{Y}^c_l) = f(\mathbf{Y}^c_l\|\theta^c = \theta_j , \{\theta^{c^\prime} = \theta_{k_c^\prime},\ \text{for}\ c^\prime \neq c \in \{1,\ldots,K\}\})$ for brevity. Computing the error exponent in requires finding the distributions $f_{k_c,\mathbf{k}}(\mathbf{Y}^c_l)$. Following [@anandkumar2007type], this can be approximated by a Gaussian distribution in the regime of large $\lambda$ thanks to the Central Limit Theorem (CLT) with random number of summands [@billingsley2008probability p. 369]. In particular, referring to [@anandkumar2007type] for details, we can conclude that, when $\lambda \to \infty$, the conditional distribution $f_{k_c,\mathbf{k}}(\mathbf{Y}^c)$ tends in distribution to $\mathcal{CN}(\boldsymbol{\mu}_{k_c,\mathbf{k}} , \mathbf{\Sigma}_{k_c,\mathbf{k}})$, where $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{k_c,\mathbf{k}}$ and $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{k_c,\mathbf{k}}$ are the mean vector and covariance matrix respectively when $\theta^c = \theta_{k_c}$ and $\theta^{c^\prime}=\theta_{k_{c^\prime}}$ and are defined in and . The Chernoff Information between two Gaussian distributions can be obtained by maximizing over $\alpha \in [0,1]$ the $\alpha$-Chernoff information defined as [@nielsen2011chernoff] $$\begin{aligned} & C_{\alpha}(f_{0,\mathbf{k}}({\mathbf{Y}}^c_l),f_{1,\mathbf{k}}({\mathbf{Y}}^c_l)) =\\ &\frac{1}{2} \mathrm{log} \frac{\|\alpha \mathbf{\Sigma}_{0,\mathbf{k}} + (1-\alpha)\mathbf{\Sigma}_{1,\mathbf{k}}\|}{\|\mathbf{\Sigma}_{0,\mathbf{k}}\|^\alpha\|\mathbf{\Sigma}_{1,\mathbf{k}}\|^{1-\alpha}} + \frac{\alpha (1-\alpha)}{2}(\boldsymbol{\mu}_{0,\mathbf{k}} - \boldsymbol{\mu}_{1,\mathbf{k}})^{\mathsf{T}}\\ & \times (\alpha \mathbf{\Sigma}_{0,\mathbf{k}} + (1-\alpha)\mathbf{\Sigma}_{1,\mathbf{k}})^{-1} (\boldsymbol{\mu}_{0,\mathbf{k}} - \boldsymbol{\mu}_{1,\mathbf{k}}). \label{eq:alpha_chernoff} \end{aligned}$$ By plugging in and the expressions of $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{k_c,\mathbf{k}}$ and $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{k_c,\mathbf{k}}$ and using we obtain the desired result. [^1]: This work has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreements 725731 and 648382).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Supralinear and sublinear pre-synaptic and dendritic integration is considered to be responsible for nonlinear computation power of biological neurons, emphasizing the role of nonlinear integration as opposed to nonlinear output thresholding. How, why, and to what degree the transfer function nonlinearity helps biologically inspired neural network models is not fully understood. Here, we study these questions in the context of echo state networks (ESN). ESN is a simple neural network architecture in which a fixed recurrent network is driven with an input signal, and the output is generated by a readout layer from the measurements of the network states. ESN architecture enjoys efficient training and good performance on certain signal-processing tasks, such as system identification and time series prediction. ESN performance has been analyzed with respect to the connectivity pattern in the network structure and the input bias. However, the effects of the transfer function in the network have not been studied systematically. Here, we use an approach $\tanh$ on the Taylor expansion of a frequently used transfer function, the hyperbolic tangent function, to systematically study the effect of increasing nonlinearity of the transfer function on the memory, nonlinear capacity, and signal processing performance of ESN. Interestingly, we find that a quadratic approximation is enough to capture the computational power of ESN with $\tanh$ function. The results of this study apply to both software and hardware implementation of ESN.' author: - - - bibliography: - 'cisda2015.bib' title: Exploring Transfer Function Nonlinearity in Echo State Networks --- Introduction ============ McCullough and Pitts [@McCulloch1943] showed that the computational power of the brain can be understood and modeled at the level of a single neuron. Their simple model of the neuron consisted of linear integration of synaptic inputs followed by a threshold nonlinearity. Current understanding of neural information processing reveals that the role of a single neuron in processing input is much more complicated than a linear integration-and-threshold process [@koch2000]. In fact, the morphology and physiology of the synapses and dendrites create important nonlinear effects on the spatial and temporal integration of synaptic input into a single membrane potential [@magee200]. Moreover, dendritic input integration in certain neurons may adaptively switch between supralinear and sublinear regimes [@Margulis1998]. From a theoretical standpoint this nonlinear integration is directly responsible for the ability of neurons to classify linearly inseparable patterns [@10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002867]. The advantage of nonlinear processing at the level of a single neuron has also been discussed in the artificial neural network (ANN) community [@Giles:87]. Historically, the ANN community has been concerned with algorithms for finding the correct interaction pattern between neurons for a specific task [@Rosenblatt:1958p1436; @rumelhart1986; @Hopfield:1982p652]. Some work in the field has emphasized the importance of suitable collective behavior of the neural network facilitated by macroscopic parameters over microscopic degrees of freedom. Dominey et al. [@Dominey:1995qo] proposed a simple model for the context-dependent motor control of eyes. In this model, the prefrontal cortex represents a suitable high-dimensional mapping of visual input that is adaptively projected onto basal ganglia, which in turn control the eye movement. The only task-dependent learning in this model occurs in the projection layer. This model has also been used to explain higher-level cognitive tasks such as grammar comprehension in the brain [@10.1371/journal.pone.0052946]. More abstract versions of this model, Liquid State Machines [@Maass:2002p1444] and Echo State Networks [@Maass:2002p1444; @Jaeger02042004], were later introduced in the neural network community and were subsequently unified under the name [reservoir computing]{} (RC) [@verstraeten2007]. In RC, an easily tunable high-dimensional recurrent network, called the reservoir, is driven by an input signal. An adaptive readout layer then combines the reservoir states to produce a desired output. Figure \[fig:rcdyn\] provides a conceptual illustration of RC. ESN implements this idea with a discrete-time recurrent network with linear or $\tanh$ activation functions and a linear readout layer trained using regression. Many variations of ESN exist and have been successfully applied to different engineering tasks, such as time series prediction and system identification [@springerlink:10.1007]. ![image](Fig_rcdyn.pdf){width="5in"} Owing to its fixed recurrent connections, training an ESN is much more efficient than ordinary recurrent neural networks (RNN), making it feasible to use its power in practical applications. ESN’s power in time series processing has been attributed to the reservoir’s memory [@PhysRevLett.92.148102; @Dambre:2012fk] and high-dimensional projection of the input which acts like a temporal discriminant kernel [@Hermans:2011fk] that is present in the critical dynamical regime, where input perturbations in the reservoir dynamics neither spread nor die out [@Bertschinger:2004p1450; @PhysRevE.87.042808; @4905041020100501]. A major research direction in RC is to study how the nonlinear dynamics of the reservoir may improve the performance in different tasks [@springerlink:10.1007; @goudarzi2015a]. In particular, the goal is to understand and enhance the high-dimensional nonlinear mapping created by the reservoir dynamics. In the case of ESN architecture, the nonlinearity of the reservoir can be ascribed to its connectivity pattern, transfer function, and the input bias. While there have been some studies focusing on the effect of connectivity and bias [@4905041020100501; @5596492], the transfer function nonlinearity has never been systematically studied, to the best of our knowledge. Here, we examine what happens when we replace the $\tanh$ function in the ESN reservoir with its partial Taylor series expansion, varying the number of terms included. The addition of each successive term will increase the order of nonlinearity present in the transfer function, allowing us to gradually interpolate between the linear and the $\tanh$ transfer functions. In addition, we will explore the input weight scaling to study the effect of sublinear integration on ESN performance, at each level of nonlinearity. To control for other sources of variation, we will restrict ourselves to the two most constrained reservoir architectures that are known to preserve the computational performance of the classical random reservoir, the simple cycle reservoir (SCR) [@5629375] and the Gaussian orthogonal reservoir [@PhysRevLett.92.148102]. The main contribution of this work is a systematic study of the role of the transfer function nonlinearity in the total information processing capacity of recurrent neural networks. Section \[sec:background\] outlines the context and motivation of this work. In Section \[sec:standard\_esn\], we review the basic ESN formulation used in this study. In Section \[sec:taylorexp\], we describe the details of our Taylor expansion approach to quantify the degree of nonlinearity and its impact on the performance of $\tanh$-neuron ESN. The experimental study on information processing properties of ESNs with Taylor expanded transfer functions is presented in Section \[sec:results\]. We first study the memory and also the nonlinear memory capacity of echo state networks with different transfer function nonlinearity, then we evaluate the performance of such networks against time-series tests of Mackey-Glass and NARMA 10. In all cases, we find that the second order approximation of the $\tanh$ function provides all the nonlinear benefits of the $\tanh$ with no significant improvement to the network performance with increasing nonlinearity. Moreover, we show that the region of the $\tanh$ function which is usually thought of as linear is actually very nonlinear. RC has been suggested as a suitable signal processing framework for hardware realizations targeting unconventional substrates [@goudarzi2015b] and ultra-low power implementations, due to its multitasking capability, robustness to noise and variations, and a fixed computational core [@Goudarzi2014; @Goudarzi2014a]. The result of this work can be used to simplify potential hardware designs for RC while preserving their accuracy. Background {#sec:background} ========== Understanding the nature of computation and its properties is an active subject of theoretical study in reservoir computing. Hermans and Schrauwen [@Hermans:2011fk] showed that the ESN reservoir acts as a recursive kernel that generates a high-dimensional mapping of an input signal that can be used by the readout layer to reconstruct a target output. B[ü]{}sing et al. [@4905041020100501] studied the relationship between the reservoir and its performance and found that while in continuous reservoirs the performance of the system does not depend on the topology of the reservoir network, coarse-graining the reservoir state will make the dynamics and the performance of the system highly sensitive to its topology. Verstraeten et al. [@5596492] used a novel method to quantify the nonlinearity of the reservoir as a function of input weight magnitude. They used the ratio of the number of frequencies in the input to the number of frequencies in the dynamics of the input-driven reservoir as a proxy for the reservoir nonlinearity. \ As a result of these studies the growing consensus is that from a theoretical perspective one would obtain more nonlinear computational power in the reservoir by adjusting the input weight magnitudes such as to project the input onto the more nonlinear regions of the $\tanh$ transfer function [@Butcher201376] (see Figure \[fig:tanhfunc\]). This opens an interesting research area; however, in existing approaches the linear and nonlinear regions of the $\tanh$ function are not defined precisely. Moreover, there is little evidence that using the so-called nonlinear region of the $\tanh$ actually improves the performance on nonlinear tasks[@Butcher201376; @5629375; @5596492]. To illustrate the effect of using the nonlinear parts of the $\tanh$ function, we have included sensitivity analysis of reservoirs with linear and $\tanh$ transfer functions for solving four different benchmarks, linear memory, nonlinear computation capacity, Mackey-Glass chaotic prediction, and NARMA 10 computation (see Section \[sec:results\] for task details and Section \[sec:standard\_esn\] for reservoir model). For memory and nonlinear computation capacity a reservoir of $N=50$ nodes was used, and for Mackey-Glass and NARMA 10 tasks reservoirs of $N=500$ and $N=100$ nodes were used, respectively. The reservoirs are generated by sampling the standard Gaussian distribution and are rescaled to have spectral radius $\lambda$. Input weights are drawn from the Bernoulli distribution over $\{-1,+1\}$ and multiplied by input weight coefficient $v$. The reservoir parameters $v$ and $\lambda$ were swept on the interval $[0.1,1]$ with $0.1$ increments and the results were averaged over 10 runs. Figure \[fig:tanhsensitivity\] shows the results of the sensitivity analysis. For all the tasks, the best results are achieved for the lowest $v$ values, which maps the inputs signals well within the speculated linear region of the $\tanh$ function. In this work, our goal is to decompose the nonlinearity of the $\tanh$ function and study its effects as a function of the degree of nonlinearity and input strength $v$. \ \ Model {#sec:model} ===== Echo State Network {#sec:standard_esn} ------------------ An ESN consists of an input-driven recurrent neural network, which acts as the reservoir, and a readout layer that reads the reservoir states and produces the output. Mathematically, the input driven reservoir is defined as follows. Let $N$ be the size of the reservoir. We represent the time-dependent inputs as a column vector $u(t)$, the reservoir state as a column vector $x(t)$, and the output as a column vector $y(t)$. The input connectivity is represented by the matrix $\boldsymbol\omega$ and the reservoir connectivity is represented by an $N\times N$ weight matrix $\boldsymbol\Omega$. For simplicity, we assume that we have one input signal and one output, but the notation can be extended to multiple inputs and outputs. The time evolution of the reservoir is given by: $$%{\bf x}(t+1) = f(\Omega\cdot {\bf x}(t) + \omega\cdot {\bf u}(t)), x(t+1) = f(\boldsymbol\Omega x(t) + \boldsymbol\omega u(t)).$$ where $f$ is the transfer function of the reservoir nodes that is applied element-wise to its operand. This function is usually $\tanh$ or linear. The output is generated by the multiplication of a readout weight matrix $\boldsymbol\Psi$ of length $N+1$ and the reservoir state vector $x(t)$ extended by an optional constant $1$ represented by $x'(t)$: $$y(t) = \boldsymbol\Psi x'(t).$$ The readout weights $\boldsymbol\Psi$ need to be trained using a teacher input-output pair. A popular training technique is to use the pseudo-inverse method[@verstraeten2007]. One drives the ESN with a teacher input and records the history of the reservoir states into a matrix ${\bf X}$, where the columns correspond to the reservoir nodes and each row gives the states of all reservoir nodes at one time. A constant column of 1s is added to ${\bf X}$ to serve as a bias. The corresponding teacher output will be denoted by the column vector ${\bf \widehat{y}}$. The readout can be calculated as follows: $$\Psi = \langle {\bf XX'}\rangle^{-1} \langle {\bf X} {\bf \widehat{Y}'}\rangle, \label{eq:regression}$$ where $'$ indicates the transpose of a matrix. Figures \[fig:arch\_esn\_lin\] and \[fig:arch\_esn\_tanh\] show the architecture of ESNs with linear and $\tanh$ activation functions, respectively. Figure \[fig:arch\_esn\_taylor\] shows the architecture of an ESN with the Taylor series approximation of $\tanh$ as transfer function. In the next section, we will describe how we will use these approximations to systematically study the transfer function nonlinearity in the reservoir. Transfer Function Nonlinearity {#sec:taylorexp} ------------------------------ Our goal is to systematically explore the effect of nonlinearity of the reservoir transfer function on the ESN memory and performance. Figure \[fig:tanhfunc\] illustrates the $\tanh(x)$ function and its first and second derivatives, i.e., $d \tanh(x)$ and $d^2 \tanh(x)$. The $\tanh(x)$ function is often considered to behave linearly for $\|x\|<0.5$, and nonlinearly otherwise. However, looking closely at the curves of $d\tanh(x)$ and $d^2 \tanh(x)$, we see that the only place where the $\tanh(x)$ behaves linearly (constant $d\tanh(x)$) is when $x\to 0$. As $x$ increases in magnitude its first derivative changes very rapidly with increasing rate, i.e., steep $d^2 \tanh(x)$, until $\|x\|=0.65$. This observation suggests that the so-called linear region of $\tanh(x)$ function is where the function becomes highly nonlinear very quickly as $x$ increases. We would like to decompose the nonlinearity of $\tanh$ and study how much each additional degree of nonlinearity affects the performance of the ESN. To this end, we use the Taylor series expansion of the $\tanh$ function around $x=0$ to systematically interpolate the orders of nonlinearity between the linear transfer function to $\tanh$ transfer function. We will replace the $\tanh$ transfer function with the transfer functions that we obtain by writing the $\tanh$ Taylor series to $m$ terms, denoted by $\mathcal{T}_m$. Table \[tab:tanhexpansion\] lists the first few expansions as well as the exact Taylor series for $\tanh$ and Figure \[fig:arch\_esn\_taylor\] illustrates the architecture of the ESN with Taylor series expansions as the reservoir transfer function. $m$ expansion ---------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- $\mathcal{T}_1(x)$ $x$ $\mathcal{T}_2(x)$ $x - \frac{1}{3} x^3$ $\mathcal{T}_3(x)$ $x - \frac{1}{3} x^3 + \frac{2}{15} x^5$ $\mathcal{T}_4(x)$ $x - \frac{1}{3} x^3 + \frac{2}{15} x^5 - \frac{17}{315}x^7$ $\tanh(x)=\mathcal{T}_\infty(x)$ $\sum_{m=1}^\infty \frac{B_{2m}4^m(4^m-1)}{(2m)!}x^{2m-1}$ : Example of Taylor series expansions of $\tanh(x)$ with different orders $m$. Here, $B_{2m}$ is the number at the position $2m$ in Bernoulli sequence.[]{data-label="tab:tanhexpansion"} Figure \[fig:taylorseries\] shows the curves corresponding to the first four expansions of the $\tanh(x)$ function. Although the Taylor series expansion of $\tanh(x)$ is defined for $\|x\|<\pi$, it is only for $\|x\|<1$ that the lowest order expansions do not rapidly diverge from $\tanh(x)$. Figure \[fig:taylorerror\] shows the root-mean-squared error (RMSE) between the Taylor expansion $m$ and the $\tanh(x)$ function calculated for $\|x\|<1$. With increasing number of terms in the expansion, the approximation approaches the true $\tanh$ exponentially (the inset plot). Understanding this exponential behavior suggests most of the benefits of the $\tanh$ nonlinearity may come from the first few orders of nonlinearity, and this will help us to interpret the results in the later sections. Experiments {#sec:results} =========== In this section we study the effect of nonlinearity of the transfer function in ESNs using two parameters, the input weight coefficient $v$ and the order of the Taylor series expansions used as the transfer function $m$. We will evaluate the performance of ESNs in linear memory capacity, nonlinear capacity, Mackey-Glass chaotic time series prediction, and NARMA 10 computation. To make a fair comparison between systems, we adjust $v$ and the input signal scaling so that the the magnitude of the reservoir states is less than 1. The next section will give the details of ESN construction and evaluation. Reservoir Construction and Evaluation ------------------------------------- To control for the variations that are due to topological factors, we will use very constrained reservoir architectures. For the memory task, Mackey-Glass prediction, and NARMA 10 computation we will use the simple cycle reservoir [@5629375]. This topology compares well with random topology in memory and signal-processing benchmark performance, while minimizing the structural variations of the reservoir. In the simple cycle reservoir, the reservoir is a simple ring topology with uniform positive weights $r$. In this topology the weight $r$ determines the reservoir spectral radius: $r=\|\lambda\|$ and no rescaling of the weight matrix is needed. In initial experiments, we observed that the simple cycle is unable to perform the nonlinear capacity task. For this task we create the reservoir by sampling the Gaussian orthogonal ensemble (GOE) [@PhysRevLett.92.148102]. The reservoir weight matrix in this case is given by ${\boldsymbol\Omega} = A + A'$, where $A$ is a matrix with the same dimensionality as ${\boldsymbol\Omega}$ where the entries are sampled from the standard Gaussian distribution $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$. The reservoir is then rescaled to have spectral radius $\lambda$. The number of reservoir nodes $N$ is adjusted for each task to get reasonably good results in a reasonable amount of time. The input weights are generated by sampling the Bernoulli distribution over $\{-1,+1\}$ and multiplying with the input weight coefficient $v$. The reservoir nodes are initialized with $0$s and a washout period of $2N$ is used during training and testing. The reservoirs are driven with task-dependent input $u_t$ for $2,000$ time steps and the readout weights $\Psi$ are calculated as described in Section \[sec:standard\_esn\] using MATLAB’s [pinv()]{} function. For evaluation, the reservoir state is reinitialized and the reservoir is driven for another $T=2,000$ time steps and the output $y_t$ is generated. For brevity, throughout the experiments section we adopt the subscript notation for the time index, e.g., $y_t$ instead of $y(t)$. By convention, the system performance for computational capacity tasks is evaluated using the capacity function $C_\tau$, which is the coefficient of determination between the output $y_t$ and the desired output $\widehat{y}_t$: $$C_{\tau} = \frac{\mathrm{Cov}^2(y_t,\widehat{y}_t)}{\mathrm{Var}(y_t)\mathrm{Var}(\widehat{y}_t)},$$ where $\tau$ is the memory length for the task (see Section \[sec:membench\] for details). For the chaotic prediction task, the performance is evaluated by calculating the normalized mean-squared-error $NMSE$ as follows: $$NMSE = \frac{\sqrt{ \frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=0}^{T} (y_t - \widehat{y}_t)^2}}{\mathrm{Var}(\widehat{y}_t)}, \label{eq:nmse}$$ where $y_t$ is the network output and $\widehat{y_t}$ is the desired output. For all tasks we systematically explore $v\in\{10^{-5},\dots,10^{-1}\}$ with quarter decade increments and $v\in\{0.2,\dots,0.35\}$ with $0.05$ increments. All results are averaged over 10 runs. We chose this range for $v$ in preliminary runs in combination with appropriate input scaling for each task to ensure that the magnitude of reservoir states is always less than 1. Linear Memory Capacity {#sec:membench} ---------------------- The linear memory capacity is a standard measure of memory in recurrent neural networks. The $\tau$-delay memory function $C_\tau$ measures how long a network can remember its inputs. These capacities are calculated by summing the capacity function over $\tau$: $C=\sum_\tau C_\tau$. We use $1\le\tau\le100$ for our empirical estimations. In these sets of experiments reservoirs of size $N=50$ nodes are driven with a one-dimensional input drawn from uniform distributions on $[-0.5,0.5]$. We fix $\lambda=0.9$ for all experiments. The desired output for this task is defined as: $$\widehat{y}_t = u_{t-\tau}.$$ Figure \[fig:mcsurf\] shows the total linear memory capacity surface as a function of $m$ and $v$. Consistent with previous theoretical and experimental results the linear memory capacity does not show any dependency on $v$ for $m=1$, i.e., for the linear network. However, for large $v>0.05$ and $m>1$ we observe a deviation from linear memory with no dependence on $m$. Figure \[fig:mctanhv\] shows the total memory capacity for the $\tanh$ transfer function as a function of $v$ on a linear-log scale, clearly showing that for $v<0.05$ the total memory capacity of the network equals that of a linear network. Figure \[fig:mctaylorv01\] shows the total capacity for $v=0.1$ for various $m$, confirming that for $m>1$ the memory capacity does not vary with $m$, and suggesting that all the relevant nonlinear characteristics of the network stemming from $\tanh$ can be observed on the second-order Taylor expansion $m=2$. \ Nonlinear Computation Capacity ------------------------------ The nonlinear computation capacity measures the ability of the system to reconstruct a nonlinear function of its past inputs. Commonly, Legendre polynomials are used to calculate the nonlinear computation capacity of the reservoir [@Dambre:2012fk]; their advantage is that Legendre polynomials of different orders are orthogonal to each other, allowing one to measure the reservoir’s capacity to compute functions of varying degrees of nonlinearity independently from each other. These capacities are calculated by summing the capacity function over $\tau$: $C=\sum_\tau C_\tau$. We use $1\le\tau\le100$ for our empirical estimations. In these sets of experiments reservoirs of size $N=50$ nodes are driven with a one-dimensional input drawn from uniform distributions on $[-1,1]$. We fix $\lambda=0.1$ for all experiments. We have previously observed this is the optimal $\lambda$ for this task. The desired output of the Legendre polynomial of order $n$ with delay $\tau$ is given by: $$\widehat{y}(n,\tau)_t = \frac{1}{2^n} \sum_{k=0}^n {n \choose k}^2 (u_{t-\tau}-1)^{n-k}(u_{t-\tau}+1)^{k}.$$ We must point out that unlike [@Dambre:2012fk], here the network has to reconstruct the output of a single polynomial and not the product of several polynomials. In this work we only focus on the case $n=3$. For $n=1$, the nonlinear capacity measure reduces to linear memory and the $\tanh$ are unable to compute the even orders because of the input-output symmetry. Figure \[fig:nmcsurf\] shows the total nonlinear capacity surface as a function of $m$ and $v$. For $v>0.001$ and $m>1$ we observe a deviation from the linear network capacity, with no dependence on $m$. Figure \[fig:nmctanhv\] shows the nonlinear capacity for the $\tanh$ transfer function as a function of $v$ on a linear-log scale, clearly showing that for $v<0.001$ the nonlinear capacity of the network equals that of a linear network. Figure \[fig:nmctaylorv01\] shows the total capacity for $v=0.1$ for various $m$, confirming that for $m>1$ the nonlinear capacity does not vary with $m$, suggesting all the relevant nonlinear characteristics of the network stemming from $\tanh$ can be observed on the second-order Taylor expansion $m=2$. We emphasize that we have used a standard ESN implementation without reservoir bias for simplicity. Applying a bias to the reservoir drastically changes the nonlinear capacity and requires a more thorough analysis. \ Mackey-Glass System Prediction ------------------------------ The Mackey-Glass system [@Mackey15071977] is a delayed differential equation with chaotic dynamics, commonly used as a benchmark for chaotic signal prediction. This system is described by: $$\begin{aligned} \frac{dx_t}{dt} = \beta \frac{x_{t-\delta}}{1+x_{t-\delta}^n} - \gamma x_t,\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta=0.2,n=10$, and $\gamma=0.1$ are positive constants and $\delta=17$ is the feedback delay. The reservoir consists of $N=500$ nodes and $\lambda=0.9$. The task is to predict the next $\tau$ integration time steps given $x_t$. We scaled the time series between $[0,0.5]$ before feeding the network. Figure \[fig:mgsurf\] shows the $NRMSE$ surface as a function of $m$ and $v$. For $m>1$ we observe a deviation from the linear network performance with no dependence on $m$. Figure \[fig:mgtanhv\] shows the performance for the $\tanh$ transfer function as a function of $v$ on a linear-log scale, clearly showing that for $v<0.00075$ the performance of the network equals that of a linear network, with no improvement for $v>0.1$. Figure \[fig:mgtaylorv01\] shows the performance for $v=0.1$ for various $m$, confirming that for $m>1$ the performance does not vary with $m$, suggesting all the relevant nonlinear characteristics of the network stemming from $\tanh$ can be observed on the second-order Taylor expansion $m=2$. In our experiments, we found that although applying a bias to the reservoir improves its nonlinear capacity, it does not improve the performance for Mackey-Glass tasks. \ NARMA 10 Computation -------------------- NARMA 10 [@5629375] is a highly non-linear auto-regressive task with long lags that is frequently used to assess neural network performance. This task is given by the following equation: $$y_t=\alpha y_{t-1}+\beta y_{t-1} \sum_{i=1}^{n}y_{t-i}+\gamma u_{t-n}u_{t-1}+\delta, \label{eq:narma}$$ where $n=10$, $\alpha=0.3, \beta=0.05, \gamma=1.5, \delta=0.1$. The input $u_t$ is drawn from a uniform distribution in the interval $[0,0.5]$. We use reservoir networks of size $N=100$ and $\lambda=0.8$. Figure \[fig:narmasurf\] shows the $NRMSE$ surface as a function of $m$ and $v$. For $m>1$ we observe a deviation from the linear network performance, with no dependence on $m$. Figure \[fig:narmatanhv\] shows the performance for the $\tanh$ transfer function as a function of $v$ on a linear-log scale, clearly showing that for $v<0.01$ the performance of the network equals that of a linear network with, no improvement for $v>0.01$. Figure \[fig:narmataylorv01\] shows the performance for $v=0.1$ for various $m$. In this case because of large standard deviation we cannot conclusively say that the increasing nonlinearity in the transfer function is helpful. \ Conclusion and outlook ====================== Nonlinearity of pre-synaptic and dendritic integration plays an important role in the nonlinear computational ability of biological neurons. Similarly, nonlinearity of the transfer function in neural networks is known to increase the capability of the simple multi-layer perceptron to approximate any function. In this work, we systematically studied the effect of increasing nonlinearity on the memory, nonlinear capacity, and the signal-processing performance of echo state networks (ESN), a class of efficient recurrent neural network with state of the art performance in chaotic signal prediction. We found that the region of the $\tanh$ function usually thought of as linear is actually quite nonlinear. Moreover, we found that all the nonlinear power of the $\tanh$ transfer function can be produced using its second-order Taylor approximation. This finding suggests that ESN performance will benefit from qualitative nonlinearity and not from the degree to which the transfer function is nonlinear. How and why small transfer function nonlinearity helps ESNs will be the subject of our future research. Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered} ============== This material is $\tanh$ upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grants CDI-1028238 and CCF-1318833.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - 'Mark Levi[^1]\' bibliography: - 'master.bib' title: 'Schrödinger’s equation and “bike tracks" – a connection.' --- The purpose of this note is to demonstrate an equivalence between two classes of objects: the stationary Schrödinger equation on the one hand, and the “bicycle tracks" on the other. We begin with the description of the latter. A (very) idealized model of a bicycle, shown in Figure \[fig:bike\], is a segment $ RF$ of constant length which is allowed to move in the plane as follows: the path of the “front" $F$ is prescribed, while the velocity of the “rear" $R$ is constrained to the line $ RF $: the “rear wheel" does not sideslip. If $ (X(t),Y(t)) $ is a parametric representation of the motion of $F$ then the angle $\theta$ between $ RF $ and the $x$–axis in the plane satisfies the differential equation $$\dot \theta = \dot Y \cos \theta - \dot X \sin \theta , \label{eq:a}$$ expressing the fact that infinitesimal displacement of $R$ is aligned with the direction $ e^{i \theta} $ of the segment. Some examples of tracks are given in Figure \[fig:somebiketracks\]. 0.1 in #### A very brief history. The idealized “bike" of Figure \[fig:bike\] has been studied since the second half of 19th century (see [@foote] and references therein), and up to the present time ([@foote; @Levi-Tabachnikov]). It was observed that the “bike" arises as an asymptotic limit of a system describing a particle in a rapidly oscillating potential; it is interesting that the nonholonomic “bike" is a singular limit of a holonomic system (the details can be found in [@levi-weckesser], and in [@levi2]). #### Stationary Schrödinger’s equation $$\ddot x + p(t) x = 0 \label{eq:s}$$ is a classical object of mathematical physics, arising in many settings in mathematics, physics and engineering. This system has been studied for nearly two centuries. Known also as Hill’s equation, it comes up in studying the spectrum of hydrogen atom, in celestial mechanics [@siegel-moser], in particle accelerators [@wiedemann], in forced vibrations, in wave propagation, and in many more problems. Hill’s operator deforms isospectrally when its potential evolves under the Korteweg–de Vries(KdV) equation, thus providing an explanation of complete integrability of the latter [@kruskal], [@lax], [@novikov]. The 1989 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to W. Paul for his invention of an electromagnetic trap, now called the Paul trap, used to suspend charged particles. The mathematical substance of Paul’s discovery amounts to an observation on Hill’s equation, as expained in Paul’s Nobel lecture [@paul1]. Incidentally, [@levi] contains a geometrical explanation, as an alternative to Paul’s analytical one, of why the trap works. Stability of the famous Kapitsa pendulum [@arnold; @kapitsa] is also explained by the properties of Hill’s equation (Stephenson gave an experimental demonstration of stability of the so–called Kapitsa pendulum in 1908 [@stephenson], about half a century before Kapitsa’s paper). The long history of Hill’s equation is reflected in the rich body of classical literature of the 18th and 19th centuries on the eigenfunctions of special second order equations (polynomials of Lagrange, Laguerre, Chebyshev, Airy’s function, etc.), to the more recent work on inverse scattering and on geometry of “Arnold tongues" [@PS; @gelfand-levitan; @arnold7; @levy-keller; @WK1; @WK2; @marchenko; @novikov; @broer-levi; @broer-simo], [@levy-keller], [@arnold7], [@WK1; @WK2]. 0.3 in The main result =============== \[thm:main\] Let a Schrödinger potential $ p(t) $ in (\[eq:s\]) be given. We associate with $ p $ the front wheel path $ (X(t), Y(t)) $ as follows: defining $$\varphi (t) = t+ \int_{0}^{t} p( s ) \,ds, \label{eq:vphi}$$ we set $$\left\{ \begin{array}{l} X(t) = - \int_{0}^{t}(1-p(\tau)) \sin \varphi (\tau) \;d\tau \\[3pt] Y(t) = \ \ \ \int_{0}^{t}(1-p(\tau)) \cos \varphi (\tau) \;d\tau .\end{array} \right. \label{eq:fwp}$$ If the potential $ p $ and the path $ (X,Y) $ are thus related, then the two problems: the corresponding Schrödinger equation (\[eq:s\]) and the bike problem (\[eq:a\]) are equivalent in the sense that $$\theta = 2 \arg (x+i \dot x ) +\varphi, \label{eq:relation}$$ where $ \varphi $ is given by (\[eq:vphi\]).[^2] Figure \[fig:variouspotentials\] shows paths corresponding to various potentials. A reformulation of the main result. ----------------------------------- The track (\[eq:fwp\]) can be thought of as the path of a particle subject to a strange magnetic–like force defined in the next paragraph. #### A pseudo–magnetic force Let $v=v(t) $ be a given function of time, and consider a point mass $ m=1 $ moving in the plane with speed $v$ and subject to normal acceleration due to the following magnetic–like force: $${\bf F} ={\bf a}_\perp= i\,(2-v){\bf v} \label{eq:magforce}$$ acting normal to the velocity ${\bf v}$. Note that the tangential velocity $v$ is prescribed (one can imagine a tangential force acting on the particle in addition to the normal force (\[eq:magforce\])), and that the normal acceleration is slaved to $v$. We allow $v$ to change sign, so that $ v = \pm \| {\bf v} \| $; if $v$ changes sign, the particle reverses the direction of motion, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:magforce\]. 0.1 in The main result can now be reformulated as follows. \[thm:magnetic\] Consider the Schrödinger equation (\[eq:s\]) with potential $p(t)$. Define $$v(t)= 1-p(t), \label{eq:vp}$$ and let $ (X(t), Y(t)) $ be a path of the “magnetic" particle defined in the preceding paragraph. Then the Schrödinger equation (\[eq:s\]) and the bike problem (\[eq:a\]) are equivalent, i.e. they transform into one another via the transformation $$\theta = 2 \arg (x+i \dot x ) + \varphi, \label{eq:relation1}$$ where $ \varphi = t+ \int_{0}^{t} p( \tau ) \,d\tau $. 3 in Proofs. ======== [Proof of Theorem \[thm:main\].]{} We begin by writing the Schrödiner equation (\[eq:s\]) as a system $$\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \dot x = y \\[3pt] \dot y = - p(t) x \end{array} \right.$$ or in matrix form $$\dot z = P(t) z, \ \ \hbox{with} \ \ P = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -p & 0 \end{array} \right) . \label{eq:hillsvector}$$ The main point of the proof is to observe that Schrödiner equation (\[eq:hillsvector\]) in a rotating frame becomes equivalent to the Ricatti equation for the bicycle. To make this precise, let $$\psi = \psi (t) = - \frac{1}{2}\biggl( t+ \int_{0}^{t} p( \tau ) d\tau \biggl); \label{eq:psi}$$ note that $\dot x \psi $ is half the curl of the vector field in (\[eq:hillsvector\]), i.e. the average angular velocity of the vector field around the origin. Introduce the rotation through angle $\psi$: $$R= R(t) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} \cos \psi & - \sin \psi \\ \sin \psi & \ \ \ \cos \psi \end{array} \right). \label{eq:rotation}$$ To rewrite the Schrödinger equation (\[eq:hillsvector\]) in the rotating frame we introduce the new variable $w$ via $$z= R_\psi w. \label{eq:zwchange}$$ We obtain a new system equivalent to (\[eq:hillsvector\]): $$\dot w = (R ^{-1} P R - R ^{-1} \dot R) w . \label{eq:w}$$ A computation confirms the expectation that coefficient matrix of this system should be symmetric (since we cancelled angular velocity) and traceless (since the transformation is area–preserving and since the original matrix was traceless): $$R ^{-1} P R - R ^{-1} \dot R = \left( \begin{array}{cc} r & \ \ s \\ s & -r \end{array} \right), \label{eq:mw}$$ where $$\begin{array}{l} r= \frac{1}{2} (1-p)\sin 2 \psi \\[3pt] s= \frac{1}{2} (1-p)\cos 2 \psi. \end{array} \label{eq:rs}$$ According to (\[eq:zwchange\]), we have $$\arg (x+iy) = \arg w + \psi, \label{eq:zwangles}$$ and we now show that $ \theta = 2 \arg w $ satisfies the bicycle equation (\[eq:a\]); this would complete the proof. Indeed, then (\[eq:zwangles\]) would become $$\arg (x+iy) = \frac{1}{2} \theta + \psi, \ \ \hbox{or} \ \ \theta = 2 \arg z- 2 \psi,$$ which indeed coincides with (\[eq:relation\]) since $-2 \psi = \varphi$ according to (\[eq:psi\]) and (\[eq:vphi\]). To derive the equation for $ \arg w $ the we write our system (\[eq:w\])-(\[eq:mw\]) for $w$ explicitly: $$\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \dot u = ru+sv \\[3pt] \dot v=su-rv, \end{array} \right. \label{eq:gl}$$ and let $\widehat w = \arg w = \arg (u+iv) $.[^3] Now $$\frac{d}{dt} \widehat w = \frac{\dot v u - \dot u v}{u ^2 + v ^2 } \buildrel{ (\ref{eq:gl})}\over{=} \frac{s u ^2 -2r uv-s v ^2 }{u ^2 + v ^2},$$ so that $$\frac{d}{dt} \widehat w = s \cos ^2 \widehat w - 2r \cos \widehat w \sin \widehat w - s \sin ^2 \widehat w$$ This can be rewritten in terms of double angle $ 2 \widehat w $ as follows: $$\frac{d}{dt}(2\widehat w) = 2s \cos 2 \widehat w - 2r \sin 2 \widehat w. \label{eq:2alpha}$$ This ODE is identical to the the bicycle equation: $$\dot \theta = \dot Y \cos \theta - \dot X \sin \theta$$ provided we set $$\dot X= 2r , \ \ \dot Y = 2s,$$ or, recalling the definition (\[eq:rs\]) of $r$ and $s$, provided $$\begin{array}{l} \dot X = (1-p)\sin 2 \psi=- (1-p)\sin \varphi , \\[3pt] \dot Y = (1-p)\cos 2 \psi = \ \ (1-p)\cos \varphi. \end{array} \label{eq:XY}$$ We conclude that $ \theta = 2 \widehat w $ in the sense that both angles satisfy the same differential equation provided we define $ X, \ Y $ by (\[eq:XY\]) or (\[eq:fwp\]). This completes the proof. $\diamondsuit$ 0.3 in [Proof of Theorem \[thm:magnetic\].]{} Consider the motion $ (X(t), Y(t)) $ given by (\[eq:fwp\]). The velocity of this motion $$\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \dot X = -(1-p(t)) \sin \varphi \\[3pt] \dot Y = \ \ (1-p(t))\cos \varphi \end{array} \right.$$ The speed $ v=1-p$ is in the direction $ \varphi + \pi /2 $ if $ 1-p>0 $ and in the opposite direction if $ 1-p<0 $. The angular velocity of this motion is $$\omega = \dot \varphi = 1+ p,$$ and thus the normal acceleration $$a_\perp = \omega v .$$ But $$\omega =1+p \buildrel{ (\ref{eq:vp})}\over{=} 1+(1-v)=2-v,$$ so that $ a_\perp = v(2-v)$. $\diamondsuit$ [Acknowledgments]{}. The author’s research was supported by an NSF grant DMS-0605878. [^1]: Department of Mathematics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA; e-mail: [^2]: More precisely, if (\[eq:relation\]) holds for $ t=0 $, then it holds for all $t$. [^3]: the wedge in $\widehat w $ reminds of the angle.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Recently, studies of brown dwarfs have demonstrated that they possess strong magnetic fields and have the potential to produce radio and optical auroral emissions powered by magnetospheric currents. This emission provides the only window on magnetic fields in the coolest brown dwarfs and identifying additional benchmark objects is key to constraining dynamo theory in this regime. To this end, we conducted a new red optical (6300 - 9700 Å) survey with the Keck telescopes looking for H$\alpha$ emission from a sample of late L dwarfs and T dwarfs. Our survey gathered optical spectra for 29 targets, 18 of which did not have previous optical spectra in the literature, greatly expanding the number of moderate resolution (R$\sim$2000) spectra available at these spectral types. Combining our sample with previous surveys, we confirm an H$\alpha$ detection rate of $9.2\pm^{3.5}_{2.1}$ % for L and T dwarfs in the optical spectral range of L4 - T8. This detection rate is consistent with the recently measured detection rate for auroral radio emission from [@Kao2016], suggesting that geometrical selection effects due to the beaming of the radio emission are small or absent. We also provide the first detection of H$\alpha$ emission from 2MASS 0036+1821, previously notable as the only electron cyclotron maser radio source without a confirmed detection of H$\alpha$ emission. Finally, we also establish optical standards for spectral types T3 and T4, filling in the previous gap between T2 and T5.' author: - 'J. Sebastian Pineda, Gregg Hallinan, J. Davy Kirkpatrick, Garret Cotter, Melodie M. Kao, and Kunal Mooley' bibliography: - 'ms.bib' title: 'A Survey for H$\alpha$ Emission from Late L dwarfs and T dwarfs ' --- Introduction ============ [l c c c c c c c]{} SDSS J000013.54+255418.6 & T4.5/ T5 & 2014 Dec 22& OG550 &DEIMOS & 2400 &1.18 - 1.25& 15, 5\ 2MASS J00361617+1821104 & L3.5/L3.5 & 2012 Jul 19 & Clear & LRIS & 5400 & 1.00 - 1.10 & 16/13, 17\ SIMP J013656.5+093347.3 & T2.5/ T2 & 2014 Dec 22 & OG550 &DEIMOS & 3600 &1.01-1.10 & 1\ & & 2014 Aug 27& OG550 &LRIS & 2400 & 1.02 - 1.03 &\ 2MASS J02431371-2453298 & T6/ T5.5 & 2014 Dec 22 & OG550 &DEIMOS & 2400 & 1.47-1.52 & 4, 5\ SDSS J042348.57-041403.5 & T0/ L7.5 & 2014 Dec 22 & OG550 &DEIMOS & 1800 & 1.10 & 11, 5\ 2MASS J05591914-1404488 & T4.5/ T5 & 2014 Dec 22 & OG550 &DEIMOS & 2400 & 1.21-1.23 & 3, 5\ WISEP J065609.60+420531.0& T3/ T2 & 2014 Dec 22 & OG550 &DEIMOS & 2400 & 1.08 & 14\ 2MASS J07003664+3157266 & – / L3.5 & 2014 Feb 03& GG400 &DEIMOS & 1200 & 1.24 & 20\ 2MASS J07271824+1710012 & T7/ T8 & 2014 Feb 03 &GG400 & DEIMOS & 1800 & 1.27 & 4, 5\ SDSS J075840.33+324723.4 & T2/ T3 & 2014 May 05 &GG495 & DEIMOS & 2400 & 1.21 - 1.28 & 15, 5\ WISE J081958.05-033528.5 & T4/ T4 & 2014 May 05 & GG495 &DEIMOS & 2400 & 1.09-1.10 & 14\ 2MASSI J0835425-081923 & – / L5 & 2014 Feb 03& GG400 &DEIMOS & 1200 & 1.35 & 7\ SDSSp J092615.38+584720.9 & T4.5/ T5 & 2014 Dec 22 & OG550 &DEIMOS & 2400 & 1.35-1.38 & 11, 5\ 2MASS J09393548-2448279 & T8/ T8 & 2014 Feb 03 & GG400 &DEIMOS & 2000 & 1.57 & 19, 5\ 2MASS J10430758+2225236 & – / L8 & 2014 Dec 22 & OG550 &DEIMOS & 2400 & 1.03-1.06 & 8\ SDSS J105213.51+442255.7 & T0.5/ L7.5 & 2014 May 05 & GG495 &DEIMOS & 3600 & 1.10-1.12 & 6\ 2MASS J11145133-2618235 & T7.5/ T8 & 2014 Feb 03 & GG400 &DEIMOS & 2000 & 1.47 & 19, 5\ 2MASS J12314753+0847331 & T5.5/ T6 & 2014 Dec 22 &OG550 & DEIMOS & 2400 & 1.18-1.25 & 15, 5\ SDSS J141624.08+134826.7 & L6/ L6 & 2014 May 05 & GG495 & DEIMOS & 1800 & 1.05 & 2\ WISEP J150649.97+702736.0& T6/ T6 & 2014 May 05 & GG495 & DEIMOS & 2000 & 1.42 & 14\ 2MASSW J1507476-162738 & L5.5/ L5 & 2014 May 05& GG495 &DEIMOS & 900 & 1.25 & 16/13, 15\ SDSSp J162414.37+002915.6 & T6/ T6 & 2014 May 05 &GG495 & DEIMOS & 1800 & 1.07 & 18, 5\ PSO J247.3273+03.5932 & T2/ T3 & 2014 May 05 & GG495 &DEIMOS & 1800 & 1.12 & 9\ WISEP J164715.59+563208.2 & L9p/ L7 & 2014 May 05 & GG495 &DEIMOS & 2000 & 1.42 & 14\ 2MASS J17502484-0016151 & L5.5/ L5 & 2014 May 05 & GG495 &DEIMOS & 900 & 1.07 & 12\ 2MASS J17503293+1759042 & T3.5/ T4 & 2014 May 05 &GG495 & DEIMOS & 1200 & 1.07 & 11, 5\ 2MASS J17545447+1649196 & T5.5/ T5.5 & 2014 May 05 & GG495 &DEIMOS & 1800 & 1.11 & 16\ 2MASS J21392676+0220226 & T1.5/ T2 & 2014 Aug 27 & OG550 &LRIS & 2400 & 1.07 - 1.09 & 10\ 2MASS J22541892+3123498 & T4/ T5 & 2014 Dec 22 & OG550 &DEIMOS & 2400 & 1.12-1.17 & 4, 5 Twenty years ago, the discovery of the first brown dwarfs opened up the study of sub-stellar objects as interesting astrophysical targets spanning the gap between stars and planets [@Nakajima1995; @Oppenheimer1995]. Since then, our understanding of brown dwarfs has developed considerably, including their atmospheric properties, evolution and internal structure (e.g., @Burrows2001 [@Kirkpatrick2005; @Marley2015] and references therein). Many of these developments are based on detailed spectroscopic analyses examining brown dwarf spectra at infrared (IR) wavelengths, where the photospheric flux is the brightest, and where the effects of absorption bands, such as CH$_{4}$, H$_{2}$O and NH$_{3}$, are most prominent (e.g., @Burgasser2002 [@Burgasser2006b; @Burgasser2006; @Burgasser2010; @McLean2003; @Knapp2004; @Cushing2005; @Cushing2008; @Cushing2011; @Stephens2009; @Kirkpatrick2012; @Mace2013]). By comparison, the flux at red optical wavelengths (600 nm - 1000 nm) is much fainter because of the cool effective temperatures, especially for late L dwarfs, T dwarfs and Y dwarfs ($T_{\mathrm{eff}}\,<\,1500 $ K). Consequently, there have been far fewer studies looking at cool brown dwarfs at these wavelengths. One feature of particular interest in the optical spectrum is H$\alpha$ emission at 6563 Å, which has often been used as an indicator of chromospheric emission in the spectra of M dwarfs and early L dwarfs (e.g., @Reiners2008 [@Schmidt2015]). For early M dwarfs, the chromospheric nature of the Balmer emission is substantiated by accompanying evidence in X-ray and UV data, revealing high temperature atmospheric regions consistent with a transition region between the photosphere and a corona (e.g., @Linsky1982 [@Fleming1988; @Walkowicz2008]). For late M dwarfs, L dwarfs and cooler objects, despite very few detections in the X-ray and UV, the presence of chromospheres has been inferred in the population based on detections of H$\alpha$ emission and the analogy with the warmer stars. However, X-ray and optical observations of ultracool dwarfs (UCD; spectral type $\ge$M7) show a drop in their X-ray and H$\alpha$ luminosities [@Berger2010; @Williams2014; @Schmidt2015]. The decline in these X-ray and H$\alpha$ emissions, has been seen as indicative of a decline in the ability of UCDs to sustain much magnetic activity in their cool atmospheres with a transition taking place around the boundary between stars and brown dwarfs (@Mohanty2002 [@Reiners2008; @Berger2010]). Despite the cool atmospheric temperatures, recent surveys have revealed that many brown dwarfs also show strong radio emission, indicating that they can sustain strong magnetic fields throughout the whole spectral sequence from L dwarfs to T dwarfs [@Hallinan2008; @Berger2010; @Route2012; @Williams2014; @Kao2016]. Early efforts to understand this radio emission invoked standard Solar-like magnetic processes [@Berger2006; @Berger2009; @Route2012]. Building on those efforts, continued monitoring of the radio brown dwarfs and observations of the coolest UCDs have now shown that the pulsed radio emission is entirely consistent with being a consequence of the electron cyclotron maser instability (ECMI) as part of auroral currents in the magnetosphere [@Hallinan2008; @Hallinan2015; @Williams2015; @Lynch2015; @Kao2016]. Furthermore, [@Hallinan2015] demonstrated that certain optical spectral features, Balmer series emission lines and broadband variability, can be directly tied to the auroral process in some objects. The connection is further corroborated by the association of radio aurorae with H$\alpha$ emission, suggested by a high detection rate of radio brown dwarfs in the late L dwarf and T dwarf regime, when selecting the observational sample based on potential auroral activity indicators [@Kao2016]. This survey is in stark contrast to the very low detection rate of numerous previous surveys that looked for radio emission from brown dwarfs [@Berger2006; @McLean2012; @Antonova2013; @Route2013]. Within the UCD regime, many objects may indeed exhibit chromospheric emissions, especially for the late M dwarfs and early L dwarfs, in which the atmospheres are warmest. However, many studies have now shown that auroral processes are also possible throughout the brown dwarf sequence. This leads to the questions: what governs brown dwarf magnetic activity and what drives potential auroral activity? Amongst late M dwarfs and early L dwarfs, disentangling the different processes requires dedicated monitoring of known benchmark objects like 2MASS 0746+2000 and LSR 1835+3259 [@Berger2009; @Hallinan2015].Another way to examine the question is to observe late L dwarfs and T dwarfs, objects in which the local stochastic heating of the upper atmosphere that generates chromospheric emission, as seen on the Sun, is difficult to generate. A study of the activity in these objects allows us to understand the prevalence of magnetic processes, assess the viability of the auroral mechanism and find new potential benchmark targets for dedicated monitoring. If the H$\alpha$ emission in these objects is associated with the same processes that produce auroral radio emission, surveys in the optical provide an additional means to look for brown dwarfs potentially harboring auroral activity. The advantage of surveying for magnetic activity in the optical, over the radio, is that at radio wavelengths the emission may be highly beamed, as in the auroral case, and thus a detection can be highly dependent on the viewing geometry of the system, but is less dependent on geometry at optical wavelengths [@Treumann2006]. These factors motivate the search for H$\alpha$ emission, potentially of an auroral nature, in the optical spectrum. We note that optical variability due to weather phenomena is also a compelling reason to observe and monitor the spectra of objects in this spectral range [@Heinze2015]. Our focus is on late L dwarfs and T dwarfs which have received less followup at optical wavelengths than the warmer brown dwarfs but are much brighter in the optical than the cooler Y dwarfs. Much of these initial efforts took place $\sim$10 years ago, prominently by [@Kirkpatrick1999], [@Burgasser2003] and [@Cruz2007], hereafter K99, B03 and C07, respectively. The early studies were not able to get detailed optical spectra for all of the brown dwarfs that emerged from early wide-field infrared sky surveys like the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS; @Skrutskie2006). Moreover, since then, numerous all sky surveys, including the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; @York2000), the DEep Near-Infrared Survey of the Southern Sky (DENIS; @Epchtein1997 ), the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE; @Wright2010), the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System (Pan-STARRS; @Kaiser2002), the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope Deep Sky Survey (UKIDDS; @Lawrence2007), and the Canada-France Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey (CFHTLS; @Delorme2008), have greatly expanded the number of known late L dwarfs and T dwarfs, many of them bright enough to observe with large ground based telescopes. The growing number of late L dwarfs and T dwarfs, thus allows for a comprehensive assessment of the prevalence of H$\alpha$ activity for objects of this effective temperature range. Due to the small number of T-dwarf studies at optical wavelengths, our current observational understanding of their spectra remains defined by the early works, like B03, and the few handful of targets they observed. These early spectra set the optical spectral sequence in this regime and provide the observational archetypes for T dwarf optical spectral features [@Kirkpatrick2005]. The prominent features include the pressure-broadened wings of the K <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> resonant doublet at 7665/7699 Å, other alkali lines from Cs <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> and Rb <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>, as well as molecular band-heads of CrH and H$_{2}$O (B03; @Kirkpatrick2005). These features are physically interesting because they are sensitive to temperature, gravity, metallicity and the rainout of cloud condensates [@Burrows2002]. An expanded collection of optical spectra will thus allow us to examine these features in greater detail. In this article, we present the results of a new survey of late L dwarfs and T dwarfs at red optical wavelengths looking for H$\alpha$ emission. In Section \[sec:data\], we discuss our observations and the target selection for our data sample. In Section \[sec:opticalspec\], we present the collection of optical spectra, including literature data and examine the variety of optical spectral features. In Section \[sec:Ha\], we focus in particular on the H$\alpha$ emission and the prevalence of potential auroral activity. In Section \[sec:objects\], we discuss our findings for a series of particularly interesting objects in our data sample. Lastly, in Section \[sec:summary\], we summarize and discuss our results. ![image](fig1.eps){height="0.9\textheight"} ![image](fig2.eps){height="0.9\textheight"} Data {#sec:data} ==== Sample ------ We selected our target sample by examining the collection of known brown dwarfs in the literature and culling targets that already had observations at red optical wavelengths. We used the compendium of brown dwarfs at `DwarfArchives.org` as a resource in this endeavor, including new updates to the archive (private communication – Chris Gelino) and also cross checked the Ultracool RIZzo Spectral Library. We gave priority to the brightest and closest targets, using the Database of Ultracool Parallaxesto verify the distances [@Dupuy2012]. We further combined our new observations of these targets with literature T dwarf spectra (discussed in Section \[sec:obs\]). All together this resulted in the largest compilation of late L dwarf and T dwarf red optical spectra yet assembled. ![image](fig3.eps){width="90.00000%"} Observations {#sec:obs} ------------ We observed our target brown dwarfs at the W. M. Keck Observatory using either the Low Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (LRIS) on Keck I or the DEep Imaging Multi-Object Spectrograph (DEIMOS) on Keck II during the course of several observing nights, mostly in 2014 [@Oke1995; @Faber2003]. The observations were designed predominately for the purposes of searching for H$\alpha$ emission in objects without previous observational limits on the emission strength. However, in our survey we also looked at some objects with previous limits, testing for variability, as well as at targets that may have only had marginal detections, which we sought to confirm. The full observing log for the 29 objects is presented in Table \[tab:obslog\]. We also display the spectra of the 18 objects without previous optical spectra in Figure \[fig:optseq1\] and Figure \[fig:optseq2\]. ### DEIMOS {#sec:deimos} The majority of our survey was conducted with Keck/DEIMOS, a multi-slit imaging spectrograph designed for acquiring optical wavelength spectra of faint objects. DEIMOS operates at the Nasmyth focus and includes a flexure compensation system for increased stability. The multi-slit capability utilizes pre-milled masks, however we used the instrument in longslit mode with the standard longslit masks, placing the targets in the 1" (8.4 pixels) wide slit. This mode is regularly used for spectroscopic followup for the Palomar Transient Factory (PTF; @Law2009). The detector uses a large format 8k x 8k CCD mosaic, consequently the blue and red ends of a single spectroscopic exposure fall on different CCD chips with a small gap between them. For our observations we used the 600 line mm$^{-1}$ grating blazed at 7000 $\mathrm{\AA}$ yielding a wavelength coverage from 5000 - 9700 $\mathrm{\AA}$ and a resolution of 3.5 $\mathrm{\AA}$ (R $\sim$ 2000) with a dispersion of 0.62 $\mathrm{\AA}$ pixel$^{-1}$. The blue extent of the spectra were also limited by the use of order blocking filters to limit the effects of second order light (see Table \[tab:obslog\]). In comparison to the earlier observations in K99, B03 and C07, our observations are at a slightly higher resolution. Data reduction for these observations was initiated with a modified version of the DEEP2 pipeline utilized by PTF [@Cooper2012; @Newman2013]. The pipeline uses the overscan region to bias subtract the raw frames, median combines the dome flats to flat field the raw data, determines the wavelength solution from NeArKrXe arc lamps and returns the 2D spectrum of each slit for both the red and blue CCD chips with cosmic ray rejection routines applied.The rest of the data reduction was handled by custom routines in `Python` with `PyRAF` to rectify the frames, extract the spectra and flux calibrate. Since the ultracool dwarfs have very red spectra, up to a couple orders of magnitude flux difference between 7000 Å$\;$and 9000 Å, for most targets the spectral flux is barely seen toward the blue end of the detector ($ \lambda \lesssim7000\; \mathrm{\AA}$). Thus, the extractions for each CCD chip were done independently and we therefore used the location of the centroid of the target trace on the red chip in the rectified frames as the central location for the blue chip. We verified that this produced accurate results based on the calibration targets and the brighter L dwarfs with plenty of flux for $\lambda \lesssim7000\; \mathrm{\AA}$. Our observations took place on 2014 February 3rd, 2014 May 5th and 2014 December 22nd (UT). At the beginning of the observing night for February 3rd there was fog at the summit, however the dome opened up half way through the night with typical seeing conditions of 1.2“. Conditions on May 5th were more favorable, low humidity and 0.8” seeing. December 22nd was also a good observing night with good conditions throughout and 0.7" seeing. Typical exposure times varied between 900 s for the L dwarfs and up to 1800 s for the fainter T dwarfs with multiple exposures for some of the targets. We also observed a standard star from [@Hamuy1994] or [@Massey1990] each night for the purposes of flux calibrating the spectra. These calibrators were Hiltner 600, HZ44 and Feige 110, respectively for the three nights. We note that the specific order blocking filter varied for each of the three nights, GG400, GG495 and OG550, respectively. Although, this did not effect the primary goal of surveying for H$\alpha$ emission, unlike the other filters, the use of the GG400 filter (observations on Feb. 3rd) limited the ability to flux calibrate the red end of the spectrum due to contamination from second order short wavelength light in the standard star observations. Consequently, we had to make adjustments in order to get flux calibrated spectra for that observing night. We took advantage of the fact that a couple of L dwarf targets we observed that evening, were part of the Ultracool RIZzo spectral library. To get a sensitivity curve for the red chip on that night, we divided the raw extracted spectrum by the literature spectra of the same targets, 2MASSI J0835425-081923 and 2MASS J07003664+3157266AB, took the median of the respective curves and fit a low order polynomial. We subsequently scaled the resulting curve to match the sensitivity function from the blue chip where there was no effect from the second order light. The resulting sensitivity curve agreed reasonably well with similar curves from the other observing nights and the reduced spectra from the night of Feb. 3rd proved to match the expected optical standards rather well (see Section \[sec:stands\]). The red end of the DEIMOS spectrum cuts off at $\sim$9700 $\mathrm{\AA}$ in the middle of a broad telluric H$_{2}$O absorption band. This presented an added difficulty in determining the flux calibration for a given night because the telluric band could not be interpolated over when determining the sensitivity function from the spectrophotometric standards. Consequently, the sensitivity function for $\lambda > 9300\; \mathrm{\AA}$ is based solely on the polynomial fit at shorter wavelengths. The effect this has on the spectral shape is only significant beyond $\sim$9400 $\mathrm{\AA}$ where the spectrum is also significantly effected by telluric absorption. Additionally, we did not correct for telluric absorption in any of the DEIMOS spectra. Thus, the effects of the telluric absorption are most prominent in the same region where the flux calibration is most unreliable. This has no impact on the bulk of our analysis as we focus on short wavelength regions, however it does have a small effect on the measurement of the H$_{2}$O feature at 9250 $\mathrm{\AA}$ (see Section \[sec:SPR\]; B03). ### LRIS {#sec:obslris} We observed the spectrum of 2MASS J00361617+1821104 (2MASS 0036+1821) on 2012, July 19th. These observations used the 1200 line mm $^{-1}$ grating blazed at 6400 Å through a 0.7” slit, yielding a wavelength coverage of 5600-7200 Å, and a resolution of $\sim1.7$ Å ($R\sim3700$). The detector was readout with 2x2 binning, yielding a dispersion of 0.81 Å pixel$^{-1}$. The target was observed for 5400 seconds split into six 900 s exposures. The observations also used the LRIS dichroic D560 with a clear filter through the red arm of the instrument. We also took data with the blue side of LRIS, however, we do not present that data in this paper. These data were reduced with the `longslit` routines in IRAF.The individual exposures were bias subtracted; corrected for pixel-to-pixel gain variation and slit illumination via dome flats; transformed onto a rectilinear wavelength-sky position grid via internal arc lamps; and finally sky-subtracted by interpolating a polynomial along each row in the sky direction, excluding the target from the fit by sigma-clipping. We acquired LRIS spectra of SIMP J013656.5+093347.3 (SIMP 0136+0933) and 2MASS J21392676+0220226 (2MASS 2139+0220) on 2014 August 27th. Although LRIS is designed to use a beamsplitter to allow independent and simultaneous observations in a red channel and a blue channel, these observations made use of only the red channel. Since the work of K99 and B03, which used LRIS to obtain optical spectra of late L dwarfs and T dwarfs, the red channel detector has been upgraded, improving the sensitivty [@Rockosi2010]. Our observations on 2014 August 27th used the 400 line mm$^{-1}$ grating blazed at 8500 $\mathrm{\AA}$ through a 0.7" slit, yielding a wavelength coverage of 6300 - 10100 $\mathrm{\AA}$, a resolution of $\sim5$ Å ($R\sim 1700$), and a dispersion of 1.33 $\mathrm{\AA}$ pixel$^{-1}$. The data were taken through a companion program, and accidentally left out the order blocking filter, which meant the flux calibration was not viable from that night’s observing (the dichroic was also set to clear). As we did with the February 3rd DEIMOS observations (see Section \[sec:deimos\]), we used the flux calibrated DEIMOS observations of SIMP 0136+0933 from 2014 December 22nd, to calibrate for the rough shape of the LRIS sensitivity function. This did not effect the blue end of the spectrum, nor our ability to measure the H$\alpha$ emission, however it created an effective upper limit to the LRIS wavelength coverage of 9700 $\mathrm{\AA}$. We reduced the data using standard routines in `PyRAF`. Since the spectral trace becomes very faint in the red, we used the trace for calibration white dwarfs taken before and after the science observations to define the extraction trace for our target brown dwarfs. In our sample we also include the archival data of the 7 T dwarfs with red optical spectra from the WISE followup of [@Kirkpatrick2011], in order to bolster the sample size of T dwarf optical spectra and provide comparisons of the optical features across the full optical sequence to the latest T dwarf spectral types. These objects are, the T5, WISE 1841+7000, the T7s, WISE 1019+6529 and WISE 2340-0745, the T8s, WISE 1617+1807, WISE 1457+5815 and WISE 1653+4444, and the T9, WISE 1741+2553. These observations also used Keck/LRIS with similar settings but a wider 1" slit. The reductions and calibrations of those data are described in K99 and [@Kirkpatrick2006]. These objects were incorporated into the analysis of the optical spectral features (Section \[sec:features\]) but not for H$\alpha$ emission (Section \[sec:Ha\]). We also used the archival spectra of SDSSp J083717.22-000018.3, SDSSp J102109.6-030419, and 2MASS J12095613-1004008 to get additional measurements of T dwarf H$\alpha$ emission [@Kirkpatrick2008]. These objects already had measurements of the important optical spectral features (see Section \[sec:features\]) but required flux estimates of their H$\alpha$ emission instead of just equivalent widths (see Section \[sec:Ha\]). [r c c c c c c c c c c c c c]{} 2MASS 0700+3157 & L3.5 && 8521.72$\, \pm \,0.02$ & 3.64$\, \pm \,0.04$&& 8943.98$\, \pm \,0.02$ & 2.32$\, \pm \,0.04$&& 7800.96$\, \pm \,0.03$ & 4.62$\, \pm \,0.08$&& 7948.38$\, \pm \,0.03$ & 4.34$\, \pm \,0.06$\ \[3.5pt\] 2MASS 0835-0819 & L5 && 8521.68$\, \pm \,0.01$ & 4.72$\, \pm \,0.03$&& 8943.903$\, \pm \,0.022$ & 2.56$\, \pm \,^{0.04}_{0.03}$&& 7800.79$\, \pm \,0.04$ & 6.51$\, \pm \,0.11$&& 7948.22$\, \pm \,0.02$ & 6.18$\, \pm \,0.06$\ \[3.5pt\] 2MASS 1507-1627 & L5 && 8520.42$\, \pm \,0.01$ & 5.81$\, \pm \, 0.03$&& 8942.596$\, \pm \,0.014$ & 3.41$\, \pm \,0.03$&& 7799.76$\, \pm \,0.04$ & 9.01$\, \pm \,^{0.16 }_{0.15}$&& 7947.01$\, \pm \,0.02$ & 8.13$\, \pm \,0.07$\ \[3.5pt\] 2MASS 1750-0016 & L5 && 8522.00$\, \pm \, 0.01$ & 5.84$\, \pm \,0.04$&& 8944.21$\, \pm \,0.02$ & 3.47$\, \pm \,0.04$ && 7801.20$\, \pm \, 0.05$ & 9.63$\, \pm \,^{0.20}_{0.19}$&& 7948.485$\, \pm \,0.025$ & 8.15$\, \pm \,^{ 0.09}_{ 0.08}$\ \[3.5pt\] SDSS 1416+1348 & L6 && 8519.99$\, \pm \,0.01$ & 6.43$\, \pm \,0.03$&& 8942.07$\, \pm \,0.01$ & 3.91$\, \pm \,0.03$&& 7799.24$\, \pm \, 0.06$ & 11.11$\, \pm \,0.22 $&& 7946.54$\, \pm \, 0.02$ & 9.13$\, \pm \, 0.08$\ \[3.5pt\] WISE 1647+5632 & L7 && 8521.6$\, \pm \, 0.2$ & 7.2 $\, \pm \,0.5$&& 8943.8$\, \pm \,0.3$ & 4.2$\, \pm \,0.6$&& . . . & $<42$ && 7947$\, \pm \,2$ & 12$\, \pm \,^{16}_{6}$\ \[3.5pt\] SDSS 0423-0414 & L7.5 && 8521.81$\, \pm \,0.02$ & 7.84$\, \pm \,0.07$&& 8943.86$\, \pm \, 0.03$ & 5.62$\, \pm \,0.06$&& 7801.0$\, \pm \,0.2$ & 9.3$\, \pm \,^{ 0.7 }_{ 0.6}$&& 7948.30$\, \pm \,0.07 $ & 9.22$\, \pm \,0.20$\ \[3.5pt\] SDSS 1052+4422 & L7.5 && 8521.96 $\, \pm \,0.06 $ & 6.82$\, \pm \,^{0.17}_{0.16}$&& 8944.27$\, \pm \, 0.08$ & 4.69$\, \pm \, 0.16$&& . . . & $<23 $ && 7948.7$\, \pm \, 0.3 $ & 8.6$\, \pm \,^{ 1.0 }_{ 0.9 }$\ \[3.5pt\] 2MASS 1043+2225 &L8 & & 8520.68$\, \pm \,0.06$ & 7.41$\, \pm \,0.18$&& 8942.77$\, \pm \, 0.07$ & 5.42$\, \pm \,^{ 0.16 }_{ 0.15}$&& . . . & . . . && 7947.2$\, \pm \,0.3$ & 9.6$\, \pm \, 0.9$\ 2MASS 1632+1904 & L8 && $8520.7 \pm 0.1$ & $7.6 \pm 0.3$ && $8942.2 \pm 0.3$ & $5.5 \pm 0.5$ && . . . & . . . && . . . & . . .\ \[3.5pt\] SDSS 0837-0000 & T0 && $8520.5 \pm 0.3$ & $9.0 \pm^{0.7}_{6}$ && $8942.5 \pm 0.3$ & $8.1 \pm 0.7$ && . . . & . . . && . . . & . . .\ \[3.5pt\] SIMP 0136+0933 & T2 && 8521.77$\, \pm \,0.02$ & 9.70$\, \pm \,0.06$&& 8943.969$\, \pm \,0.014$ & 8.58$\, \pm \,0.04 $&& 7801.40$\, \pm \,0.27 $ & 10.6$\, \pm \,^{ 1.2 }_{ 1.1}$&& 7948.58$\, \pm \,0.12$ & 9.96$\, \pm \,0.32$\ \[3.5pt\] & && 8519.07$\, \pm \,0.02$ & 10.16$\, \pm \,0.06$&& 8941.35$\, \pm \,0.01$ & 8.45$\, \pm \,0.04$&& 7798.8$\, \pm \,0.6$ & 14$\, \pm \,2$&& 7945.81$\, \pm \,0.13 $ & 10.96$\, \pm \,0.38$\ \[3.5pt\] WISE 0656+4205 & T2 && 8520.52$\, \pm \,0.07$ & 9.57$\, \pm \,0.23$&& 8942.54$\, \pm \,0.05$ & 8.45$\, \pm \,0.15$&& . . . & $<56$ && 7948$\, \pm \,1$ & 12$\, \pm \,3$\ \[3.5pt\] 2MASS 2139+0220 & T2 && 8518.75$\, \pm \, 0.06$ & 8.55$\, \pm \,0.17$ && 8941.11$\, \pm \,0.05$ & 7.39$\, \pm \, 0.12 $&& . . .& . . . && 7944.2$\, \pm \,0.5$ & 10$\, \pm \,1$\ \[3.5pt\] SDSS 0758+3247 & T3 && 8524.2$\, \pm \,0.3$ & 8.4$\, \pm \,^{ 0.9 }_{ 0.8}$&& 8946.3$\, \pm \,0.2$ & 7.4$\, \pm \,0.6$&& . . . & . . .&& . . . & $<37$\ \[3.5pt\] PSO 247+03 & T3 && 8522.18$\, \pm \, 0.07$ & 10.23 $\, \pm \, 0.23 $&& 8944.17$\, \pm \, 0.06 $ & 8.45$\, \pm \, 0.16 $&& . . . & $<41$ && 7951$\, \pm \,^{ 2 }_{ 1 }$ & 10$\, \pm \,^{ 5 }_{ 3 }$\ WISE 0819-0335 & T4 && 8519.97$\, \pm \, 0.12$ & 8.97$\pm 0.42 $&& 8942.00$\pm0.10$ & 8.52$\pm0.26$&& . . . & $<51$ && . . . & $<33$\ \[3.5pt\] 2MASS 1209-1004 & T4 && 8522.6$\, \pm \, 0.3$ & 12.2$\, \pm \, 0.6 $&& 8945.4$\, \pm \, 0.3$ & 9.7 $\, \pm \, 0.5 $ && . . . & . . .&& . . . & $< 10$\ \[3.5pt\] 2MASS 1750+1759 & T4 && 8521.1$\, \pm \,0.3$ & 11.7$\pm^{1.2}_{ 1.1 }$&& 8942.95$\pm0.27$ & 8.5$\pm0.7$&& . . . & . . .&& . . . & $<89$\ \[3.5pt\] SDSS J0000+2554 & T5 && 8521.48$\, \pm \, 0.07$ & 8.79$\pm0.23$&& 8943.81$\pm0.06$ & 8.38$\pm0.15$&& . . . & $<48$ && 7950$\, \pm \,^{ 2}_{ 1}$ & 10$\, \pm \,^{ 10 }_{3 }$\ 2MASS 0559-1404 & T5 && 8521.565$\, \pm \, 0.029$ & 7.73 $\, \pm \,0.10$ && 8943.66$\, \pm \,0.02$ & 7.48$\, \pm \,0.07$&& 7800.1$\, \pm \,0.5$ & 12$\, \pm \,^{3}_{2}$&& 7948.15$\, \pm \,0.25$ & 11.5$\, \pm \,0.7$\ \[3.5pt\] SDSS 0926+5847 & T5 && 8521.07$\, \pm \,0.15$ & 9.2$\, \pm \,0.4$&& 8943.6$\, \pm \,0.1$ & 8.57$\, \pm \,0.25$&& . . . & $<69$ && . . . & $<32$\ \[3.5pt\] WISE 1841+7000 & T5 && 8519.$\, \pm \,2.$ & 7$\, \pm \,^{ 4}_{3}$&& 8942$\, \pm \,1.$ & 13.822077$\, \pm \,^{ 4}_{ 3}$ && . . . & . . . && . . . & . . .\ \[3.5pt\] 2MASS 2254+3123 & T5 && 8521.29$\, \pm \, 0.10 $ & 8.7$\pm0.3$&& 8943.59$\pm0.07$ & 8.26$\pm0.18$&& . . . & $<108$ && . . . & $<25$\ \[3.5pt\] 2MASS 0243-2453 & T5.5 && 8521.5$\, \pm \,0.1$ & 8.6$\, \pm \,0.4$&& 8943.71$\, \pm \,0.10$ & 8.88$\, \pm \,0.23$&& . . . & . . .&& . . . & $<41$\ \[ 3.5pt\] 2MASS 1754+1649 & T5.5 && 8521.44$\, \pm \,0.17$ & 8.1$\, \pm \,^{0.6}_{0.5}$&& 8943.68$\, \pm \,0.15$ & 8.64$\, \pm \,0.37$&& . . . & . . . && . . . & $<69$\ \[3.5pt\] 2MASS 1231+0847 & T6 && 8521.01$\, \pm \,0.13$ & 7.1$\, \pm \,0.3$&& 8942.93$\, \pm \,0.09$ & 7.46$\, \pm \, 0.21$&& . . . & $<35$ && 7946$\, \pm \,1 $ & 11$\, \pm \,3$\ WISE 1506+7027 & T6 && 8522.19$\, \pm \, 0.28$ & 7.6$\, \pm \, 0.8$&& 8945.0$\, \pm \, 0.3$ & 7.9$\, \pm \,0.6$ && . . . & . . .&& . . . & $<40$\ \[3.5pt\] SDSS 1624+0029 & T6 && 8520.68$\, \pm \, 0.10$ & 6.65$\, \pm \,^{0.28}_{0.27}$&& 8942.78$\, \pm \,0.09$ & 7.18$\, \pm \,0.21$&& . . . & $<44$ && 7945$\, \pm \,^{ 1 }_{ 2 }$ & 10$\, \pm \,^{ 4}_{3}$\ \[3.5pt\] WISE 1019+6529 & T7 && . . . & $<19$ && 8944$\, \pm \,^{ 1}_{20}$ & 5$\, \pm \,^{5}_{ 3}$ && . . . & . . . && . . . & . . .\ \[3.5pt\] WISE 2340-0745 & T7 && 8519.9$\, \pm \,0.7 $ & 6$\, \pm \, 1 $&& 8942.4$\, \pm \,0.5$ & 7.4$\, \pm \, 0.8$ && . . . & . . . && . . . & . . .\ \[3.5pt\] 2MASS 0727+1710 & T8 && 8521.2 $\, \pm \,0.2 $ & 5.13$\, \pm \,^{0.35}_{ 0.34}$&& 8943.43$\, \pm \,0.15$ & 6.7$\, \pm \,0.3$&& . . . & $<23$ && 7949.1$\, \pm \,^{ 0.5 }_{ 0.6}$ & 8$\, \pm \,2 $\ \[3.5pt\] 2MASS 0939-2448 & T8 && 8521.7$\, \pm \,0.6$ & 2.8$\, \pm \,0.5$&& . . . & . . .&& . . . & . . .&& . . . & $<25$\ \[3.5pt\] 2MASS 1114-2618 & T8 && 8523.1$\, \pm \, 0.5$ & 4.7$\, \pm \,^{ 1.0 }_{0.8}$&& . . . & . . . && . . . & . . .&& . . . & . . . ![The T dwarf optical spectral standards including our new additions for types T3 and T4. The T0 standard is from [@Kirkpatrick2008] and the T9 is from [@Kirkpatrick2011], while the rest are from B03. The T3 and T4 spectra have not been corrected for telluric absorption but have been convolved here to match the resolution of the literature standards.[]{data-label="fig:opt_stands"}](fig4.eps){width="50.00000%"} ![The measured pEWs of the Cs <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> absorption lines at 8521 $\mathrm{\AA}$ (top) and 8943 $\mathrm{\AA}$ (bottom) as a function of optical spectral type across the T dwarf sequence. We plotted the values listed in Table \[tab:alkali\] (black circles), and also the literature measurements from B03 (grey squares), including new measurements for the L8 and T0 standards, 2MASS 1632+1904 and SDSS 0837-0000, respectively. We only plot the values with less than 20% uncertainties and include the median full errorbar length in the lower left of each plot. The absorption peaks for T2-T4 objects and declines in late T dwarfs. The scatter at a given spectral type is likely associated with differences in gravity and/or metallicity between the different brown dwarfs. The larger scatter for late T dwarfs in the Cs absorption line at 8943 $\mathrm{\AA}$ has to do with the onset of a CH$_{4}$ band around the location of the Cs line.[]{data-label="fig:csa_spt"}](fig5.eps){width="45.00000%"} Optical Spectra {#sec:opticalspec} =============== Spectral Sequence {#sec:stands} ----------------- To determine the optical spectral types for each object with new optical spectra, we compared the spectra visually with the set of optical spectral standards from L5 to T8. The optical standards are DENIS 1228-1547, for L5 (K99), 2MASS 0850+1057, for L6 (K99), DENIS 0205-1159, for L7 (K99), 2MASS 1632+1904, for L8 (K99), SDSS 0837-0000, for T0 [@Kirkpatrick2008], SDSS 1254-0122, for T2 (B03), 2MASS 0559-1404, for T5 (B03), SDSS 1624+0029, for T6 (B03), 2MASS 0415-0935, for T8 (B03) and WISE 1741+2553, for T9 [@Kirkpatrick2011]. To aid in the visual classification we also convolved the DEIMOS spectra down to the same resolution as the optical standards using a Gaussian kernel. We verified the results of the convolution process by matching our convolved DEIMOS spectra to the literature spectra of the same targets matching the resolution of the standards (ex. 2MASS 0559-1404). The new optical spectral types are included in the Table \[tab:obslog\] alongside the near-infrared spectral types from [@Burgasser2006] or [@Kirkpatrick2011]. We also show the spectra in Figure \[fig:optseq1\] and Figure \[fig:optseq2\], with the important spectral features detailed closely in Figure \[fig:exSIMP0136\]. Through this comparison we discovered that four of the spectra display features that are clearly between those of the T2 and T5 spectral standards. The morphology is best illustrated by the strength of the CrH absorption, Cs <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> lines and the H$_{2}$O absorption. This last water feature is at wavelengths that are influenced by telluric absorption in our spectra, however the astrophysical signal completely dominates (see B03). The objects PSO 247+03 and SDSS 0758+3247 showed slightly weaker CrH absorption relative to the T2 standard and slightly stronger H$_{2}$O absorption but not as strong as the T5 standard while maintaining strong Cs <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> absorption. Both of these brown dwarfs have NIR spectral types of T2. 2MASS 1750+1759 and WISEP 0819-0335 show no CrH absorption like the T5 standard but with slightly weaker H$_{2}$O and stronger Cs <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> lines. These two targets have NIR spectral types of T3.5 and T4 respectively. These targets fill the gap in spectral morphologies between T2 and T5 and we propose that PSO 247+03 and WISEP 0819-0335 be considered the optical spectral standards for T3 and T4, respectively. We plot the standards for the T dwarf optical spectral sequence in Figure \[fig:opt\_stands\]. Using these standards, we also update the optical spectral types of SDSSp J102109.6-030419 and 2MASS 12095613-1004008 of T3.5 from [@Kirkpatrick2008] to T4. ![The spectral ratios of Table \[tab:SPR\] as a function of optical spectral type. The black points are our new measurements and the grey squares comprise literature values from B03 and [@Kirkpatrick2008]. We focus on the T dwarf sequence but show the points down to L7.5 to illustrate how the ratios change across the L/T transition. The CrH(A)/ H$_2$O ratio shows the clearest and tightest trend with spectral type.[]{data-label="fig:SPR"}](fig6.eps){width="50.00000%"} Spectral Features {#sec:features} ----------------- ### Alkali Lines {#sec:alkali} We measured the set of alkali absorption lines in our new spectra. These are the Cs <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> lines at 8521 $\mathrm{\AA}$ and 8943 $\mathrm{\AA}$ and the Rb <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> lines at 7800 $\mathrm{\AA}$ and 7948 $\mathrm{\AA}$ (K99). Following B03, to measure the absorption strength of each line we simultaneously fit a Lorentz distribution to the line profile and a linear continuum to the 120 $\mathrm{\AA}$ region centered at the nominal wavelength position of each line. We used a maximum likelihood estimate and a MCMC routine implemented in `Python` to determine the best fit parameters of the model [@Patil2010]. The likelihood was constructed from the product of the probability of each datum which was assumed to be described by a normal distribution centered at the measured flux for each wavelength with the standard deviation given by the error spectrum. The model is given as $$S_{\lambda} = b + m(\lambda - \lambda_{0}) + \frac{A}{\pi} \frac{\gamma}{ (\lambda - \lambda_{0})^{2} + \gamma^{2}} \; ,$$ where $\lambda_{0}$ is the center of the absorption line, $A$ is the total flux absorbed by the line, $\gamma$ defines the width of the Lorentz distribution, $m$ is the slope of the continuum, and $b$ is the level of the continuum at the center of the line. The pseudo-equivalent widths, pEWs, for each line are computed as $$\mathrm{pEW} = A / b \; .$$ Additionally, we compared the corresponding fit using a Voigt line profile (the convolution of a Lorentz profile with a Gaussian profile) to the Lorentz profile fits. Although the Gaussian component is typically dominant in the core whereas the Lorentz profile dominates in the wings of the line from pressure broadening, we found that in all cases the fit using the Voigt line profile model tended to the Lorentz profile with little to no contribution from the Gaussian component. Gaussian line profile fits also did a poor job of fitting the data compared to the Lorentz profile. Additionally, there is a systematic bias in the measured pEWs depending on the assumed shape of the line profile. An assumed Gaussian profile yields lower pEWs than the corresponding fit using a Lorentz line profile with differences of up to 15%. These results signify the importance of pressure broadening in determining the shape of the absorption line profiles for these high gravity atmospheres. We report the pEWs for our line profile fits in Table \[tab:alkali\], where we include, in addition to 28 of the targets we observed from Table \[tab:obslog\] (all except 2MASS 0036+1821), measurements for 3 of the 7 WISE T dwarfs (see Section \[sec:obslris\]) for which we could get decent line fits, and measurements for the L8, T0 and T6 optical standards (using the literature spectra). The T2 and T8 optical standards already have alkali line fitting measurements from B03. Not every line was visible in every spectrum due to the lower flux in the fainter parts of the spectrum. If a line was clearly identified, we fit the line profile as described above. If we detected the continuum but were not able to distinguish a clear absorption line, we determined a 3$\sigma$ upper limit from the uncertainty in the continuum and the sum of the residuals in a 40 $\mathrm{\AA}$ region around the line center after the linear continuum was subtracted. When there was no clear continuum we left the entry in Table \[tab:alkali\] blank. All included, the table includes 34 distinct targets. In Figure \[fig:csa\_spt\], we plot the pEWs of the Cs <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> lines as a function of optical spectral type for the T dwarfs with black circles representing our new measurements and the grey squares representing literature data. The peak Cs <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> absorption across the T dwarf sequence occurs for mid T dwarf spectral types. [r c c c c c ]{} 2MASS 0700+3157 & L3.5 & 1.3 & 1.08 & 1.37 & 1.71\ 2MASS 0835$-$0819 & L5 & 1.41 & 1.12 & 1.72 & 1.56\ 2MASS 1507$-$1627 & L5 & 1.56 & 1.12 & 1.79 & 1.56\ 2MASS 1750$-$0016 & L5 & 1.53 & 1.18 & 1.5 & 1.56\ SDSS 1416+1348 & L6 & 1.61 & 1.14 & 1.58 & 1.78\ WISE 1647+5632 & L7 & 1.63 & 1.29 & 1.1 & 1.72\ SDSS 1052+4422 & L7.5 & 1.65 & 1.23 & 0.98 & 2.45\ SDSS 0423$-$0414 & L7.5 & 1.77 & 1.24 & 1.2 & 2.02\ 2MASS 1043+2225 & L8 & 1.66 & 1.28 & 0.95 & 2.16\ SIMP 0136+0933 & T2 & 2.3 & 1.39 & 0.752 & 4.06\ WISE 0656+4205 & T2 & 2.01 & 1.42 & 0.693 & 4.54\ 2MASS 2139+0220 & T2 & 2.11 & 1.61 & 0.64 & 3.8\ SDSS 0758+3247 & T3 & 1.93 & 1.63 & 0.713 & 3.54\ PSO 247+03 & T3 & 2.03 & 1.65 & 0.648 & 3.87\ WISE 0819$-$0335 & T4 & 1.98 & 1.55 & 0.615 & 4.89\ 2MASS 1750+1759 & T4 & 2.53 & 1.47 & 0.663 & 4.64\ SDSS J0000+2554 & T5 & 1.91 & 1.68 & 0.55 & 4.85\ 2MASS 0559$-$1404 & T5 & 1.75 & 1.59 & 0.579 & 4.61\ SDSS 0926+5847 & T5 & 1.88 & 1.55 & 0.59 & 4.49\ WISE 1841+7000 & T5 & 1.87 & 1.88 & 0.429 & 4.87\ 2MASS 2254+3123 & T5 & 1.84 & 1.55 & 0.607 & 4.9\ 2MASS 0243$-$2453 & T5.5 & 1.83 & 2.17 & 0.409 & 5.26\ 2MASS 1754+1649 & T5.5 & 1.84 & 2.16 & 0.412 & 5.57\ 2MASS 1231+0847 & T6 & 1.58 & 2.14 & 0.42 & 4.42\ WISE 1506+7027 & T6 & 1.77 & 2.4 & 0.37 & 4.23\ SDSS 1624+0029 & T6 & 1.62 & 2.18 & 0.404 & 4.26\ WISE 1019+6529 & T7 & 2.05 & 2.57 & 0.447 & 4.57\ WISE 2340$-$0745 & T7 & 1.76 & 2.35 & 0.381 & 4.15\ 2MASS 0727+1710 & T8 & 1.43 & 2.65 & 0.329 & 4.32\ 2MASS 0939$-$2448 & T8 & 1.21 & 5.85 & 0.147 & 4.77\ 2MASS 1114$-$2618 & T8 & 1.25 & 5.77 & 0.151 & 4.76\ WISE 1457+5815 & T8 & 1.47 & 2.55 & 0.364 & 3.62\ WISE 1617+1807 & T8 & 1.92 & 3.15 & 0.252 & 3.14\ WISE 1653+4444 & T8 & 1.16 & 2.11 & 0.408 & 4.17\ WISE 1741+2553 & T9 & 1.07 & 5.24 & 0.157 & 2.46 ### Spectral Ratios {#sec:SPR} We also examined the series of spectral ratios summarized by B03 in their Table 5, in particular Cs<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>(A), CrH(A), H$_{2}$0, and Color-e. The ratios measure the respective spectral features indicated, with Color-e corresponding to the overall spectral slope of the pseudo-continuum between 8450 Å and 9200 Å. Before measuring the features, we convolved down our DEIMOS spectra to the same resolution as their LRIS sample, as in Section \[sec:stands\], in order to compare their measurements with ours. We also used the line center measurements from the alkali line fitting (Section \[sec:alkali\]) to shift each spectrum to a consistent frame in line with the expected positions of the absorption features. The results are presented in Table \[tab:SPR\], where we show measurements from 28 of our newly observed targets, all except 2MASS 0036+1821 for which the spectrum did not cover the selected spectral regions, plus the ratios measured for the 7 late T dwarfs in the the literature from WISE (see Section \[sec:obslris\]). We also plot the ratios as a function of optical spectral type in Figure \[fig:SPR\], focusing on the T dwarf sequence with our newly expanded sample. As demonstrated by B03, the ratio of the CrH(A) feature to the H$_{2}$O feature tracks the T dwarf optical spectral sequence most clearly (see Figure \[fig:SPR\], top right). With our expanded data sample, we show that the relation is rather tight throughout the whole T dwarf optical sequence, despite the influence of weak telluric absorption in the H$_{2}$O index in our new data (See Section \[sec:stands\]). A quadratic fit to the spectral types as a function of CrH(A)/H$_{2}$O yields a residual scatter that is less than 1 full spectral type. This particular ratio is the best predictor of the overall spectral morphology, whereas features like the overall optical slope or the alkali line depths show considerably more scatter. Moreover, this ratio combination continues smoothly across the L/T transition. The H$_{2}$O feature, shown in the lower left of Figure \[fig:SPR\] grows gradually through the optical spectral sequence before greatly increasing for spectral types after T8. Two of our targets with new optical spectra, 2MASS 1114$-$2618 and 2MASS 0939$-$2448, showed absorption in line with the T9 optical standard WISE 1741+2553 from [@Kirkpatrick2011]. These spectra match the overall shape of the T8 standard, however the H$_{2}$O band is slightly stronger and agrees well with the T9 standard. Because the overall shape so closely matches the T8 standard, we retain the T8 optical spectral type for these objects, however they likely represent a transition to cooler objects, T9s and even Y dwarfs. These remarks are in line with the results of [@Burgasser2006b], which determine that these two objects have effective temperatures cooler than the T8 standard with an upper limit of $T_{\mathrm{eff}} \lesssim 700$ K. ![Zoom in of the region around the 6563 $\mathrm{\AA}$ H$\alpha$ emission line (vertical dashed line) for the spectra of 2MASS J1750-0016, SDSS 0423-0414 and 2MASS 1043+2225. The spectra have the local continuum subtracted and are offset by a constant for clarity with the line center marked by a dashed line. The vertical dotted lines delineate the region used to sum the H$\alpha$ flux. We report the measurements of these fluxes in Table \[tab:Halpha\].[]{data-label="fig:Ha_prof"}](fig7.eps) ![The normalized spectrum of 2MASS 0036+1821 in the region around H$\alpha$. The dashed line marks the expected position of the emission line and the dotted lines denote the region used to add up the emission line flux once the continuum has been subtracted. Unlike the observations for the targets in Figure \[fig:Ha\_prof\], the spectrum for 2MASS 0036+1821 was not flux calibrated.[]{data-label="fig:M0036"}](fig8.eps) H$\alpha$ Activity {#sec:Ha} ================== Of particular interest in this study is the prevalence of H$\alpha$ emission in late L dwarfs and T dwarfs. Most of the spectra did not show a clear indication of H$\alpha$ emission, see Table \[tab:Halpha\]. From our observations, only 2MASS 0036+1821, 2MASS 1750$-$0016, SDSS 0423$-$0414 and 2MASS 1043+2225 had excess emission around the location of H$\alpha$. We plot the corresponding H$\alpha$ profiles in Figure \[fig:Ha\_prof\] and in Figure \[fig:M0036\]. To measure this flux we fit a line to the 40 $\mathrm{\AA}$ region around the nominal location of the emission line, excluding the 6 $\mathrm{\AA}$ region centered at 6563 $\mathrm{\AA}$. We subtracted the linear fit from the spectrum and summed the flux between 6560 and 6566 $\mathrm{\AA}$ as the flux in the emission line. The uncertainty was determined from the error spectrum for the sum of that region with the uncertainty in the continuum below the line added in quadrature. In Table \[tab:Halpha\], we report the flux measurements with the 1$\sigma$ uncertainty level as well as the 3$\sigma$ upper limits. For these measurements we did not apply the line fitting procedure developed in Section \[sec:alkali\] for a couple of reasons. Firstly, This approach allowed us to compare our measurements to the values in the literature in a consistent way. Secondly, the line fitting assumes a particular shape for the line profile, which is justified for the absorption lines but not for these emission lines. We did attempt to fit example profiles, Gauss, Lorentz and Voigt, however one did not particularly outperform the others. We calculated the ratio of the luminosity in H$\alpha$ to the brown dwarf’s bolometric luminosity, $L_{\mathrm{H\alpha}}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}$, by making use of new bolometric corrections from [@Filippazzo2015], which uses the newly defined absolute magnitude scale ($M_{\odot} = +4.74$). We use the J band bolometric correction as a function of spectral type to determine the bolometric luminosity since it has the least amount of scatter for the field T dwarfs [@Filippazzo2015]. The values of $L_{\mathrm{H\alpha}}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}$ for our observations are also listed in Table \[tab:Halpha\]. We have also compiled the literature measurements from [@Burgasser2000], [@Burgasser2002b], and B03, and report them in Table \[tab:HalphaL\], with updated values of $L_{\mathrm{H\alpha}}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}$ based on the new bolometric corrections. For three of the objects with literature measurements shown in Table \[tab:HalphaL\], we took new spectra in our current survey with H$\alpha$ measurements shown in Table \[tab:Halpha\]: 2MASS 0559$-$1404, SDSS 1624+0029, and 2MASS 0727+1710. Table \[tab:HalphaL\] also includes flux measurements for SDSSp J083717.22-000018.3, SDSSp J102109.6-030419, and 2MASS J12095613-1004008, based on archival spectra, which we reanalyzed to provide new limits on the H$\alpha$ flux. ![image](fig9.eps){width="85.00000%"} ![The detection fraction of objects as a function of optical spectral type from L dwarfs to T dwarfs based on the compilations by [@Schmidt2015],[@Burgasser2015], and this paper. Half spectral types have been rounded down to earlier spectral types and the errorbars represent the 68% confidence interval of the corresponding binomial distribution. At spectral types later than about L4/L5 the prevalence of H$\alpha$ detections is low.[]{data-label="fig:DetectFrac"}](fig10.eps){width="45.00000%"} In Figure \[fig:LHaLbol\], we plot $L_{\mathrm{H\alpha}}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}$ as a function of optical spectral type. Measurements in Table \[tab:Halpha\] and Table \[tab:HalphaL\] are plotted as red filled circles with new limits as black downward triangles and limits from the literature as grey downward triangles. In the instances in which there were multiple measurements for a single target, either from our observations or in the literature, we plotted a detection, if available, or the most stringent limit for the non-detections. For comparison with earlier spectral types, we have also included measurements (blue squares) and limits (grey tri-symbols) compiled by [@Schmidt2015] and supplemented by [@Burgasser2015]. These values include measurements from K99, [@Kirkpatrick2000], [@Hall2002], [@Liebert2003], [@Schmidt2007], [@Reiners2008], [@Burgasser2011], and [@Schmidt2015]. We do not distinguish binaries in this plot, but note that for those objects, the optical spectrum is dominated by the warmer component and thus the points are representative of the position corresponding to the primary. In Figure \[fig:DetectFrac\], we plot the fraction of objects shown in Figure \[fig:LHaLbol\] that have H$\alpha$ detections as a function of optical spectral type from L dwarfs through to T dwarfs. Since the data comes from a variety of sources and surveys with different sensitivity limits there are observational biases inherent to this detection fraction. Additionally, many brown dwarfs have been demonstrated to exhibit variability in their H$\alpha$ emission, potentially from rotation [@Berger2009; @Hallinan2015] or longer timescales (see Section \[sec:0036\]). Thus, objects with only non-detections may yet display emission from further monitoring and/or more sensitive observations, so the detection fractions of Figure \[fig:DetectFrac\] are systematically low. With these caveats, our extended brown dwarf sample allows us to assess the prevalence of the H$\alpha$ emission, going from L dwarfs to T dwarfs. The data in Figure \[fig:DetectFrac\] demonstrates that the declining prevalence of H$\alpha$ emission, demonstrated for early-to-mid L dwarfs in [@Schmidt2015], declines to a low level by L4/L5 spectral types and is consistent with this low level through to late T dwarfs. Although the complete sample presented here does not have the virtue of a consistent detection threshold, as the subsample analyzed by [@Schmidt2015] does for the L dwarf activity fractions, putting everything together allows for a straightforward comparison between the T dwarfs and the L dwarfs. It is clear that the number of objects with H$\alpha$ emission for spectral types later than about mid-L is low. For all of the L dwarfs in this compilation, 67/195, $34\pm^{3.5}_{3.2}$%, show H$\alpha$ emission. This detection fraction, however, is skewed by the high number of active early L dwarfs. For mid-to-late L dwarfs (L4-L8), only 7/75, $9.3\pm^{4.5}_{2.4}$%, show H$\alpha$ emission. For comparison, despite nearly doubling the number of measurements available in the literature for T dwarfs, our results show that most T dwarfs show no emission or very weak emission. Only 3/34, $8.8 \pm^{7.4}_{2.8}$%, distinct systems with T dwarf optical spectral types show H$\alpha$ emission (see Table \[tab:Halpha\] and Table \[tab:HalphaL\]). Luhman 16B, the nearby T dwarf, also has an EW limit, EW $<1.5$ Å, but no flux limit, so we did not include it in Table \[tab:HalphaL\] [@Faherty2014]. Additionally, the 7 WISE T dwarfs with optical spectra from [@Kirkpatrick2011], but no flux measurements, also do not show any indication of H$\alpha$ emission. Inclusion of these targets leads to the statistic that only 3/42, $7.1\pm^{6.2}_{2.2}$%, of T dwarf systems show this emission feature. Given the broad similarities between the H$\alpha$ detections of T dwarfs and late L dwarfs, we can also group them together to get an overall detection fraction for optical spectral types L4 - T8 of 10/109, $9.2\pm^{3.5}_{2.1}$%. Inclusion of the additional 8 T dwarfs without flux limits gives, for L4-T9, a detection rate of 10/117, $8.5\pm^{3.3}_{1.9}$%. Since, we do not treat binaries separately, these figures could even decrease when accounting for each component in multiple systems. Interestingly, these detection rates for late L dwarfs and T dwarfs are comparable to the total detection rate, $\sim$7 %, in surveys looking for brown dwarf radio emission in objects $\ge$L6 [@Kao2016; @Lynch2016]. If auroral processes are the dominant mechanisms responsible for magnetic emission in late L dwarfs and T dwarfs, these results suggest that geometric beaming of the radio emission is potentially totally absent or may not significantly affect the auroral detection rates. [r c c c ]{} 2MASS 0036+1821 & L3.5 & ... & $-6.1$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 0700+3157 & L3.5 & $<15$ & $<-6.4$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 0835$-$0819 & L5 & $<12$ & $<-6.5$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 1507$-$1627 & L5 & $<17$ & $<-6.5$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 1750$-$0016 & L5 & $21.4 \pm 4.8$ & $-6.2 \pm 0.1$\ \[2pt\] SDSS 1416+1348 & L6 & $<18$ & $<-6.6$\ \[2pt\] WISE 1647+5632 & L7 & $<4.6$ & $<-5.6$\ \[2pt\] SDSS 0423$-$0414 & L7.5 & $16.3 \pm 1.7$ & $-5.9 \pm 0.1$\ \[2pt\] SDSS 1052+4422 & L7.5 & $<4.7$ & $<-5.8$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 1043+2225 & L8 & $4.7 \pm 1.5 $ & $-5.8 \pm 0.2$\ \[2pt\] SIMP 0136+0933 & T2 & $<4.9$ & $<-6.6$\ \[2pt\] WISE 0656+4205 & T2 & $<3.1$ & $<-6.0$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 2139+0220& T2 & $<4.8$ & $<-6.0$\ \[2pt\] SDSS 0758+3247 & T3 & $<9.6$ & $<-5.8$\ \[2pt\] PSO 247+03 & T3 & $<4.5$ & $<-6.0$\ \[2pt\] WISE 0819$-$0335 & T4 & $<6.6$ & $<-5.7$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 1750+1759 & T4 & $<13$ & $<-5.0$\ \[2pt\] SDSS J0000+2554 & T5 & $<5.7$ & $<-5.7$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 0559$-$1404 & T5 & $<5.1$ & $<-6.3$\ \[2pt\] SDSS 0926+5847 & T5 & $<4.5$ &$<-5.5$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 2254+3123 & T5 & $<4.8$ & $<-5.8$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 0243$-$2453 & T5.5 & $<3.8$ & $<-5.7$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 1754+1649 & T5.5 & $<5.1$ & $<-5.4$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 1231+0847 & T6 & $<8.4$ & $ < -5.3$\ \[2pt\] WISE 1506+7027 & T6 & $<5.8$ & $<-6.0$\ \[2pt\] SDSS 1624+0029 & T6 & $<4.0$ & $<-5.7$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 0727+1710 & T8 & $<4.2$ & $<-5.7$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 0939$-$2448 & T8 & $<2.8$ & $<-5.8$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 1114$-$2618 & T8 & $<6.8$ & $<-5.4$ [r c c c ]{} SDSS 0837$-$0000 & T0 & $<4.4$ & $<5.3$\ \[2pt\] SDSS1254$-$0122 & T2 & $7.5 \pm 2.5$& $-5.9 \pm 0.2$\ \[2pt\] SDSS 1021$-$0304 & T4 & $<8.3$ & $<-5.3$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 1209$-$1004 & T4 & $<1.7$ & $<-6.1$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 0559$-$1404 & T5& $<6.1$ & $<-6.2$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 0755+2212 & T6 & $<12$ & $<-5.1$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 1225$-$2739 & T6 & $<6.7$& $<-5.5$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 1503+2525 & T6& $<9.6$ & $<-5.9$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 1534$-$2952 & T6& $<17$ & $<-5.3$\ \[2pt\] SDSS 1624+0029 & T6 & $<4$ & $<-5.7$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 0937+2931 & T7 & $<3.9$ & $<-6.2$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 1047+2124& T7& $5.9 \pm 2.7$ & $-5.5 \pm 0.2$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 1217-0311 & T7& $<7.7$ & $ <-5.4$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 1237+6526 & T7 & $74.4 \pm 0.8$ &$-4.2\pm0.1$\ \[2pt\] SDSS 1346$-$0031 & T7 & $<7$ & $ <-5.2$\ \[2pt\] GL570D & T7 & $<6.5$ & $<-5.6$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 0415$-$0935 & T8 & $<7.9$ & $<-5.5$\ \[2pt\] 2MASS 0727+1710 & T8 & $<3.6$& $<-5.9$ Interesting Individual Objects {#sec:objects} ============================== 2MASS 0036+1821 {#sec:0036} --------------- This target is one of the few L dwarfs to exhibit detectable quiescent radio emission, as well as periodic highly polarized radio pulses [@Berger2002; @Berger2005; @Hallinan2008; @McLean2012]. Consequently, there have been numerous studies examining the magnetic activity of this object, looking for X-ray, radio and H$\alpha$ emission [@Berger2005; @Hallinan2008; @Reiners2008]. Previous studies in the optical report limits on the H$\alpha$ emission of EW $<0.5 \; \mathrm{\AA}$ and $<1.0 \; \mathrm{\AA}$ from [@Kirkpatrick2000] and [@Reiners2008], respectively. The most stringent previous limit comes from a 4 hr monitoring observation by [@Berger2005] in which they do not detect anything to a limit of $\log( L_{\mathrm{H\alpha}}/L_{\mathrm{bol}} ) \lesssim -6.7$. As the only radio pulsing brown dwarf to not show H$\alpha$ emission, we decided to observe it further due to the potential association of the radio emission to H$\alpha$ emission. Our new observations on 2012 July 19th (UT), clearly show an emission feature at 6563 $\mathrm{\AA}$ with EW = $0.59 \pm 0.08$ and $\log( L_{\mathrm{H\alpha}}/L_{\mathrm{bol}})$ = -6.1 (see Figure \[fig:M0036\]). Since our spectrum of 2MASS 0036+1821 was not flux calibrated, we did not measure the flux of H$\alpha$ emission, instead, we used the revised $\chi$ factors of [@Schmidt2014] to convert the measured EW to $\log( L_{\mathrm{H\alpha}}/L_{\mathrm{bol}})$. This measurement is in line with some of the previous limits, however, the detection greatly exceeds the limit placed by [@Berger2005]. Although many L dwarfs have been shown to exhibit variable H$\alpha$ emission, as evidenced in the compilation by [@Schmidt2015], the emission is generally not as weak as we have detected for 2MASS 0036+1821, nor have most of these targets been monitored over their full rotational periods. Thus, the intermittent variability that we are detecting, at timescales definitively exceeding the rotational period, represents a new phenomena. To explain their observed radio emission, [@Berger2005] considered the possibility that it could be the result of enhanced activity due to a tidal interaction with a close in companion which orbits on a timescale consistent with the 3 hr period in their data. More recent results, however, positively attribute the radio emission to the ECMI and the periodic signature to a combination of the brown dwarf’s rotation and the beaming effect of the emission mechanism [@Hallinan2008]. Additionally, the new H$\alpha$ emission suggests the presence of long-term variability to the magnetic processes. In the context of auroral radio emission and its potential connection to H$\alpha$ emission, the intermittent variability of this object can be coherently explained via a potential flux tube interaction between the brown dwarf and a satellite, whose orbit modulates the long-term H$\alpha$ emission. Energetic electrons moving along the field lines are responsible for the radio pulses and generate the H$\alpha$ emission when they precipitate into the atmosphere and deposit their energy at the flux tube footpoint. This scenario is analogous to the interaction between Jupiter and its moon Io (e.g. @Vasavada1999). For this scenario to be consistent with the data, the satellite must orbit with a period $\gtrsim8$ hrs, or else the monitoring campaign of [@Berger2005] should have seen some indication of H$\alpha$ emission. The presence of a potential companion is also consistent with the inclination, $i$, of this system. [@Crossfield2014b] report a $\varv \sin i$ of $40.0 \pm 2.0$ km s$^{-1}$, which is a weighted average of the consistent measurements from [@Jones2005], [@ZapateroOsorio2006] , and [@Reiners2008]. Early efforts to understand the magnetic emission from 2MASS 0036+1821 were confounded by the low $\varv \sin i = 15 \pm 5$ km s$^{-1}$ measurement from [@Schweitzer2001]. However, [@Reiners2008] attributed that outlying value to mismatches between the observed spectra and the atmospheric models used by [@Schweitzer2001]. Using a rotational period of 3.08 hrs, $\varv \sin i$ of 40 km s$^{-1}$ and a radii range between 0.9 $R_{\mathrm{Jup}}$ and 1 $R_{\mathrm{Jup}}$, for this field brown dwarf, gives the range of inclinations, $i \sim 80$-$90^{\circ}$ [@Hallinan2008]. During the course of the satellite’s orbital evolution, the corresponding flux tube footpoint, the location of the H$\alpha$ emission, traces a path around the magnetic axis of the brown dwarf. Since the magnetic axis is not likely to be very misaligned with the rotational axis (for example, Jupiter’s magnetic axis differs by only $\sim10^{\circ}$ from its rotational axis @Badman2015), and since the brown dwarf has a high inclination, it is very plausible that a hidden satellite could be modulating the H$\alpha$ for this target, the emission being visible during certain orbital phases but hidden on the opposite face of the brown dwarf during others. Depending on its orbital semi-major axis and orbital inclination, there is a possibility that such a satellite could be transiting the system. For example, an Earth sized satellite around a Jupiter sized brown dwarf would produce a transit depth of $\delta = (R_{\oplus} / R_{\mathrm{Jup}})^{2} = 0.008$. Photometric monitoring from the ground by [@Harding2013] detected rotational variability in two 5 hour observations in $I$ band observations of 2MASS 0036+1821 with 1% photometric precision, however they did not see any transits. Spitzer monitoring with 0.1% photometric precision also detected variability but no transits in their 14 hr observation [@Metchev2015]. These observing campaigns could have missed the transit for a longer period satellite, or the object may not be transiting at all. By comparison, Io orbits Jupiter with an 1.77 day period. If an Earth sized planet is placed in a 1.77 day orbit around a 50 $M_{\mathrm{Jup}}$ brown dwarf of radius $R_{\mathrm{Jup}}$, it would orbit at a distance of about 22 $R_{\mathrm{Jup}}$. The plane of the orbit would need to be inclined at an angle, $i_{p}$, such that the $\cos i_{p} < (R_{\star} + R_{p}) / r$, for the planet to transit (for $i_{p} = 0$, the plane of the orbit coincides with the plane of the sky, face on; @Winn2010). Using these orbital parameters gives an inclination of $i_{p} > 87.1^{\circ}$; assuming that all orbital inclination are equally likely gives such a satellite a 3% probability of transiting. If the orbital inclination is consistent with the rotation axis, as it is in many exoplanetery systems, the chances of transiting are much higher [@MortonWinn2014]. The current data is suggestive, but more extensive monitoring is required to confirm whether a satellite body is responsible for the long-term modulation of the H$\alpha$ emission. J1750$-$0016 ------------ 2MASS 1750$-$0016 is a L5.5 dwarf discovered by [@Kendall2007]. Only recently was this target observed at optical wavelengths by [@Burgasser2015] and they place an H$\alpha$ EW emission limit of $<0.4 \; \mathrm{\AA}$. On the other hand, we detect excess emission at the location of H$\alpha$ in our DEIMOS spectrum of this target and measure an emission strength of EW $=0.46 \pm 0.10 \; \mathrm{\AA}$ (see Figure \[fig:Ha\_prof\] and Table \[tab:Halpha\]). Although this emission is rather weak, [@Burgasser2015] report detections of a similar level in some of the other targets in their sample. Our new findings suggest that this target could have variable H$\alpha$ emission like 2MASS 0036+1821 or many of the variable targets compiled by [@Schmidt2015]. SDSS 0423-0414AB {#sec:M0423} ---------------- This target was revealed to be a binary system by [@Burgasser2005] in HST NICMOS imaging, with a L6 primary and T2 secondary. The target also showed strong H$\alpha$ emission, with EW = $3\; \mathrm{\AA}$ and strong Li <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> absorption, with EW = $11$ Å [@Kirkpatrick2008]. We used our new DEIMOS observations to once again measure these features, looking for indications of variability. We measured the H$\alpha$ emission, as described in Section \[sec:Ha\], to be EW = $2.95 \pm 0.30$. This value is consistent with the values reported in the literature, suggesting that the emission may be steady across several year time scales. We also compared the different measurements of the Li <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> absorption. We applied the alkali line fitting from Section \[sec:alkali\] to both our new DEIMOS spectrum and the previous LRIS spectrum from [@Kirkpatrick2008]. Both spectra yielded consistent results, however they were systematically higher than the reported values in the literature. This is likely due to the fact that the Lorentz line profile includes absorption in the wings of the distribution that may not be included by simply subtracting a continuum and adding up the flux in a predefined region around the line center. For consistency with the literature, we report an EW = $11.1 \pm 0.4$, in line with the literature value. SDSS 1052+4422 -------------- This target had been designated as an early T dwarf (T0.5) by [@Chiu2006] in their discovery paper, based on the NIR spectrum. However, [@Dupuy2015] showed that SDSS 1052+4422 is actually a binary system from adaptive optics imaging. Their detailed study was able to determine dynamical masses of each component based on astrometric monitoring [@Dupuy2015]. They also decomposed the composite NIR spectrum from the IRTF/SpeX library and determine spectral types of L6.5 $\pm$ 1.5 and T1.5 $\pm$ 1.0 [@Dupuy2015]. Our new integrated light optical spectrum of this target fit between the L7 and L8 optical standards, and we assigned it a spectral type of L7.5. Our observations are thus consistent with the binary decomposition of L6.5 and T1.5, and provide further constraints on the properties of these objects. Binary systems like these, straddling the L/T transition, are important benchmarks for understand the evolution of brown dwarfs. For a given system, a large discrepancy between the NIR integrated light spectral type and the optical integrated light spectral type can be used as an indicator of a potential binary. This highlights the ability of optical spectra, as a counterpart to the NIR spectra, to be a useful diagnostic in verifying binary systems (see also @Manjavacas2015). ![The spectra of 2MASS 1043+2225 zoomed in around the location of the Li <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> line at 6708 $\mathrm{\AA}$, showing both the spectrum from C07 (top; from the Ultracool RIZzo Spectral Library) and our DEIMOS spectrum (bottom). Our new spectrum shows a dip in the observed flux that could be Li <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> absorption, however the previous spectrum from C07 only shows a small trough, in line with the continuum noise. We consider the corresponding lithium detection for this target as tentative.[]{data-label="fig:M1043_Li"}](fig11.eps){width="50.00000%"} 2MASS 1043+2225 --------------- 2MASS 1043+2225 is a late L dwarf reported by C07 to have tentative indications of H$\alpha$ emission. Although, they see excess flux at the location of H$\alpha$, their results were inconclusive. Our new observations of this target confirm that this object does indeed exhibit weak H$\alpha$ emission at a level of $\log(L_{\mathrm{H\alpha}}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}) = -5.8 \pm 0.2$ (see Table \[tab:Halpha\]). The detection is only just at the 3.1$\sigma$ level, very similar to the weak detections of 2MASS 1047+2124 and 2MASS 1254-0122 from B03. We show the spectrum of this target around the H$\alpha$ line in Figure \[fig:Ha\_prof\]. For this object, we also report a tentative detection of Li <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> at 6708 $\mathrm{\AA}$. In Figure \[fig:M1043\_Li\], we show this region of the spectrum alongside the the spectrum of C07, taken from the Ultracool RIZzo Spectral Library. We measured the absorption to have an EW = $10 \pm 3\; \mathrm{\AA}$, in line with the typical EW of L8 dwarfs with Li <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> detections [@Kirkpatrick2008]. Our more recent, higher resolution, observation shows that there may be an absorption feature there, however, the earlier spectrum does not. We consider this to be a tentative detection which will require deeper observations to confirm. If the absorption is real, this target would be added to the few very late L dwarfs and T dwarfs to display this important physical indicator of mass and age. ![A comparison of the DEIMOS spectrum of WISE1647+5632 (orange) against the optical standards for spectral types L6, L7 and L8 (black). The best match is produced by the L7 standard. This spectral type differs greatly from the NIR spectral type of L9p, and suggests that this target may be an unresolved binary (see Section \[sec:WISE1647\])[]{data-label="fig:WISE1647"}](fig12.eps){width="50.00000%"} WISE 1647+5632 {#sec:WISE1647} -------------- This target is included in the WISE discoveries from [@Kirkpatrick2011] and has a preliminary parallax placing it within 10 pc of the Sun. [@Kirkpatrick2011] assigned this object a NIR spectral type of L9 peculiar from an IRTF/SpeX spectrum, noting the discrepancies at H and K band between the spectrum and the standards. They added this object to a collection of unusually red L dwarfs. However, our optical spectrum of this target matches the L7 standard very well (see Figure \[fig:WISE1647\]). Our findings suggest that WISE 1647+5632 is likely an unresolved binary system straddling the L/T transition. 2MASS 2139+0220 --------------- This target is one of the prominent T dwarfs with high amplitude variability in the J band, displaying up to 26% variability [@Radigan2012]. We included it in the sample to investigate if there could be any connection between the magnetic emissions and the cloud phenomena. We did not find any H$\alpha$ emission and report an emission upper limit of EW $<8 \; \mathrm{\AA}$. There have also been some suggestions that this object could be a binary due to its somewhat peculiar NIR spectrum [@Bardalez2014]. Our observed spectrum matches the T2 optical spectral standard very well. This corroborates findings by [@Manjavacas2015] which rule out this scenario. The peculiar spectrum is thus, likely a consequence of a patchy atmosphere and the impact of cloud variability on the emergent spectral flux. SIMP 0136+0933 {#sec:SIMP} -------------- SIMP 0136+0933 is one of the archetypes for cloud variability at the L/T transition; it was found to exhibit 50 mmag photometric variability in J band and has since been followed up throughout the infrared to characterize the patchy cloud structures of its atmosphere [@Artigau2009; @Apai2013; @Radigan2014]. As a potentially very interesting object in the context of auroral activity, we observed it with LRIS on 2014 August 27th, and again with DEIMOS on 2014 December 22nd. In the first epoch we took two consecutive 1200 s exposures, whereas in the second epoch we took two exposures of 1800 s each, separated by 1.5 hrs. In no exposure did we detect any excess flux at the location of the H$\alpha$ line. We measured stringent limits on the corresponding emission line flux of SIMP 0136+0933 from the co-added DEIMOS spectrum (see Table \[tab:Halpha\]). Because we detect the underlying continuum in the combined spectra, for this target, we also report EW emission limits of $<3.2\; \mathrm{\AA}$ and $<3.5\; \mathrm{\AA}$ for the August and December nights, respectively. In the context of auroral emission, which may be rotationally modulated, the 1.5 hrs of separation between the exposures in December correspond to a phase shift of 0.63, using the photometric rotational period of 2.39 hrs [@Apai2013]. Although, it remains possible that we missed potential optical auroral emission from this source, the series of observations at different phases suggests that it may indeed lack H$\alpha$ emission. ![The spectrum of SIMP 0136+0933 around the Li <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> line at 6708 $\mathrm{\AA}$. The spectrum is normalized with the continuum profile subtracted. The line corresponds to a Lorentz line profile model fit of the data (see Section \[sec:alkali\]). []{data-label="fig:exSIMP_Li"}](fig13.eps){width="50.00000%"} Our high signal-to-noise ratio spectrum, S/N $\sim6$ at 6800 Å and S/N $\sim96$ at 8600 Å, of SIMP 0136+0933 also allowed us to look for the presence of Li at 6708 $\mathrm{\AA}$. We plot this spectrum in Figure \[fig:exSIMP0136\] with the inset zoomed in on the location of the Li <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> absorption. It is clearly present. We fit the absorption line as we fit the other alkali lines in Section \[sec:alkali\] with a Lorentz line profile and over-plotted the model result in Figure \[fig:exSIMP\_Li\]. As in the case of SDSS 0423-0414, we report EW values not based on the fit but a simple summation of the absorption line region (see Section \[sec:M0423\]). We measure EW values of $6.6 \pm 1.0\; \mathrm{\AA}$ and $7.8 \pm 1.0\; \mathrm{\AA}$ for the August and December observations respectively. SIMP 0136+0933 joins the T0.5 dwarf, Luhman 16B (EW $= 3.8 \pm 0.4$ ), as the second T dwarf and the latest spectral type object with a clear lithium detection in its atmosphere [@Faherty2014]. Although the spread of the values between the two objects is in line with the spread of detections for L8 dwarfs from [@Kirkpatrick2008], this absorption appears to be particularly strong by comparison given that SIMP 0136+0933 has a later spectral type and possibly cooler atmosphere. As [@Lodders1999] discussed, the Li <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> in the atmosphere becomes readily depleted by the formation of LiCl gas and other Li bearing substances like LiOH in cool dwarf atmosphere below temperatures of about 1600 K. [@Kirkpatrick2008] showed that the peak of Li <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> absorption takes place around a spectral type of L6.5 and declines for later spectral types. ![The Cs <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> absorption lines of SIMP 0136+0933 between the observations in August and December plotted as solid lines and the Lorentz line profile model fits plotted as dashed lines. The pEWs of the lines are significantly different and likely reflect spectroscopy variability between the two observations for this photometrically variable target, see Section \[sec:SIMP\][]{data-label="fig:CsComp_SIMP"}](fig14.eps){width="50.00000%"} Thus, the strong Li <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> of SIMP 0136+0933 is somewhat anomalous, however it is interesting to note that in addition to SIMP 0136+0933, Luhman 16B also exhibits cloud variability [@Crossfield2014; @Burgasser2014]. The presence of Li may be related to the transition from L to T spectral types within a patchy cloud atmosphere . Indeed, although our Li <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> EW measurements from the different epochs are formally in agreement within the 2$\sigma$ level, the central values differ by 15%. If this is due to cloud phenomena in the atmosphere, the spectra from the different epochs could be dominated by flux from atmospheric levels with differing Li <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> depletion. The two different epochs did allow us to observe spectroscopic variability in the other optical absorption lines. We note that the difference of the pEWs in the co-added spectra from the two epochs, for the lines reported in Table \[tab:alkali\], are statistically significant. This is especially true of the Cs <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> lines where the signal-to-noise ratio is greatest. For the first epoch, 2014 August 27th, we measured pEWs of $10.16\pm0.06$ Å and $8.45\pm0.04$ for the Cs <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> lines at 8521 Å and 8943 Å respectively. For the second epoch, 2014 December 22nd, we measured pEWs of $9.70\pm0.06$ Å and $8.58\pm0.04$ for the same lines, respectively. The difference between the pEW measurements for the Cs <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> line at 8521 Å is different from 0 at the 5.4$\sigma$ level and similarly at the 2.3$\sigma$ level for the Cs <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> line at 8943 Å. The Rb <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> lines at 7948 Å were measured to have pEWs of $10.96\pm0.38$ Å and $9.96\pm0.32$ Å for epoch 1 and epoch 2, respectively, yielding a difference that is significant at the 2$\sigma$ level. In Figure \[fig:CsComp\_SIMP\], we plot a comparison of these spectral line profiles with the continuum subtracted and the corresponding Lorentz profile model fits (see section \[sec:alkali\]). The pEW measurements track the changes in the absorption relative to the nearby pseudo-continuum. The two different Cs <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> line observations did not show the same degree of variation, suggesting that this variability may be driven as much by differences in the relative continuum in the different parts of the spectrum as in the individual absorption line strength. These results provide support for the interpretation of cloud variability in the atmosphere of this object and supports the idea that there could be significant optical variability to coincide with the large-amplitude NIR variability, potentially even in the Li <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> absorption. In fact, [@Heinze2015] showed that photometric optical variability in brown dwarfs could be stronger than the NIR variability and [@Buenzli2015] used Hubble Space Telescope grism observations to demonstrate spectroscopic variability from 0.8 $\mu$m to 1.15 $\mu$m in both components of Luhman16AB. Discussion and Summary {#sec:summary} ====================== We have conducted a new survey at red optical wavelengths (6300 $\mathrm{\AA}$ - 9700 Å) looking for H$\alpha$ emission in a large sample of late L dwarfs and T dwarfs. We acquired new optical spectra for 18 targets without previous spectra and several additional spectra looking for potential variability in the emission features. We have nearly doubled the number of red optical spectra available for T dwarfs and used our new observations, in conjunction with available spectra, to examine prominent spectral features and the optical T dwarf sequence. Our findings include two objects that fill the gap between the T dwarf optical spectral standards from T2 - T5. We proposed PSO 247+03 as the T3 spectral standard and WISE 0819-0335 as the T4 spectral standard. These two targets are relatively bright and are both near the equatorial plane, allowing for observational access from both the northern and southern hemispheres. We also observed Li <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> absorption at 6708 $\mathrm{\AA}$ in the spectrum of SIMP 0136+0933, one of the most prominent IR photometric variable brown dwarfs. This object becomes only the second T dwarf and the latest type object to display this feature. We also see spectroscopic variability in the strength of the absorption lines that is likely related to the heterogeneous cloud phenomena present in the atmosphere. Our survey included new H$\alpha$ detections for 2MASS 0036+1821, 2MASS 1750$-$0016, and 2MASS 1043+2225 and many more limits on the H$\alpha$ flux for late L dwarfs and T dwarfs (see Section \[sec:Ha\]). Our focus on these objects has allowed us to investigate the prevalence of magnetic activity in objects with low temperature atmospheres. The persistent magnetic emissions of many objects in this regime and the discovery of continued activity, even in late T dwarfs points to deficiencies in the understanding of magnetic atmospheric processes and/or new phenomena that fall outside of the standard paradigm of stellar activity. For the warmer UCDs, chromospheric emission may still persist. Recent work by [@RodriguezBarrera2015] on the ability of UCD atmospheres to become magnetized suggests that the plasma conditions may allow for objects to remain magnetized down to an $T_{\mathrm{eff}} \sim 1400$ K, 900 K cooler than the similar magnetization threshold considered by [@Mohanty2002]. This lower threshold is similar to the typical effective temperatures of L4/L5 dwarfs [@Kirkpatrick2005] and would coincide with where we see the detection of H$\alpha$ emission bottom out (see Figure \[fig:DetectFrac\]). However, for even cooler objects, the strong optical and radio emissions of some objects remain difficult to explain. The emergence of the ECMI as a coherent explanation for the periodic radio emissions of numerous studies across the UCD regime provides an alternative. These studies argue that auroral processes are capable of driving the periodic radio and optical emissions that have been observed and are also consistent with potential long-term variability (see Section \[sec:0036\]). The benchmark objects that have been used to investigate these processes have predominantly been systems of either late M or early L spectral types. These kinds of objects might exhibit both auroral and/or chromospheric emissions, requiring detailed study to distinguish. This confusion is alleviated when examining the population of late L dwarfs and T dwarfs with atmospheres for which standard Solar-like magnetic processes have difficulty generating chromospheric emissions, due to the highly neutral atmospheres. If the H$\alpha$ emission in these objects is connected to the radio auroral emission, then the prevalence of this emission provides an estimate of the overall occurrence rate of auroral activity. Our measurements of T dwarf H$\alpha$ emission revealed that this activity indicator is less common than previously thought. B03 found three T dwarfs in about a dozen objects to exhibit this emission, two weak emitters and 1 very strong emitter. Our new observations and other work since their initial efforts show that the emission in this regime is actually much rarer and likely only seen in $\sim$7% of T dwarf systems. When considering objects of spectral type from L4-T8, the detection rate remains only $9.2\pm^{3.5}_{2.1}$ % (as low as $8.5\pm^{3.3}_{1.9}$% for L4-T9). It is possible that some of these targets exhibit variability and we did not observe the targets at the right point in time to catch the emission, however that is unlikely to be the case for all of the targets. Nevertheless, only extended monitoring of each target will be able to rule out that scenario. Even if the occurrence rate of auroral activity is well characterized by our H$\alpha$ detection rate of $\sim$10 %, the question of the nature of the underlying mechanism that governs the emission still remains. [@RodriguezBarrera2015] point out that, despite having less magnetized atmospheres, objects with $T_{\mathrm{eff}}<1400$ K are capable of sustaining significant ionospheres and driving auroral emission processes. [@Schrijver2009] and [@Nichols2012] point to a rotation dominated magnetospheric-ionospheric coupling current system as the underlying mechanism for the auroral emissions capable of generating strong surface emission features near the magnetic poles. However, what determines whether an object displays auroral emission or not? One clue might be the long-term variability we have detected in the H$\alpha$ emission of 2MASS 0036+1821. Within the auroral context, if this emission is proved to be related to the presence of satellites, then our observed detection rate for late L dwarfs and T dwarfs may reflect the satellite occurrence rate. Comparing our overall H$\alpha$ detection rate to surveys of brown dwarf radio emission revealed that radio and H$\alpha$ detection rates in late L dwarfs and T dwarfs are comparable, suggesting that if the emission is auroral then geometric beaming may not play a prominent role in the detectability of the radio aurorae. Consequently, the sample of H$\alpha$ emitting brown dwarfs are potentially excellent targets to pursue with sensitive radio telescopes, like the Jansky Very Large Array. These magnetically active brown dwarfs will be important benchmark objects for understanding not only magnetospheric processes across the brown dwarf regime from planets to stars but also for understanding magnetic dynamos in fully convective objects [@Kao2016] and examining the upper atmospheric structures of brown dwarfs. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== The authors wish to recognize and acknowledge the very significant cultural role and reverence that the summit of Mauna Kea has always had within the indigenous Hawaiian community. We are most fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct observations from this mountain. The authors would like to thank the anonymous referee for helpful comments strengthening this contribution. J.S.P would like to thank Yi Cao for assistance in DEIMOS data reduction. J.S.P was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under grant No. (DGE-11444469). This research has benefitted from the M, L, T, and Y dwarf compendium housed at DwarfArchives.org. This research has benefitted from the Ultracool RIZzo Spectral Library maintained by Jonathan Gagné and Kelle Cruz. This researched has benefitted from the Database of Ultracool Parallaxes maintained by Trent Dupuy. PyRAF is a product of the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by AURA for NASA. PyFITS is a product of the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by AURA for NASA. The data presented herein were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the W.M. Keck Foundation. This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We investigate a simple model for a galactic halo under the assumption that it is dominated by a dark matter component in the form of a Bose-Einstein condensate involving an ultra-light scalar particle. In particular we discuss the possibility if the dark matter is in superfluid state then a rotating galactic halo might contain quantised vortices which would be low-energy analogues of cosmic strings. Using known solutions for the density profiles of such vortices we compute the self-gravitational interactions in such halos and place bounds on the parameters describing such models, such as the mass of the particles involved.' address: - '$^1$ School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK' - '$^2$ Cardiff School of Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University, Queens Buildings, 5 The Parade, Cardiff, CF24 3AA, UK' author: - Mark N Brook$^1$ and Peter Coles$^2$ title: 'Gravitational Stability of Vortices in Bose-Einstein Condensate Dark Matter' --- Introduction {#Introduction} ============ In the standard model of galaxy formation, the visible component of a galaxy is supposed to be embedded in an invisible halo of non-baryonic matter [@Jenkins:1997en; @Coles:2005yk]. This dark component is further supposed to be [cold]{}, meaning that it is usually assumed to consist of very heavy particles with very low thermal velocities. However, it has been known for some time that Cold Dark Matter (CDM) models have certain problems in reproducing observable properties of galaxies, among them being the predicted presence of central density cusps and the overabundance of small scale structure [@Moore:1999gc; @Navarro:1996gj; @Romanowsky:2003qv]. In the light of these issues, some authors (e.g. [@Hu:2000ke]) have suggested that the Dark Matter could instead consist of ultralight particles possessing a de Broglie wavelength sufficiently large that quantum-mechanical effects might manifest themselves on astrophysically interesting scales. Such models would naturally predict smoother and less centrally concentrated galaxy haloes owing than in the CDM case. Advocating a particular version of this idea, Silverman & Mallett [@Silverman:2002qx] suggested a symmetry breaking mechanism for the production of such a particle, based upon a real-valued scalar field. Although in this case the symmetry breaking mechanism provides a nice example of particle production in a universe with a cosmological constant, symmetry breaking with a real scalar field generically produces a catastrophic domain wall problem [@Vilenkin:1986hg], and this example would seem to be no exception [@Brook:2008PhD] so this is probably not a viable scenario. However, these papers consider the possibility that the Dark Matter component resides in a Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC). The dynamics and possible observational consequences of a Cosmological fluid with such properties has been investigated [@Boehmer:2007um], using techniques developed in the field of condensed matter physics. The equation describing a BEC is known to condensed matter theorists as the Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) equation, but is probably more familiar to cosmologists as the nonlinear Schr[ö]{}dinger equation (NLSE). In condensed matter theory, the term Bose-Einstein Condensate is usually applied to a dilute bosonic gas confined by an external potential, the bosons occupying the lowest available quantum state. Typically, in the limit of large particle number, the density distribution of the condensate is taken to be described by a macroscopic wave-function that is considered to be a quantum field. This field is manipulated by the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, or nonlinear Schr[ö]{}dinger equation, rather than working with the usual creation and annihilation operators of quantum mechanics. The density distribution of the condensate can be represented by a macroscopic wave-function of the same form as the ground state wave-function of a single particle. The momentum distribution of the condensate is obtained by taking the Fourier transform of this wave-function. In an experimental setup, the occurrence of a Bose-Einstein condensate is confirmed by a sharp peak in the momentum space distribution of the gas of particles. More speculatively, the concept of a BEC can also be applied to such hypothetical particles as axions or ghosts. In this context, the axion field, for example, is coherent and has relatively small spatial gradients. The gradient energy can be interpreted as particle momenta, which will be the same and small for each particle, hence giving a sharp peak in the momentum space distribution as in the case of the more familiar BEC described above. In quantum field theory, a condensate corresponds to a non-zero expectation value for some operator in the vacuum and, in the limit of large quantum number, this condensate can be considered to be a classical field. This is a good model for the condensate of Cooper pairs in a superconductor, or for helium atoms in a superfluid [@Pethick:2008]. The usual, linear Schr[ö]{}dinger equation, coupled to the Poisson equation can be used to model many phenomena in Cosmology. As well as modelling a quantum mechanical system, as in [@Hu:2000ke], it has also been used as a classical wave equation to model structure formation. It has been shown that using the Condensed Matter concept of a Madelung transformation to yield the Euler and Continuity equations from the Schr[ö]{}dinger equation, applies as well as to a Cosmological fluid as it does to fluids in the laboratory [@Spiegel:1980fd; @Widrow:1993qq; @Coles:2001fw; @Coles:2002as; @Coles:2002sj; @Short:2006md]. Silverman & Mallett [@Silverman:2002qx] also considered the rotation of a galactic-scale dark matter halo. Using a phenomenological description taken directly from condensed matter, they concluded that a galactic halo should be threaded by a lattice of quantised vortices, as a consequence of the rotation of that galaxy. Indeed from studies of rotating BECs and quantum turbulence [@Vinen:2000ts; @Short:2007PhD], it would seem to be difficult to prevent such vortices from forming. The galaxy velocity rotation curve produced by these authors reproduces the approximate form of observed rotation curves. A similar conclusion was reached in Yu and Morgan [@Yu:2002sz]. This paper considered stationary cylindrical solutions of a complex $\phi^{4}$ scalar field model, coupled to gravity. These solutions are Nielson-Olesen vortices, also known as local U(1) Cosmic Strings [@Vilenkin:1986hg]. To describe the motion of these vortices in the galaxy, Yu and Morgan’s procedure was to calculate the motion of one vortex according to a gradient in the phase induced by the surrounding vortices. There are many models using the Schr[ö]{}dinger-Poisson, or the relativistic Einstein-Klein-Gordon, system to describe slightly different physical processes. A non-exhaustive list includes scalar field dark matter [@Matos:1998vk; @Guzman:2003kt], boson stars [@Seidel:1990jh], Oscillatons [@Seidel:1991zh]; condensate stars [@Mazur:2001fv], repulsive dark matter [@Goodman:2000tg] and fluid dark matter [@Arbey:2003sj; @Peebles:2000yy], as well as the fuzzy dark matter and classical fluid approaches that we have already mentioned, and the more established theories such as the Abelian-Higgs model in field theory, and the Landau-Ginzberg model in condensed matter. We will not attempt a thorough review of each model here, except to say that it is sometimes difficult to explicitly distinguish between them. The effects of the interaction of gravity with a coherent state of matter, such as a BEC, have certainly been considered [@Carroll:CV; @Carroll:PC], and prompted the question of whether it is actually possible for DM to be in a coherent quantum state, if the only interaction with visible matter is gravitational. Penrose has also used the Schr[ö]{}dinger-Poisson system during his ‘Quantum State reduction’ research program [@Moroz:1998dh]. In this paper we seek to determine some of the properties of a quantised vortex residing in a galactic-scale Bose-Einstein Condensate dark matter. In particular, we will place bounds on the parameters that are used to describe such a vortex. For the purposes of this paper we presume that the DM does indeed consist of a BEC, formed at an earlier stage of Cosmological history and described by the coupled nonlinear Schr[ö]{}dinger-Poisson system, and that vortices are present in this cosmological fluid. In Section \[Setup\] we introduce the basic formalism for describing a BEC using the Gross-Pitaevskii (nonlinear Schr[ö]{}dinger) equation, and vortices within it. In Section \[Gravitationally Coupled BECs\] we discuss coupling the NLSE to the Poisson equation. In Sections \[Vortex Stability in Gravitationally Coupled BECs\] and \[Bounds on Parameters\] we look at some of the properties of a vortex as a result of gravitational coupling. We present some results in Section \[Results\] and a discussion in Section \[Discussion\]. An appendix contains some of the approximations we have used in our work, and is referenced in the main body of the paper. Setup {#Setup} ===== For our discussion, we use some of the conventions and proceedures set out by Berloff & Roberts [@Roberts; @Berloff], and Pethick & Smith [@Pethick:2008]. The nonlinear Schr[ö]{}dinger equation is written in the form $$i \hbar \Psi_{t}=-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2m} \nabla^{2} \Psi + \Psi \int \|\Psi(x',t)\|^{2} V(\|x-x'\|)dx',$$ where $m$ is the mass of a particle in the BEC, and $V(\|x-x'\|)$ is the interaction potential between bosons. The potential is simplified for a weakly interacting Bose system by replacing $V(\|x-x'\|)$ with a $\delta$-function repulsive potential of strength $V_0$, giving $$i \hbar \Psi_{t}=-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2m} \nabla^{2} \Psi + V_0 \|\Psi\|^{2}\Psi.$$ Defining a state that is independent of time to be the ‘laboratory frame’, $\Psi = \exp(iE_{\upsilon}/\hbar)$, it is then possible to consider deviations from that state by considering the evolution of $\psi$, where $\psi = \Psi \exp(iE_{\upsilon}t/\hbar)$. Here, $E_{\upsilon}$ is the chemical potential of a boson, in the sense that it is the increase in ground state energy when one boson is added to the system. The nonlinear Schr[ö]{}dinger equation used for subsequent analysis is then $$\label{NLSe} i \hbar \psi_{t}=-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2m} \nabla^{2} \psi +V_{0}\|\psi\|^{2}\psi - E_{\upsilon}\psi.$$ Multiplying equation (\[NLSe\]) by $\phi^{}$ and subtracting the complex conjugate of the resulting equation we obtain $$\frac{\partial \|\psi\|^{2}}{\partial t} = {\bf \nabla} . \left[ \frac{\hbar}{2mi}(\psi^{} {\bf \nabla} \psi - \psi {\bf \nabla}{\psi^{}}) \right].$$ We notice that this is of the form of a continuity equation. $$\frac{\partial \|\psi\|^{2}}{\partial t} + {\bf \nabla}. (\|\psi\|^{2} {\bf v}).$$ We identify $\|\psi\|^{2}$ as the number density $n$, and the related momentum density is given by $$\label{flux} {\bf j} = \frac{\hbar}{2i}(\psi^{} {\bf \nabla} \psi - \psi {\bf \nabla}{\psi^{}}),$$ which is equivalent to $$\label{fluxvel} {\bf j} = mn {\bf v}.$$ This defines for us the mass density, as $\rho = m n = m \|\psi\|^{2}$, and the velocity $$\label{veldef} {\bf v} = \frac{\hbar}{2mi} \frac{(\psi^{} {\bf \nabla} \psi - \psi {\bf \nabla}{\psi^{}})}{\|\psi\|^{2}}.$$ As suggested in the introduction, we can make a ‘Madelung transformation’ $$\psi = \alpha \exp \left(i \phi_{\omega}\right),$$ and, from equation (\[veldef\]), we obtain an expression for the velocity of the condensate $${\bf v} = \frac{\hbar}{m} {\bf \nabla}\phi_{\omega}.$$ Here, $\phi_{\omega}$ is the velocity potential. Substituting the Madelung transformation, and taking real and imaginary parts yields the fluid equations: the continuity equation $$\frac{\partial \left(\alpha ^{2}\right)}{\partial t} + \frac{\hbar}{m} \nabla . (\alpha^{2} \nabla \phi_{\omega})=0;$$ and the (integrated) Euler equation: $$\hbar \frac{\partial \phi_{\omega}}{\partial t} = \frac{\hbar^{2}}{2m}\frac{\nabla^{2} \alpha}{\alpha}-\frac{1}{2}m {\bf v}^{2} - V_{0}\alpha^{2} + E_{\upsilon}.$$ Often, the identification $${\phi_{\omega}}' = \frac{\hbar}{m} \phi_{\omega}$$ is used, to maintain contact with the more familiar form of the fluid equations: $$\frac{\partial \left( \alpha^{2} \right)}{\partial t}+ \nabla . (\alpha^{2} \nabla {\phi_{\omega}}')=0,$$ $$\frac{\partial {\phi_{\omega}}'}{\partial t} = \frac{\hbar^{2}}{2m^2}\frac{\nabla^{2} \alpha}{\alpha}-\frac{(\nabla {\phi_{\omega}}')^{2}}{2}-\frac{V_{0}}{m} \alpha^{2}+\frac{E_{\upsilon}}{m}.$$ Here the quantum nature of the fluid is evident only in the first term on the right hand side of the second equation, which is often known as the [quantum pressure]{} term, although dimensionally it is a chemical potential. This term is relevant only on small scales, where quantum effects become important, such as in a vortex core, or where the condensate meets a boundary. This identification rather hides the quantum nature of the fluid with respect to the fluid velocity, which will become particularly relevant when we start talking about vortices in the next section. By assuming that the condensate reaches a stationary equilibrium state at a distance far from any disturbance, equation (\[NLSe\]) gives us the relation $$\label{psiinfty} \psi_{\infty} = \left( \frac{E_{\upsilon}}{V_{0}} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$ When the condensate wave-function reaches a boundary, such as the wall of a container, or the core of a vortex is being considered, we can define a distance over which the wave-function changes from zero to its bulk value, or where quantum effects become important [@Roberts; @Berloff; @Pethick:2008]. $$\label{healinglength} a_{0}=\frac{\hbar}{(2mE_{\upsilon})^{\frac{1}{2}}}$$ This is known as the [coherence length]{}, or [healing length]{}, as it is the distance over which the wave-function requires ‘healing’. Vortices -------- We have already seen that the velocity of the condensate is given by $${\bf v} = \frac{\hbar}{m} {\bf \nabla}\phi_{\omega}.$$ One would expect then, that the condensate would be irrotational, as $${\bf \nabla} \times ({\bf \nabla} f) = 0$$ for any scalar, $f$. This restricts the motion of the condensate much more than a classical fluid. The circulation around any contour then, should also be zero. By Stokes’ theorm $$\Gamma = \oint_{l} {\bf v}. d {\bf l} = \int_{A} ({\bf \nabla} \times {\bf v}. d {\bf A} = 0$$ This condition, known as the Landau state, was first derived in an analysis of superfluid HeII [@Landau:1941], and suggests that rotation of such a condensate should be impossible. Experiments by Osbourne [@Osbourne:1950] indicated that the condensate did indeed experience rotation. Feynman [@Feynman:1955], building on the independent work of Onsager [@Onsager:1949], suggested that rotation and hence non-zero circulation could be explained by assuming that the condensate is threaded by a lattice of parallel vortex lines. It is possible to have circulation surrounding a region from which the condensate is excluded, and in this case, this would be the vortex core. To see this, we note that the condensate wave-function must be single valued, and so around any closed contour, the change in the phase of the wave-function $\Delta \phi$ must be a multiple of 2$\pi$. $$\Delta \phi_{\omega} = \oint {\bf \nabla} \phi_{\omega} . d{\bf l} = 2\pi l$$ where $l$ is an integer. We immediately see that the circulation is quantised in units of $h/m$. $$\Gamma = \oint {\bf v}. d{\bf l} = \frac{\hbar}{m} 2 \pi l = l \frac{h}{m}$$ To obtain vortex solutions, we work in cylindrical coordinates $(r, \chi, z)$, and look for a static solution of the nonlinear Schr[ö]{}dinger equation, equation (\[NLSe\]). To satisfy the requirement of single-valuedness, the condensate wave-function must vary as $\exp (i n \chi)$, with $n$ integer. We make the vortex ansatz $$\label{ansatz} \psi = R(r) \exp (i n\chi).$$ It is interesting to note the similarity between this procedure, and that used in obtaining Nielson-Olesen vortices, or Cosmic Strings, in the Abelian-Higgs model [@Vilenkin:1986hg]. This was mentioned in Section \[Introduction\], and will be useful shortly for obtaining equation (\[densityapprox\]), as shown in \[Approximations to the Density Profile\]. We can obtain an expression for the velocity of a vortex by substituting the vortex ansatz (\[ansatz\]) into equation (\[veldef\]) $$\label{vV} {\bf v}_{\omega} = \frac{\hbar n}{r} \frac{1}{m} \bf{\hat{\chi}},$$ and we note again the discrete nature of the allowed values of velocity. From now on we will consider only $n = 1$ vortices. Vortices with $n > 1$ are generally expected to be unstable, from energy considerations (see for example Chapter 9.2.2 of [@Pethick:2008]), and will break up into several $n = 1$ vortices to make up a vortex lattice, as described above. We can note further that Cosmic Strings with winding numbers $n > 1 $ are also unstable to perturbations [@Vilenkin:1986hg]. Such defects break down to several $n = 1$ configurations in both a Condensed Matter environment, and a High Energy Field Theoretic one. Feynman initially introduced quantised vortices as a purely theoretical tool with which to explain the rotation of the condensate, but the experimental verification of the quantisation of rotational velocities (e.g. by [@Packard:1972]) demonstrated that these vortices were indeed real. The density profile of a vortex ($\rho(r) = m \|R(r)\|^2$) is defined by the vortex equation, which results from substituting the vortex ansatz into equation (\[NLSe\]) $$\label{densityprofilevortex} -\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2mE_{\upsilon}} {\Bigg[}\frac{d^{2}R(r)}{dr^{2}}+\frac{1}{r} \frac{dR(r)}{dr}- \frac{1}{r^{2}}R(r) {\Bigg]}+\frac{V_{0}}{E_{\upsilon}}{R(r)}^{3} - R(r) = 0$$ From equation (\[psiinfty\]) we see that the density far from the vortex is given by $$\rho_{\infty} = m R_\infty = m \frac{E_{\upsilon}}{V_{0}}.$$ Analytic solutions of this equation are not known so it must be solved numerically. For our anaylses we will use the approximation $$\label{densityapprox} R(r) \simeq \left(\frac{E}{V_{0}}\right)^{1/2} \left[1-\exp(-r/a_0) \right],$$ as discussed in \[Approximations to the Density Profile\]. Self-gravity of a BEC Vortex {#Gravitationally Coupled BECs} ============================ In considering Bose-Einstein condensates on scales relevant to structure formation in the universe, we must necessarily include gravitational effects. BECs are typically sufficiently dilute that the mass densities are not very large, and so a Newtonian approximation is sufficient. Gravitational effects can be added to the BEC by including a term in the nonlinear Schr[ö]{}dinger equation that couples to the Poisson equation. We then have a pair of equations modelling a gravitationally coupled fluid. $$\label{NLSP1} i \hbar \psi_{t}=-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2m} \nabla^{2} \psi +V_{0}\|\psi\|^{2}\psi - E_{\upsilon}\psi + m\phi_G \psi$$ $$\label{NLSP2} \nabla^2 \phi_G = 4 \pi G \rho = 4 \pi G m \|\psi\|^{2}.$$ Vortices in Gravitationally Coupled BECs {#Vortices in Gravitationally Coupled BECs} ---------------------------------------- To obtain vortex solutions, we again work in cylindrical coordinates $(r, \chi, z)$, and substitute the vortex ansatz $\psi = R(r) exp (i \chi)$ into equations (\[NLSP1\]) and (\[NLSP2\]). The system of equations describing a gravitationally coupled BEC fluid become $$\label{NLSPV1} -\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2mE_{\upsilon}} {\Bigg[}\frac{d^{2}R(r)}{dr^{2}}+\frac{1}{r} \frac{dR(r)}{dr}- \frac{1}{r^{2}}R(r) {\Bigg]}+\frac{V_{0}}{E_{\upsilon}}{R(r)}^{3} - R(r) + m \phi_{G} (r)=0$$ $$\label{NLSPV2} \nabla^{2} \phi_{G} (r) = \frac{d^{2} \phi_{G}(r)}{dr^{2}} + \frac{1}{r} \frac{d \phi_{G (r)}}{dr} = 4 \pi G m R(r)^{2}$$ Ideally, we would like to find a solution describing the function $R(r)$ in this system, so we can compare the density profile of a quantum vortex, to that of one that is gravitationally coupled. However, finding a full simultaneous solution to these coupled equations is difficult. Firstly, because the nonlinear Schr[ö]{}dinger equation itself is not soluble analytically. Secondly, because the vortex density tends to a constant, so the Newtonian potential tends to diverge, and thirdly because these equations do not define the vortex velocity, which would be providing the centripetal force to withstand the gravitational collapse. In other words, all the variables required to provide a fully simultaneous static solution are not defined within these two equations. Vortex Stability in Gravitationally Coupled BECs {#Vortex Stability in Gravitationally Coupled BECs} ================================================ Rather than solving the coupled equations (\[NLSP1\]) and (\[NLSP2\]) directly, we can make some arguments regarding the stability of a gravitationally coupled BEC vortex, and consequently give some bounds on the parameters that describe it. Our analysis is based upon consideration of the circular velocity of a BEC vortex, $v_{\omega}(r)$, and the radial velocity induced from gravitational attraction, $v_{\rm G}(r)$. $v_{\omega}(r)$ is the velocity that the vortex density distribution is moving at, for a particular r, while $v_{\rm G}(r)$ would be the velocity experienced by a test particle orbiting that density distribution, at a distance r. To sustain a vortex, $v_{\omega}(r)$ must at least be greater than $v_{\rm G}(r)$, otherwise the quantum-mechanical forces at work in the vortex are not sufficiently strong to hold itself up against gravitational collapse. That is, the vortex is spinning too slowly to provide enough centripetal force to balance the gravitational force. For stability, we therefore have the bound, $$\label{velocityequality} v_{\omega}(r) \geq v_{\rm G}(r)$$ Gravitational Field of a Cylindrically Symmetric System ------------------------------------------------------- To obtain $v_{\rm G}(r)$, we turn to Gauss’s Law to determine the gravitational field of a cylindrically symmetric mass distribution, and hence obtain the radial gravitational velocity of a test particle moving in the field of that system. Gauss’s law is $$\label{GausssLaw} \oint {\bf g} \cdot d{\bf A} = -4\pi GM_{\rm encl}$$ The density, $\rho(r) = m \|R(r)\|^{2}$, is already determined in terms of the cylindrical r co-ordinate, as it is a solution of the vortex equation. The mass enclosed is the density pervading a cylinder of radius r and length L. $$M_{\rm encl}= L \int_{0}^{r} 2 \pi r \rho (r) dr$$ The left-hand side of Gauss’s law, in cylindrical co-ordinates, is $$\int g r d \chi dz,$$ where the integral over the z co-ordinate is again L, the length of the vortex. Gauss’s law, then, gives us $$g r 2 \pi L = -4 \pi G 2 \pi L \int_{0}^{r}\rho(r) r dr$$ giving $$g= - \frac{4 \pi G m }{r} \int_{0}^{r}\|R(r)\|^{2} r dr.$$ The sign is negative as we have chosen an outward-pointing surface normal in our formulation of Gauss’s Law, equation (\[GausssLaw\]), which indicates that the gravitational flux will always be towards the origin. This leads to the slightly counter-intuitive conclusion that a hole (the vortex) in a constant mass density background would seem to produce a gravitational force towards it, but this is really a manifestation of the (extremely) thick shell condition. Viewed another way, this static configuration will want to act to collapse in, and close the hole. It is this force that is ‘unopposed’ in equations (\[NLSPV1\]) and (\[NLSPV2\]). This need not concern us further, as it is the magnitude that is required for our argument. The magnitude of the induced centripetal force is $$g=\frac{{v_{\rm G}}^{2}}{r}$$ and the gravitational circular velocity profile $v_{\rm G}$ is given by $$\label{vG} {{v_G}(r)}^2 = 4 \pi G \int_{0}^{r} \rho(r) r dr = 4 \pi G m \int_{0}^{r} \|R(r)\|^{2} r dr.$$ Bounds on Parameters {#Bounds on Parameters} ==================== We now have expressions for $v_{\rm G}(r)$ and $v_{\omega}(r)$, equations (\[vV\]) and (\[vG\]), to go in the bound given by equation (\[velocityequality\]). In Figure \[VortexVelProfiles\] we plot, as an example, $v_{\omega}(r)$ and $v_{\rm G}(r)$ and the density profile for comparison. For this example, we have used values of m $=$ 3.56 $\times$ 10$^{-59}$kg (2 $\times$ 10$^{-23}$ eV), E$_{\upsilon}$ $=$ 2.5 $\times$ 10$^{-49}$ J (1.56 $\times$ 10$^{-30}$eV) and $V_{0}$ $=$ 4.45 $\times$ 10$^{-84}$ Jm$^{3}$ (3.7 $\times$ 10$^{-45}$ eV$^{-2}$) as explained in Appendix \[Approximations for Parameters Defining the BEC\]. ![Velocity Profiles for v$_{G}$ (green) and $v_{\omega}$ (blue). Density profile plotted schematically for comparison (red).[]{data-label="VortexVelProfiles"}](Fig1_velcomp.eps){width="100.00000%"} The bound on stability, $v_{\omega}(r) \geq v_{\rm G}(r)$, will always be violated at some point, as outside the vortex core $v_{\omega}(r) \sim 1/r$ and $v_{\rm G}(r) \sim r$. We must specify what might be an acceptable value of r for $v_{\omega}(r)$ and $v_{\rm G}(r)$ to cross. For a vortex to exist, the density profile should be fully established. We take this to mean that the density has essentially reached its background level. From the scaled density profile in discussed in \[Approximations to the Density Profile\], and plotted in Figure (\[ScaledDensityProfilefig\]), we see that the density reaches its background level at a value of about ten times the healing length. Using equation (\[densityapprox\]) in (\[vG\]), equations (\[vG\]) and (\[vV\]) in (\[velocityequality\]), and substituting for $E_{\upsilon}$ from equation (\[healinglength\]) we obtain $$\label{plottingVm} \frac{\sqrt{2\pi}}{2} \left(\frac{G \hbar^2}{V_{0}{a_{0}}^2} \left[2r^2 + 8r{a_{0}}e^{-\frac{r}{{a_{0}}}} + 8{a_{0}}^{2} e^{-\frac{r}{{a_{0}}}} - 2r{a_{0}} e^{-\frac{2r}{{a_{0}}}} - {a_{0}}^{2} e^{-\frac{2r}{{a_{0}}}}\right] \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \leq \frac{\hbar}{mr}.$$ We will fix the healing length $a_0$, and plot $V_{0}$ against $m$ (fixing $a_{0}$ and $m$ fixes $E_{\upsilon}$, from equation (\[healinglength\])) to give an allowed range of parameter values. We will do this for various values of $a_0$, and for various values of $r$, which we will take to be an integer number of healing lengths, $r=na_0$, with the minimum $n = 10$ as outlined above. Equation (\[plottingVm\]) then becomes $$\label{Vleq} V_{0} \geq \frac{\pi}{2} G m^2 n^2 \left(2n^2 {a_{0}}^2 + 8n {a_{0}}^2 e^{-n} + 8{a_{0}}^2 e^{-n} - 2n {a_{0}}^2 e^{-2n} - {a_{0}}^2 e^{-2n}\right).$$ Other Bounds ------------ We can obtain some other bounds to cut off other bits of parameter space. The asymptotic vortex density is given by $$\label{backgrounddensity} \rho_{\infty} = m\left(\frac{E_{\upsilon}}{V_{0}}\right).$$ If the vortex exists as a component of a galaxy, then there is a minimum and maximum density that the vortex can have, given by the maximum and minimum known values of mass density within a galaxy: $$\rho_{\rm min} \leq \rho_{\infty} \leq \rho_{\rm max}.$$ The value of $E_{\upsilon}$ in equation (\[backgrounddensity\]) is fixed (as we are fixing the healing length), and so the bound on the density becomes a bound on $V_{0}$. $$\label{densitybound} \frac{\hbar^2}{2 {a_{0}}^{2} \rho_{max} } \leq V_{0} \leq \frac{\hbar^2}{2 {a_{0}}^{2} \rho_{min} }.$$ Equation (\[Vleq\]) gives a lower bound on $V_{0}$, so to obtain an upper bound, we use the second half of the above relation. $$\label{Vupper} V_{0} \leq \frac{\hbar^2}{2 {a_{0}}^{2} \rho_{min} }.$$ Another bound is provided because the vortex velocity should never exceed the speed of light, $$v_{\omega} = \frac{\hbar}{mr} \leq c.$$ It can be seen from equation (\[vV\]) that the vortex velocity increases with decreasing radius. This relation breaks down within the vortex core, $a_{0}$, where the vortex velocity diverges. Finding an appropriate description is a topic of some interest in Condensed Matter theory [@Sadd:1997sv]. We evaluate the maximum vortex velocity at a distance of $5a_{0}$ from the origin. i.e. in a regime where we are sure the relation holds. This gives a bound on the mass. $$\label{mupper} m \geq \frac{\hbar}{5 c a_{0}}.$$ Values ------ To see how the restriction on $m$ and $V_{0}$ varies, we can think of a range of healing lengths that cover all possible scales in a galaxy. $$\begin{aligned} 1 \times 10^{10} {\rm m} \quad (3.2 \times 10^{-10} {\rm kpc}, \quad \sim 7 \times 10^{-2} {\rm AU}) \leq a_{0} \\ a_{0}\leq 1 \times 10^{22} {\rm m} \quad (324 {\rm kpc})\end{aligned}$$ This range of scales takes us from sub solar system, to that of the largest known galaxies (e.g. IC 1101 in the Abell 2029 cluster [@Uson:1990]). At fixed $a_{0}$ we will also cover a large range of n; the number of healing lengths where the velocity profiles cross. For the bound given in equation (\[Vupper\]), we take the minimum density found within a galaxy to be the cosmological density. This minimum must necessarily be close to the critical density of the universe. $$\rho_{\rm min} = \rho_{c} = \frac{3 H_{0}^{2}}{8 \pi G}.$$ With $H_{0} = 70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, this gives a value of $\rho_{\rm min} = 9.2 \times 10^{-27}$ kg m$^{-3}$. Results {#Results} ======= In Figure (\[Vma3real\]), we show a region of the $V_{0}-m$ parameter space for the healing length $a_{0} = 1 \times 10^{16}$ m ($\sim$ 1 pc). The lower bound on $V_{0}$ is given when $v_{\omega}$ and $v_G$ cross at a value of ten times the healing length, $n = 10$. A vortex could be considered more stable if $v_{\omega}$ and $v_G$ cross at a greater number of n, moving us up into the allowed triangular region. However, this can soon reach the minimum density bound on $V_{0}$. A value of $n=10^{6}$ is also plotted, and it is clear that this is outside the bounded region. The lines bounding the region of allowed parameter values are given by equations (\[Vleq\]), (\[mupper\]) and (\[Vupper\]). ![Allowed region in $V_{0} - m$ parameter space, for a healing length of $a_{0} = 1 \times 10^{16}$ m ($\sim$ 1 parsec) []{data-label="Vma3real"}](Fig2_Vma3real.eps){width="100.00000%"} Figure (\[Vmallreal\]) shows allowed regions for various healing lengths, all at a value of $n=10$. We see that as we move to smaller values of $a_{0}$, the allowed bounds on $m$ and $V_{0}$ both move up, as expected from equations (\[Vupper\]) and (\[mupper\]). More physically, as the mass of the particle is increased, the repulsive potential $V_{0}$ must increase to balance the stronger gravitational force. ![Allowed regions in $V_{0}-m$ parameter space, with $n = 10$. Healing lengths as labelled.[]{data-label="Vmallreal"}](Fig3_Vmallreal.eps){width="100.00000%"} Discussion {#Discussion} ========== In this paper we have used techniques from condensed matter theory in a cosmological setting to place bounds on parameters describing a Dark Matter candidate, on the assumption that the Dark Matter halo consists of a Bose-Einstein Condensate, in which quantised vortices reside. In the case of a laboratory BEC, self-gravitational forces are not important and even in that case analytical progress is limited. Using a simple physical argument, however, we have shown how rough limits on the consistency of such a model can be imposed. Considering a Dark Matter particle of a particular mass, and a vortex of a certain radius, places constraints on the values that the chemical potential, and interaction potential can take. There remain sizeable regions of parameter space in which the model appears to be viable. In future work, it would be interesting to investigate further whether a Dark Matter candidate could reside in a coherent quantum state, if the only interaction was gravitational. A less ambitious undertaking would be to see if the Madelung transformation provides a solution to the problem of defining all the relevant variables, as suggested in Section \[Vortices in Gravitationally Coupled BECs\]. This would give a set of fluid equations that includes the velocity giving rise to the stabilising centripetal force. One problem to be anticipated in such a solution, would be that the velocity in the vortex core would still be ill-defined, as alluded to in Section \[Bounds on Parameters\]. The system would therefore have to be solved by a more complete numerical method than we have been able to implement so far. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ Mark Brook acknowledges support from the Science & Technology Facilities Council, and useful comments from Sean Carroll and David Tong. Approximations {#Approximations} ============== Approximations to the Density Profile {#Approximations to the Density Profile} ------------------------------------- The numerical solution to the NLSE can be cumbersome to work with, so we provide some discussion of some approximations that can be used. It is possible to scale the the variables $r$ and $R(r)$ in equation (\[densityprofilevortex\]) to obtain a scale-free equation. Scaling $r$ by the healing length, $r' = r/a_{0}$, and $R(r)$ by the steady state value, $R'(r') = R(r)/R_{\infty}$ we obtain $$\label{densityprofilevortexscaled} \frac{d^{2}R'(r')}{{dr}'^{2}}+\frac{1}{r'} \frac{dR'(r')}{dr'}- \frac{1}{{r'}^{2}}R'(r') - {R'(r')}^{3} + R'(r') = 0.$$ Our first idea for an approximation comes from the field of cosmic strings. The method of approximation is detailed in [@Vilenkin:1986hg]. Looking at the profile of the Higgs field in a Nielson-Olesen vortex we see that it can be written, in a similarly scaled way, as $$\label{VSCSScaled} \frac{d^{2}f'(r')}{dr'^{2}}+\frac{1}{r'} \frac{df'(r')}{dr'}- \frac{1}{r'^{2}}f(r') (\alpha(r')-1)^{2} - \frac{\lambda}{2}f'(r')({f'(r')}^{2} -1) = 0$$ Here $\alpha$ is a gauge term arising from the coupling to Electromagnetism, and $\lambda$ is determined by the potential term of the theory. It is possible to linearise equation (\[VSCSScaled\]) to obtain a modified Bessel function as the first order approximation to f’(r’) - the zeroth order being 1. This happens in the string case, because the gauge contributions serve to cancel one of the terms, leaving the modified Bessel’s equation. The linearised version of equation (\[densityprofilevortexscaled\]) does not quite reduce to a modified Bessel’s equation, but taking our lead from the cosmic string example, we write $$\label{ScaledApproximation} R'(r') \sim 1 - \exp (-r').$$ Another approximation, which might seem to be more accurate, was developed by Berloff [@BerloffPade] in a condensed matter context. The Pad[é]{} approximation has the same asymptotics at $r = 0$ and $r = \infty$ as the function one is trying to approximate. The Pad[é]{} approximation in this case gives $$\label{Pade} R'(r') \sim \sqrt{\frac{{r'}^2 (0.3437 + 0.0286 {r'}^2)}{1+ 0.3333 {r'}^2 + 0.0286{r'}^4}}.$$ This solution is plotted in Figure \[ScaledDensityProfilefig\] along with the numeric solution given by equation (\[densityprofilevortexscaled\]), and the previous approximation, equation (\[ScaledApproximation\]). ![Numeric solution to Equation (\[densityprofilevortexscaled\]) (blue), the Pad[è]{} approximation equation (\[Pade\]) (red), and the scaled approximation used in this analysis, equation (\[ScaledApproximation\]) (green).[]{data-label="ScaledDensityProfilefig"}](FigA1_scaleddensityprofile.eps){width="100.00000%"} The Pad[é]{} approximation is indeed much more accurate in the small and large r regions. However, the Pad[é]{} approximation has the tendency to overestimate the density in the central region, producing a density function whose derivative is negative in this region. As discussed in the main body of this paper, the gravitational potential is proportional to the density, and so the gravitational force will be proportional to the derivative of the density function. If we chose to use the Pad[é]{} approximation for our density profile, we could be potentially misled by its behaviour in the central region. We will use the approximation $$R(r) = \left(\frac{E_{\upsilon}}{V_{0}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \left[1 - \exp[-r/a_{0}]\right).$$ Approximations for Parameters Defining the BEC {#Approximations for Parameters Defining the BEC} ---------------------------------------------- To enable us to obtain actual values for the velocity and density profiles that we are considering, we must provide values for the parameters $m$, $V_{0}$, and $E_{\upsilon}$. The properties of Dark Matter particles are, by their very nature, unknown, so we must make some approximations. We use the analysis in [@Silverman:2002qx] to provide us with some data values. The mass of the Bose Einstein Condensate Dark Matter particle in that paper is 3.56 $\times$ 10$^{-59}$ kg (2 $\times$ 10$^{-23}$ eV). Their analysis is based on the mass and angular rotation of the Andromeda galaxy. The mean density is given as 2 $\times$ 10$^{-24}$kg m$^{-3}$, and they estimate that the vortex line density in the galaxy would be about 1 vortex per 208 kpc$^2$. This gives a vortex radius of $r_{\omega} \sim$ 2.5 $\times$ 10$^{20}$ m. We again turn to vortex lattices in condensed matter systems to provide us with some further estimates of vortex properties in a BEC. Taking the distance between two vortices to be twice the vortex radius, we note from experimental observations of vortex lattices in a BEC that the vortex density reaches the normal density at about half the vortex radius; see, for example, Figure 9.3 in [@Pethick:2008], taken from [@Coddington:2003]. From Figure (\[ScaledDensityProfilefig\]), we also see that the vortex density reaches the normal condensate density at around five healing lengths. This gives us an estimate of ${r_{\omega}}/{2} = 5a_{0}$. We then use $r_{\omega}\sim$ 2.5 $\times$ 10$^{20}$ m, $a_{0}={\hbar}/(2mE_{\upsilon})^{\frac{1}{2}}$, and $\rho_{\infty} = m {E_{\upsilon}}/{V_{0}}$ to give estimates for $E_{\upsilon}$ and $V_{0}$. With these approximations we find values of $E_{\upsilon}$ $=$ 2.5 $\times$ 10$^{-49}$ J (1.56 $\times$ 10$^{-30}$eV) and $V_{0} = 4.45 \times$ 10$^{-84}$ J m$^3$ (3.7 $\times$ 10$^{-45}$ eV$^{-2}$). References {#references .unnumbered} ========== [100]{} A. Jenkins [et al.]{} \[Virgo Consortium Collaboration\], Astrophys. J. [499]{} (1998) 20 \[arXiv:astro-ph/9709010\]. P. Coles, Nature [433]{} (2005) 248. B. Moore, T. R. Quinn, F. Governato, J. Stadel and G. Lake, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [310]{}, 1147 (1999) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9903164\]. J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J. [490]{}, 493 (1997) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9611107\]. A. J. Romanowsky [et al.]{}, Science [301]{}, 1696 (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0308518\]. W. Hu, R. Barkana and A. Gruzinov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [85]{} (2000) 1158 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0003365\]. M. P. Silverman and R. L. Mallett, Gen. Rel. Grav. [34]{} (2002) 633. A. Vilenkin and E.P.S. Shellard [Cosmic Strings and Other Topological Defects]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) M. Brook Ph.D Thesis (in progress) C. G. Boehmer and T. Harko, JCAP [0706]{} (2007) 025 \[arXiv:0705.4158 \[astro-ph\]\]. C. J. Pethick and H. Smith [Bose-Einstein Condensation in Dilute Gases, Second Edition]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) E. A. Spiegel Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, [1]{}, Issue 2, 236-240 (1980) L. M. Widrow and N. Kaiser, ApJ. Lett [416]{} L71 P. Coles, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [330]{} (2002) 421 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0110615\]. P. Coles, arXiv:astro-ph/0209576. P. Coles and K. Spencer, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [342]{} (2003) 176 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0212433\]. C. J. Short and P. Coles, JCAP [0612]{} (2006) 012 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0605012\]. W. F. Vinen, J. Low. Temp. Phys. [121]{}, 367 (2000) C. Short Ph.D Thesis, University of Nottingham R. P. Yu and M. J. Morgan, Class. Quant. Grav. [19]{} (2002) L157. T. Matos and F. S. Guzman, Class. Quant. Grav. [17]{}, L9 (2000) \[arXiv:gr-qc/9810028\]. F. S. Guzman and L. A. Urena-Lopez, Phys. Rev. D [68]{}, 024023 (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0303440\]. E. Seidel and W. M. Suen, Phys. Rev. D [42]{}, 384 (1990). E. Seidel and W. M. Suen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [66]{}, 1659 (1991). P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, arXiv:gr-qc/0109035. J. Goodman, arXiv:astro-ph/0003018. A. Arbey, J. Lesgourgues and P. Salati, Phys. Rev. D [68]{} (2003) 023511 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0301533\]. P. J. E. Peebles, arXiv:astro-ph/0002495. ApJ, [534]{}, L127 S. Carroll Cosmic Variance http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/24/gravity-is-an-important-force/ S. Carroll Private Communication I. M. Moroz, R. Penrose and P. Tod, Class. Quant. Grav. [15]{}, 2733 (1998). P. H. Roberts and N. G. Berloff In “Quantized Vortex Dynamics and Superfluid Turbulence” edited by C. F. Barenghi, R. J. Donnelly and W. F. Vinen, Lecture Notes in Physics, [571]{}, Springer-Verlag (2001). www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/ngb23/publications/review.pdf M. Sadd, G. V. Chester, L. Reatto Phys. Rev. Lett. [79]{}, 2490 (1997) J. M. Uson, S. P. Boughn and J. R. Kuhn Science [250]{} 539 (1990) N. Berloff J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [37]{} (2004) 11729 \[arXiv:/cond-mat/0306596\] L. D. Landau J. Phys. Moscow [5]{} 71 (1941) Reprinted in I. M. Khalatnikov, [Introduction to the Theory of Superfluidity]{} pg. 185 (New York, W A Benjamin) D. V. Osbourne Proc. Phys. Soc. A [63]{} 909 (1950) R. P. Feynman [Progress in Low Temperature Physics]{} ed. C J Gorter Vol 1, Ch. 2 (Amsterdam, North Holland) L. Onsager Nuovo Cimento [6]{} suppl. [2]{} 249 (1949) R. E. Packard and T. M. Sanders Jr. Phys. Rev. A [6]{} 799 (1972) I. Coddington, P. Engels, V. Schweikhard, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. [91*]{}, 100402 (2003)	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We study linear perturbations about a dust filled Bianchi Type I model with the vorticity set to zero. In comparison to linear perturbations about FLRW models, modes of perturbations about Bianchi type I models are coupled. We find that the tensor that represents the background shear needs to be degenerate in order for the scalar-mode perturbations to decouple from the rest of the flow.' address: ' Cosmology and Gravity Group, Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, 7701, South Africa' author: - Bob Osano date: - - 'August 15, 2013 ' title: 'The decoupling of scalar-modes from a linearly perturbed dust-filled Bianchi type I model' --- PACS: 04.20.Ex, 04.20.-q, 98.80.jk, 98.80.-k\ What we currently know about our physical universe is based on the analysis of a model that is expanding, isotropic and homogeneous, and that has a cosmological constant. This, together with the analysis of itÕs linear perturbations, undergird our picture of the universe [@bib:1]. The model accounts for the late time universe as is evident in the analysis of large scale cosmic microwave background observations [@bib:1; @bib:2]. Although parameter determination from the analysis of CMB fluctuations appears to confirm this picture [@bib:10], further analyses indicates that there are still anomalies [@bib:1]-[@bib:11]. In particular, it would appear that the universe may have a preferred direction [@bib:10.1]. It is not yet clear if the directional preference is intrinsic to the underlying model, and if so what implications this would has on modern cosmology. Recently released Planck results [@bib:Planck] indicate that these anomalies persists. It was shown that some of the anomalies could be eliminated when WMAP first-year data was corrected with Bianchi $IV_{h}$ template [@bib:11]. The authors also find that the cosmological parameters required to reproduce the Bianchi morphology are inconsistent with what they called the “cosmic concordance” of other data sets and concluded that Bianchi models could not be a realistic physical explanation for these anomalies. What is curious about these findings is that Bianchi Models appear ruled out because they are incompatible with [isotropic]{} inflationary models and by the ’cosmic no-hair conjecture’ [@bib:12]. We need to point out that the proof of this conjecture, a conjecture that forms the basis for the above analysis, assumes the weak energy condition. With the advent of inflationary models, the violation of the energy conditions opens up other possibilities. In particular, it is worth investigating anisotropic inflationary models [@bib:13] as they may address the incompatibility between Bianchi models and standard inflationary models. Given that the proof of cosmic conjecture subject to weak energy condition and the anomaly in the WMAP data, it may be too soon to discard Bianchi models. This is the motivation for this letter. We seek to answer a slightly different question and one that is related to the Cauchy problem in General Relativity. The problem has to do with the preservation of the constraints equations subject to the propagation equations, recalling that the solutions to the constraints equations provide us with the initial conditions for the set of evolution equations. We use the covariant approach which differs from the standard metric perturbations approach in the sense that one does not perturb the metric and but a set of covariant nonlinear equations which are then linearized about a background of choice. The covariant equations are the result of splitting Einstein-Ricci-Bianchi equations, covariantly, into propagation and constraint equations [@bib:222]. The method has been applied to studies of different kinds of perturbations in an almost-FLRW model [@bib:21]. In this letter we want to apply it to density perturbations about Bianchi Type I model with dust equation of state, where the vorticity vanishes. Previous studies of perturbations of anisotropic models using alternative approaches include [@bib:23; @bib:24; @bib:20; @bib:26; @bib:35]. We have to address the following issue: immediately confronted with a major problem: - How does one characterize decoupled density perturbations about Bianchi I model given that the scalar, vector and tensor modes are coupled for perturbations about this background ? - How do we know that the conditions governing our characterization are preserved? In order to answer these questions we need to define the scope of the problem at hand and to identify parameters that play a role in the problem. For a general spacetime given by a well defined manifold and its accompanying metric ($\mathcal{M},\textbf{g}$), one can assume that there is a well-defined preferred motion of matter which gives rise to a unique 4-velocity. This velocity may be given by the average motion of matter for a family of preferred. Mathematically, the 4-velocity, which we denoted by $u^{a}$ ($ =\frac{dx^{a}}{d\tau},$) where $\tau$ is the proper time measured along the fundamental world-lines. The 4-velocity has the property $u_{a}u^{a}=-1$ [@bib:22]. Physically, this velocity may be defined by the vanishing of the dipole of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). Only one 4-velocity will set this dipole to zero [@bib:22]. Using the 4-velocity, we can then define, and make use of the following projection tensors. Parallel projector: $$\begin{aligned} {U^{a}}_{b} &=&-u^{a}u_{b},\end{aligned}$$ and with the properties $$\begin{aligned} {U^{a}}_{c}{U^{c}}_{b}={U^{a}}_{b}, {U^{a}}_{a}=1,~~~ U_{ab}u^{b}=u_{a},\end{aligned}$$ Orthogonal projector: $$\begin{aligned} h_{ab}&=&g_{ab}+u_{a}u_{b},\end{aligned}$$ which has the properties; $$\begin{aligned} {h^{a}}_{c}{h^{c}}_{b}={h^{a}}_{b}, ~~~{h^{a}}_{a}=3,~~~h_{ab}u^{b}=0.\end{aligned}$$ We also make use of the permutation tensor $\varepsilon_{abc}$, which is given by $$\begin{aligned} \varepsilon_{abc}=u^{d}\eta_{dabc}\Rightarrow\eta_{abc}=\eta_{[abc]}, \eta_{abc}u^{c}=0,\end{aligned}$$ and where $\eta_{abcd}$ is a 4 - dimensional volume element in the rest-space of the fundamental observer. We denote the covariant time derivative of the tensor ${T^{ab}}_{cd}$ by $$\begin{aligned} \dot{T^{ab}}_{cd}=u^{e}\nabla_{e}{T^{ab}}_{cd}.\end{aligned}$$ This represents derivative along the observer word-line. The orthogonally projected covariant derivative will be denoted by $\tilde{\nabla}_{a}$, so that the orthogonal projection a ${T^{ab}}_{cd}$ takes the form $$\tilde{\nabla}_{e}{T^{ab}}_{cd}={h^{a}}_{f}{h^{b}}_{g}{h^{p}}_{c}{h^{q}}_{d}{h^{r}}_{e}{\nabla}_{r}{T^{fg}}_{pq},$$ where there is total projection on all indices. If the vorticity is set to zero, $\tilde{\nabla}$ coincides with the 3-dimensional covariant derivatives. Using these projection tensors, covariant derivatives, and symmetric properties, the 4-velocity $u_{a}$ may be split into the following irreducible parts:$$\begin{aligned} \nabla_{a}u_{b} &=& -u_{a}\dot{u}_{b}+\tilde{\nabla}_{a}u_{b}=\small\frac{1}{3}\Theta h_{ab}+\sigma_{ab}+ \omega_{ab},\end{aligned}$$ where the trace $\Theta=\tilde{\nabla}_{a}u^{a}$ is the volume-rate of expansion. This rate also determines the Hubble parameter; $H=\small{\frac{1}{3}}\Theta.$ $\sigma_{ab}=\tilde{\nabla}_{\langle a}u_{b\rangle}$ is the trace-free symmetric rate of shear tensor such that $\sigma_{ab}u^{b}=0, \sigma_{a}^{a}=0.$ $\omega_{ab}=\tilde{\nabla}_{[a}u_{b]}$ is the skew-symmetric vorticity tensor. Orthogonal projection allows the above covariant quantities to represent respective behaviour in the rest-frame of the fundamental observer. This rest frame coincides with the orthogonal hyper-surfaces in the case where vorticity is absent. In general the Einstein-Ricci-Bianchi equations may be covariantly split into propagation and constraint equations. The full non-linear set of equations include, the propagation equations: $$\begin{aligned} \label{p:1}\dot{\rho}+\Theta\rho&=&0,\\ \label{p:2}\dot{\Theta}+\frac{1}{3}{\Theta^{2}}+\sigma_{ab}\sigma^{ab}+\frac{1}{2}\rho&=&0,\\ \label{p:3}\dot{\sigma}_{ab}+\frac{2}{3}\Theta\sigma_{ab}+{\sigma_{c\langle a}}{\sigma_{b\rangle}}^{c}+E_{ab}&=&0,\\ \label{p:4}\dot{E}_{ab}+\Theta E_{ab}- curl{H}_{ab}-3\sigma_{c\langle a}{E_{b\rangle}}^{c}+\frac{1}{2}\rho \sigma_{ab}&=&0,\\ \label{p:5}\dot{H}_{ab}+\Theta H_{ab}-3\sigma_{c\langle a}H_{b\rangle}^{c}+ curl(E)_{ab}&=&0,\end{aligned}$$ and the constraints: $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{\nabla}^{b}{\sigma_{ab}}&=&-\frac{2}{3}\tilde{\nabla_{a}}\Theta,\\ curl(\sigma)_{ab}&=&H_{ab},\\ \tilde{\nabla}^{b}E_{ab}&=&\frac{1}{3}\tilde{\nabla}_{a}\rho+\varepsilon_{abc}{\sigma^{b}}_{d}H^{cd},\\ \tilde{\nabla}^{b}H_{ab}&=&-\varepsilon_{abc}{\sigma^{b}}_{d}E^{cd}.\end{aligned}$$ We linearize these equations about a dust filled Bianchi I background with zero vorticity. The background quantities are the rate of expansion ( $\Theta$), the shear tensor ($\sigma_{ab}$), the energy density ($\rho$) and the electric part of the Weyl tensor ($E_{ab}$). Scalar-mode of perturbations are given by the conditions: $$\begin{aligned} \label{pd:1}\tilde{\nabla}^{b}\rho\neq0, \tilde{\nabla}^{b}\Theta\neq0, \tilde{\nabla}^{b}\sigma^{2}\neq0, H_{ab}=0.\end{aligned}$$ The possibility of information exchange via gravitational waves or sound is eliminated by setting $H_{ab}=0$ and $p=0$. Models with these conditions are called Silent universes [@bib:28]-[@bib:28.1]. The vanishing of the magnetic part of the Weyl tensor leads to a new constraint, $curl E_{ab}=0.$ These conditions modify the propagation and the constraints equations as follows:$$\begin{aligned} \label{p:1}\dot{\rho}&=&-\Theta\rho,\\ \label{p:2}\dot{\Theta}&=&-\frac{1}{3}{\Theta^{2}}-\sigma_{ab}\sigma^{ab}-\small{\frac{1}{2}}\rho,\\ \label{p:3}\dot{\sigma}_{ab}&=&-\small{\frac{2}{3}}\Theta\sigma_{ab}-{\sigma_{c\langle a}}{\sigma_{b\rangle}}^{c}-E_{ab},\\ \label{p:4}\dot{E}_{ab}&=&-\Theta E_{ab}+3\sigma_{c\langle a}{E_{b\rangle}}^{c}-\small{\frac{1}{2}}\rho\sigma_{ab}.\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{c:1}{C^{1}}_{a}&=&\tilde{\nabla}^{b}{\sigma_{ab}}-\frac{2}{3}\tilde{\nabla_{a}}\Theta=0,\\ \label{c:2}{C^{2}}_{ab}&=&curl \sigma_{ab}=0,\\ \label{c:3}{C^{3}}_{a}&=&\tilde{\nabla}^{b}E_{ab}-\frac{1}{3}\tilde{\nabla}_{a}\rho=0,\\ \label{c:4}{C^{4}}_{a}&=&\varepsilon_{abc}{\sigma^{b}}_{d}E^{cd}=0,\\ \label{c:5}{C^{5}}_{ab}&=& curl E_{ab}=0.\end{aligned}$$ The last constraint equation is as a result of setting $H_{ab}=0.$ We have adopted the notation $C^{(A)}=0$ used in [@bib:30] where, $$\begin{aligned} C^{(A)}=\{\tilde{\nabla}^{b}{\sigma_{ab}}-\frac{2}{3}\tilde{\nabla_{a}}\Theta,curl\sigma_{ab}-H_{ab},..\}\end{aligned}$$ and $A=1...5$. The evolution of $C^{A}$ along $u^{a}$ is given by the system of equations $\dot{C}^{A}=\mathcal{F}^{A}(C^{B})$ , where $\mathcal{F}^{A}$ do not have time derivatives. Detailed constraints analysis in the $'1+3'$ formalism was given in[@bib:30] for the case of general nonlinear perturbations in FLRW models with dust equation of state, and in [@bib:31] for barotropic perfect fluid case for FLRW. In our analysis we find, $$\begin{aligned} \label{ce:1}\dot{C^{1}}_{a}+\Theta {C^{1}}_{a}+{C^{3}}_{a}-2{\epsilon_{a}}^{bc}{\sigma_{b}}^{d}{C^{2}}_{cd}&=&0,\\ \label{ce:2}\dot{C^{2}}_{ab}+\Theta {C^{2}}_{ab}+{\epsilon^{cd}}_{(a}{\sigma_{b)}}_{c}{C^{1}}_{d}&=&0,\\ \label{ce:3}\dot{C^{3}}_{a}+\frac{4}{3}\Theta {C^{3}}_{a}-\frac{3}{2}{E_{a}}^{b}{C^{1}}_{b}-\frac{1}{2}{\sigma_{a}}^{b}{C^{3}}_{b}+\frac{1}{2}\rho {C^{1}}_{a}-\frac{1}{2}curl{C^{4}}_{a}&=&\zeta_{a}^{(3)},\\ \label{ce:4}\dot{C^{4}}_{a}+\frac{5}{3}\Theta {C^{4}}_{a}&=&\zeta_{a}^ {(4)}\\ \label{ce:5}\dot{C^{5}}_{ab}+\frac{4}{3}\Theta {C^{5}}_{ab}-\frac{3}{2}{C^{1}}_{c(a}{E_{b)}}^{c}-\frac{3}{2}{C^{3}}_{c(a}{\sigma_{b)}}^{c}+ \frac{1}{2}\rho {C^{2}}_{ab}&=&\zeta_{ab}^{(5)}.\end{aligned}$$ where the terms on the right hand side are new constraint conditions given by $$\begin{aligned} {\zeta^ {(3)}}_{a}=-{\epsilon_{a}}^{bc}({E_{b}}^{d}{C^ {2}}_{cd}-{\sigma^{d}}_{b}{C^{5}}_{cd})\\ {\zeta^{(4)}}_{a}=-\varepsilon_{abc}{\sigma_{e}}^{\langle b}\sigma^{d\rangle e}{E^{c}}_{d}-\varepsilon_{abc}{\sigma^{b}}_{d} {\sigma_{e}}^{\langle c}E^{d\rangle e}\\ {\zeta^ {(5)}}_{ab}=3curl(\sigma^{c}_{\langle a}E_{b\rangle c}) -{\sigma^{e}}_{c}{\varepsilon^{cd}}_{(a}\tilde{\nabla}_{\|e\|}E_{b)d}- \frac{3}{2}{\varepsilon^{cd}}_{(a}E_{b)d}\tilde{\nabla}_{e}{\sigma^{e}}_{c}- \frac{3}{2}{\varepsilon^{cd}}_{(a}\sigma_{b)d}\tilde{\nabla}_{e}{E^{e}_{c}}.\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[ce:1\]) requires (\[p:2\]), (\[p:3\]), (\[c:1\]), (\[c:2\]), (\[c:3\]), (\[app:2\]), (\[app:6\]) and (\[app:7\]). Equation (\[ce:2\]) requires (\[p:3\]), (\[c:1\]), (\[c:2\]), (\[app:3\]) and (\[app:10\]). Equation (\[ce:3\]) requires (\[p:1\]), (\[p:3\]), (\[p:4\]), (\[c:1\]), (\[c:3\]), (\[c:4\]), (\[app:2\]) and (\[app:6\]). Equation (\[ce:4\]) requires (\[p:3\]), (\[p:4\]), and (\[c:4\]). Equation (\[ce:5\]) requires (\[app:10\]), (\[p:4\]), (\[c:2\]), (\[c:4\]) and (\[c:5\]). The point about this is that the original constraints are said to be preserved if we can demonstrate that all the new constraint vanish. Using equation (\[p:3\]), $\zeta_{a}^{(4)}$ can be written in the form given below. Equivalently, using equation (\[p:3\]), the electric part of the Weyl tensor can be eliminated from $\zeta_{ab}^{(5)},$ which leads to the form given below: $$\begin{aligned} \label{z1}{\zeta^{(4)}}_{a}&=& \varepsilon_{abc}[{\sigma^{b}}_{d}{\sigma_{e}}^{\langle c}\dot{\sigma}^{d\rangle e}-{{\sigma_{e}}^{\langle c}\sigma^{d\rangle e}\dot{\sigma}^{b}}_{d}+{\sigma^{b}}_{d}{\sigma_{e}}^{\langle c}{\sigma_{f}}^{\langle d\rangle}\sigma^{e \rangle f}-{\sigma_{e}}^{\langle c}\sigma^{d\rangle e}{\sigma_{f}}^{\langle b}{\sigma_{d\rangle}}^{f}].\\ \label{z2}{\zeta_{ab}}^{(5)}&=&\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon_{cd(a}{\sigma_{b)}}^{d}\tilde{\nabla}_{e}\dot{\sigma}^{ec}+\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon_{cd(a}{\dot{\sigma}_{b)}}^{d}\tilde{\nabla}_{e}{\sigma}^{ec}+2\Theta\varepsilon_{cd(a}{\sigma_{b)}}^{d}\tilde{\nabla}_{e}\sigma^{ec}+3\varepsilon_{cd(a}{\sigma_{b)}}^{d}\sigma^{ec}\tilde{\nabla}_{f}\sigma^{f}_{e}\nonumber\\ &&+3\varepsilon_{cd(a}{\sigma_{b)}}^{d}\tilde{\nabla}_{e}(\sigma^{f\langle c}{\sigma^{e\rangle}}_{f})+{\sigma_{e}}^{c}\varepsilon_{cd\langle a}\tilde{\nabla}^{e}{\dot{\sigma}_{b\rangle}}^{d}+\frac{2}{3}\Theta{\sigma_{e}}^{c}\varepsilon_{cd\langle a}\tilde{\nabla}^{e}{{\sigma}_{b\rangle}}^{d}+{\sigma_{e}}^{c}\varepsilon_{cd\langle a}{\sigma_{b\rangle}}^{d}\tilde{\nabla}^{f}{\sigma^{e}}_{f}\nonumber\\ &&+{\sigma_{e}}^{c}\varepsilon_{cd\langle a}\tilde{\nabla}^{e}({\sigma_{b\rangle f}\sigma^{df})+\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon_{cd\langle a}{\sigma_{b\rangle}}^{c}\tilde{\nabla}_{e}\dot{\sigma}^{ec}+\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon_{cd\langle a}{\dot{\sigma}_{e\rangle}}^{c}\tilde{\nabla}^{e}{\sigma_{b\rangle}}^{d}+\Theta\varepsilon_{cd(a}{\sigma_{b)}}^{d}\tilde{\nabla}_{e}{\sigma_{b\rangle}}^{c}}+\Theta\varepsilon_{cd(a}{\sigma_{b)}}^{d}\tilde{\nabla}_{e}\sigma^{ec}\nonumber\\ &&+\Theta\varepsilon_{cd\langle a}\sigma^{ec}\tilde{\nabla}_{e}{\sigma_{b\rangle}}^{d}+\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon_{cd(a}{\sigma_{b)}}^{d}\tilde{\nabla}_{e}\sigma^{fe}\sigma^{df}+\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon_{cd(a}\sigma^{fc}\sigma^{fe}\tilde{\nabla}_{e}{\sigma_{b\rangle}}^{d}.\end{aligned}$$ It can be shown that the terms in equation \[z1\] cancel each other out. The fully expanded form of $\zeta_{ab}^{(5)}$ given by equation \[z2\] ${\zeta^{(5)}}_{ab}$ is equivalent to equation (15) in [@bib:31], where it is shown there that the term vanishes when the shear is diagonal and degenerate. We note that our equation \[c:4\] shows that one can choose a common eigen-frame for both shear and the electric part of the Weyl tensor, and one that leads to a simultaneous diagonalization of both. Such an eigen-frame is Fermi transported along the 4-velocity. This can be achieved by setting the off-diagonal terms of the shear and the electric part of the Weyl tensor set to zero. It is then possible to choose a tracefree-adapted irreducible frame components for $\sigma_{ab}$ and $E_{ab}$ defined by $$\sigma_{+}:=-\frac{1}{2}\sigma_{11}=\frac{1}{2}(\sigma_{22}+\sigma_{33}), \sigma_{-}:=\frac{1}{2\surd{3}}(\sigma_{22}-\sigma_{33}),$$ and where vorticity is zero. $E_{+/-}$ is defined in a similar manner. $\zeta_{ab}^{(5)}$ now takes a form similar to equations 67-69 in [@bib:31]. From our equation (\[c:4\]), ($\sigma_{-}=0\Rightarrow E_{-}=0$). It is then straightforward to show, using the tetrad formalism, that $\sigma_{-}=0(i.e.\sigma_{22}=\sigma_{33})$ leads to $\zeta_{ab}^{(5)}=0$. This means that, subject to the preceding discussions, all the new constraints vanish leading the preservation of the original constraints. This implies that the conditions given above for pure, or decoupled, density perturbations about a dust filled Bianchi I model with zero vorticity represent consistent characterization only when the background shear tensor is degenerate. It is important to point out that this is not a proof that the solutions to the constraints exist Ñ only that if solutions exist, then they evolve consistently. The question of existence is one that needs to be investigated. Such an investigation should show how to construct a metric from given initial data in the covariant formalism. This notwithstanding, one can now study the decoupled perturbations as will be presented in [@bib:36]. The following commutation relations for a scalar quantity, [f]{} and PSTF-tensor quantities, $T_{ab}$ and $V_{ab}$ with vanishing vorticity have been used in our analysis; $$\begin{aligned} \label{app:0}\varepsilon_{abc}\varepsilon^{dec}&=&2!{h^{d}}_{[a}{h^ {e}}_{b]},\\ \label{app:1}\varepsilon_{abc}{T^{b}}_{p}{T^{p}}_{q}V^{cq}&=&-T_{ab} \varepsilon^{bcd}{T_{c}}^{p}V_{dp}, \\ \label{app:2}(\tilde{\nabla}_{a}f)^{.}&=&\tilde{\nabla}_{a}\dot{f}- \frac{1}{3}\Theta\tilde{\nabla}_{a}f-{\sigma_{a}}^{b}\tilde{\nabla}_{b}f, \\ \label{app:4}\tilde{\nabla}_{[a}\tilde{\nabla}_{b]}f&=&0, \\ \label{app:3}curl(T^{2})_{ab}&=&\varepsilon_{cd(a}\tilde{\nabla}^{e}\{{T_{b)}^{c}{T^{d}}_{e}\}}, \\ \label{app:7}\varepsilon_{abc}{T^{b}}_{d} curl V^{cd}&=&T^{bc}\tilde{\nabla}_{a}V_{bc}-T^{bc}\tilde{\nabla}_{b}V_ {ac}-\frac{1}{2}T_{ab}\tilde{\nabla}_{c}V^{bc},\nonumber\\ \\ \label{app:8}curl(f T_{ab})&=&f curl(T)_{ab}+\varepsilon_{cd(a}T_{b)}^ {d}\tilde{\nabla}^{c}f,\\ \label{app:5}(\tilde{\nabla}_{a}T_{bc})^{.}&=&\tilde{\nabla}_{a}\dot{T}_{bc}-\frac{1}{3}\Theta\tilde{\nabla}_{a}T_{bc}-{\sigma_{a}}^{d}\tilde{\nabla}_{d}T_{bc}+2{H_{a}}^{d}\varepsilon_{de(b}T_{c)}^{e} ,\\ \label{app:6}(\tilde{\nabla}^{b}T_{ab})^{.}&=&\tilde{\nabla}^{b}\dot {T}_{ab}-\frac{1}{3}\Theta\tilde{\nabla}^{b}T_{ab}-\sigma^{bc}\tilde{\nabla}_ {c}T_{ab}+\varepsilon_{abc}{H^{b}}_{d}T^{bc}, \\ \label{app:9}(\tilde{\nabla}^{b}curl T_{ab})&=&\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon_ {abc}\tilde{\nabla}^{b}\tilde{\nabla}_{d}T^{cd}+\varepsilon_{abc}{T^ {b}}_{d}(\frac{1}{3}\Theta\sigma^{cd}-E^{cd})-\sigma_{ab}\varepsilon^{bcd}\sigma_{ce}{T^{e}}{d},\\ \label{app:10}(curl T_{ab})^{.}&=& curl(\dot{T})_{ab}-\frac{1}{3}\Theta curl T_{ab}-{\sigma_{e}}^{c}\varepsilon_{cd(a}\tilde{\nabla}^{e}{T_{b)}}^ {d}+3H_{c\langle a}{T_{b\rangle}}^{c}, \\ \label{app:11}curl curl(T)_{ab}&=&-\tilde{\nabla}^{2}{T}_{ab}+\frac{3} {2}\tilde{\nabla}_{\langle a}\tilde{\nabla}^{c}T_{b\rangle c}+(\rho-\frac{1}{3}\Theta^{2})T_{ab}+\nonumber\\&&3T_{c\langle a}\{{E_{b\rangle}}^{c}-\frac{1}{3}\Theta{\sigma_{b\rangle}}^{c}\}+\sigma_{cd}T^{cd}\sigma_{ab}-T^{cd}\sigma_{ca}\sigma_{bd}+\sigma^{cd}\sigma_{c(a}T_{b)d}.\end{aligned}$$ This work was funded URC grant from the University of Cape Town. [40]{} Oliveria-Costa A et al 2004 Phys. Rev. D 69 063515 Schwarz D et al 2004 Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 221301 Ralston J and Jain, 2004 Int. J. Mod. Phys. 13 1857 Eriksen H K et al 2004 Astrophys. J. 14 605 Eriksen H K et al 2004 Astrophys. J. 64 Eriksen H K et al 2005 Astrophys. J.622 58 Hansen F K et al 2004 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 354: 641 Land K and Magueijo J 2005 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 357 994 Hansen F K et al, 2004 Astrophys. J. 607 L67 Vielva P et al 2004 Astrophys. J. 609 22 Ade P A R 2013 Astro. & Astrophys. Bennett C L et al 2003 Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148 1 Land K and Magueijo J 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 071301 Lifshitz E M 1946 J. Phys (USSR). 10 116 Bonnor W B 1957 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 117 104 Ellis G F R and Bruni M 1990 Phys. Rev. D 40 1804 Ellis G F R, Bruni M and Hwang J 1990 Phys. Rev. D 42 1035 Ellis G F R 1971 General Relativity and Cosmology (New York: Academic) Perko T E, Matzner R A and Shepley L C 1972 Phys. Rev. D 6 969 Tomita K and Mitsue D 1986 Phys. Rev. D 34 3570 Heyrim N and Hwang J 1995 Phys. Rev. D 52 5643-52 : Phys. Rev. D 52 1970: Phys. Rev. D 53 4311 Ellis G F R and van Elst H 1999, NATO Adv. Study Inst. Ser. C. Math. Phys. Sci. 541 Matarrese S, Pantano O and Saez D 1994 Phys. Rev. Lett. 72 320 Bruni M, Matarrese S and Pantano O 1995 Astrophys. J. 445 958 Maartens R1997 Phys. Rev.D 55 van Elst H 2013 [http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/ hve/13coveq.pdf]{}. Dunsby P K S 1993 Phys. Rev. D 48 3562 Osano B 2013 (in preparation)	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: '5G millimeter wave (mmWave) signals can be used to jointly localize the receiver and map the propagation environment in vehicular networks, which is a typical simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) problem. Mapping the environment is challenging, due to measurements comprising both specular and diffuse multipath components, and diffuse multipath is usually considered as a perturbation. We here propose a novel method to utilize all available multipath signals from each landmark for mapping and incorporate this into a Poisson multi-Bernoulli mixture for the 5G SLAM problem. Simulation results demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed scheme.' author: - \| Yu Ge, Hyowon Kim, Fuxi Wen, Lennart Svensson, Sunwoo Kim, and Henk Wymeersch\ Department of Electrical Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden\ Department of Electronic Engineering, Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea\ bibliography: - 'IEEEabrv.bib' - 'Exploiting\_Diffuse\_Multipath\_in\_5G\_SLAM.bib' title: 'Exploiting Diffuse Multipath in 5G SLAM [^1] ' --- Introduction ============ 5G mmWave communication is useful for localization and mapping, due to its geometric connection to the location of the user with respect to the base station (BS) and the propagation environment [@nurmi2017multi]. Signals from the BS can reach the user via multiple propagation paths. The channel estimation of each path provides accurate estimates of a time of arrival (TOA), angles of arrival (AOA), and angels of departure (AOD), which can be used to localize the user and map the environment [@wymeersch20175g]. Positioning and mapping using 5G signals is termed as 5G simultaneous localization and mapping (5G SLAM). The main tasks in 5G SLAM are to determine the user states (position, velocity, heading, clock bias) and to estimate the number of landmarks, their types and positions. In 5G SLAM, data association (DA) is an important problem, which is to assign the measurements to landmarks [@bar1990tracking]. Landmarks in the environment can be smooth or rough surfaces [@akdeniz2014millimeter]. Hence, in fact, each path (except the line-of-slight (LOS) path) is a cluster of paths, which may include a specular path and multiple diffuse paths. The related works can be divided into two areas: works that exploit diffuse multipath for positioning or mapping and works in the area of 5G SLAM. In [@witrisal2016high], diffuse multipath is seen as a perturbation, leading to false measurements. In [@aubry2015diffuse], exploitation of the diffuse multipath in radar is proposed by means of including diffuse multipath statistics. In [@setlur2013multipath] surface roughness was considered in a radar applications, modeled as a number of sub-reflectors, in an environment with known wall geometry. A similar model with random sub-reflectors was evaluated in [@wen20195g], where the estimated diffuse paths were used for positioning and mapping, but using a simple geometric approach. However, these methods do not solve the 5G SLAM problem over time or provide uncertainty information. The 5G SLAM problem has been addressed in a number of different approaches. In [@mendrzik2018joint; @kim20185g], message passing-based estimators are introduced, which use the concept of nonparametric belief propagation, but the DA problem is not considered. A method based on random finite set and the probability hypothesis density (PHD) filters was proposed in [@kim20205g]. Although this method considers the DA problem, there is no explicit enumeration of the different data associations. Moreover, in all these works, the landmarks are assumed to be perfect reflective surfaces or small scatter objects, with only one path for each landmark, so they ignore the information provided by diffuse multipath. In this paper, we aim to harness the diffuse multipath components coming from rough surfaces in a 5G SLAM filter. The proposed scheme can estimate the vehicle location, orientation and clock bias as well as the locations and roughness of landmarks in the environment. The main contributions of this paper are summarized as follows: (i) We extend the filtering approach from [@kim20205g] by utilizing a more powerful filter, and by considering a likelihood with multiple channel parameter estimates per surface; (ii) We derive a novel likelihood function for channel estimation from [@wen20195g] of the cluster of paths from rough surfaces, for different types of surfaces with different roughness. Model ===== We describe the model of the vehicle (user), environment, received waveform, and channel parameter estimates. Vehicle Model ------------- We consider a single vehicle in the environment, with a dynamic state $\boldsymbol{s}_{k}$ at time $k$, which comprises 3D position $\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{UE},k}=[x_{k},y_{k},z_{k}]^{\mathsf{T}}$, heading $\alpha_{k}$, translation speed $\zeta_{k}$, turn rate $\rho_{k}$ and clock bias $B_{k}$. The transition density $f(\boldsymbol{s}_{k}\|\boldsymbol{s}_{k-1})$ is derived from the following state model of $\boldsymbol{s}_{k}$ $$\boldsymbol{s}_{k}=\boldsymbol{v}(\boldsymbol{s}_{k-1})+\boldsymbol{q}_{k}, \label{dynamicmodel}$$ where $\boldsymbol{v}(\cdot)$ is a known transition function; $\boldsymbol{q}_{k}$ is the process noise, modeled as a zero-mean Gaussian with known covariance $\boldsymbol{Q}_{k}$. Environment Model ----------------- There is a fixed BS, with a known location $\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{BS}}\in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ in the environment. The unknown environment is modeled as surfaces with different roughness (see Fig. \[fig.VA\]). The roughness determines the amount of diffuse multipath components. We model each surface with three related parameters: the scattering power $S \ge 0$ (which determines the fraction of power that is scattered), the reflection power $R \ge 0$ (which determines the fraction of power that is reflected, with $R+S\le 1$, as some of the power can be absorbed) and the smoothness[^2] parameter $\alpha_\mathrm{R} \ge 0$ (which determines the spread of the diffuse multipath) [@wen20195g]. The state of a surface $\boldsymbol{x}$ can therefore be described by these three parameters and the fixed virtual anchor (VA), located at $\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{VA}}\in \mathbb{R}^{3}$, which is the reflection of the BS with respect to the surface. ![Scenario with the environment of a BS, a surface, and a vehicle. The existence of the specular path (shown as the red line) or the diffusion path (shown as the azure line) is depend on the type of the surface.[]{data-label="fig.VA"}](VA.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"} Signal Model ------------ The received signal sent from the BS to the vehicle at time $k$ can be modeled as[@heath2016overview] $$\begin{aligned} \boldsymbol{y}_{k}(t)=&(\boldsymbol{W}_{k})^{\mathsf{H}}\sum _{i=0}^{I_{k}-1}\sum _{l=0}^{L_{k}^{i}-1}g_{k}^{i,l}\\ &\boldsymbol{a}_{\text{R}}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_{k}^{i,l})\boldsymbol{a}_{\text{T}}^{\mathsf{H}}(\boldsymbol{\phi}_{k}^{i,l})\boldsymbol{p}_{k}(t-\tau_{k}^{i,l})+\boldsymbol{r}_{k}(t), \label{reveivedsignal} \end{aligned}$$ where $\boldsymbol{p}_{k}(t)$ is the transmitted signal vector; $\boldsymbol{y}_{k}(t)$ is the received signal vector; $\boldsymbol{r}_{k}(t)$ is the noise vector; $\boldsymbol{W}_{k}$ is a combining matrix; $I_{k}$ is the number of landmarks in the environment. The landmark with index $i=0$ is the BS; $L_{k}^{i}$ is the number of paths from each landmark. Each path $l$ can be described by a complex gain $g_{k}^{i,l}$, a TOA $\tau_{k}^{i,l}$, an AOA pair $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{k}^{i,l}$ in azimuth and elevation, and an AOD pair $\boldsymbol{\phi}_{k}^{i,l}$ in azimuth and elevation; $\boldsymbol{a}_{\text{R}}(\cdot)$ and $\boldsymbol{a}_{\text{T}}(\cdot)$ are the steering vectors of the receiver and transmitter antenna arrays. The TOA, AOA and AOD depend on the locations of the transmitter, the receiver, and the incident points of NLOS paths in the environment. The number of paths per surface and their spread in angle and delay as well as the channel gains depend on the roughness of that surface. Conceptually, these paths can be interpreted as coming from random points on the surface, with a spatial distribution that depends on the roughness. Among the paths, there may be a deterministic specular component, while all remaining paths are diffuse components and thus random [@wen20195g]. Measurement Model ----------------- The vehicle executes a channel estimation routine, which aims to extract the angles and delays from the received signal. As the receiver has finite resolution, not all paths can be resolved. Hence, for each surface, the number of estimated paths will be much smaller than $L_{k}^{i}$. We assume the channel estimator provides a set of channel parameter estimates $\mathcal{Z}_{k}$ at time $k$, which is already grouped into clusters based on different sources, $\{ \mathcal{Z}_{k}^{0},\mathcal{Z}_{k}^{1},\dots, \mathcal{Z}_{k}^{\hat{I}_{k}-1} \}$, where $\hat{I}_{k}$ is the number of estimated clusters. Each element $\boldsymbol{z}_{k}^{i,l}\in \mathcal{Z}_{k}^{i}$ is either clutter, which is caused by noise peaks, with clutter intensity $c(\boldsymbol{z})$ or follows $$\boldsymbol{z}_{k}^{i,l}=\boldsymbol{h}(\boldsymbol{x}_{k}^{i,l},\boldsymbol{s}_{k})+\boldsymbol{w}_{k}^{i,l}, \label{pos_to_channelestimation}$$ where $\boldsymbol{w}_{k}^{i,l}$ is measurement noise, and $\boldsymbol{x}_{k}^{i,l}$ is a point on the surface (either the incidence point of the deterministic specular components or a random point on the surface for a diffuse component), with $\boldsymbol{h}(\boldsymbol{x}_{k}^{i,l},\boldsymbol{s}_{k})=[\tau_{k}^{i,l},(\boldsymbol{\theta}_{k}^{i,l})^{\mathsf{T}},(\boldsymbol{\phi}_{k}^{i,l})^{\mathsf{T}}]^{\mathsf{T}}$, where the angles and delays depend on the underlying geometry. Our goal is to estimate vehicle states and landmark states. It is challenging due to the random nature of the diffuse multipath, which in turn makes it challenging to describe the likelihood function $\ell(\mathcal{Z}_{k}^{i}\|\boldsymbol{x}^i,\boldsymbol{s}_{k})$, needed for the SLAM method. We will propose a landmark state $\boldsymbol{x}^i$ and likelihood function in Section \[subsection4\]. PMBM SLAM Filter ================ Basics of PMBM Density ---------------------- The PMBM filter relies on a PMBM density representation of the landmarks, conditioned on the vehicle state. A PMBM RFSs $\mathcal{X}$ can be viewed as the union of two disjoint RFS, the set of undetected objects $\mathcal{X}_{\mathrm{U}}$ and the set of detected objects $\mathcal{X}_{\mathrm{D}}$[@garcia2018poisson]. The undetected objects are the objects that have never been detected before; the detected objects are the objects that have been detected at least once before. We model $\mathcal{X}_{\mathrm{U}}$ as a Poisson point process (PPP), $\mathcal{X}_{\mathrm{D}}$ as a multi-Bernoulli mixture (MBM). The details of the densities of PPP and MBM can be found in [@williams2015marginal; @garcia2018poisson; @fatemi2017poisson]. Then, $f(\mathcal{X})$ can be defined by [@mahler2014advances] $$f(\mathcal{X})=\sum_{\mathcal{X}_{\mathrm{U}}\biguplus\mathcal{X}_{\mathrm{D}}=\mathcal{X}}f_{\mathrm{P}}(\mathcal{X}_{\mathrm{U}})f_{\mathrm{MBM}}(\mathcal{X}_{\mathrm{D}}),\label{PMBM}$$ where $\biguplus$ stands for the union of mutually disjoint sets; $f_{\mathrm{P}}(\cdot)$ is a PPP density; $f_{\mathrm{MBM}}(\cdot)$ is an MBM density. The PPP density is $$f_{\mathrm{P}}(\mathcal{X}_{\mathrm{U}})=e^{-\int\lambda(\boldsymbol{x})d\boldsymbol{x}}\prod_{j=1}^{n}\lambda(\boldsymbol{x}^{j}),\label{PPP}$$ where $\lambda(\cdot)$ is the intensity function; $n$ is the cardinality of $\mathcal{X}_{\mathrm{U}}$. The MBM density follows $$f_{\mathrm{MBM}}(\mathcal{X}_{\mathrm{D}})\propto \sum_{h}\sum_{\mathcal{X}^{1}\biguplus \dots \biguplus \mathcal{X}^{n}=\mathcal{X}_{\mathrm{D}}}\prod_{j=1}^{n}l^{h,j}f^{h,j}_{\mathrm{B}}(\mathcal{X}^{j}),\label{MBM}$$ where $h$ is the index for hypotheses [@williams2015marginal]; $n$ is the number of potentially detected objects; $f_{\mathrm{B}}^{h,j}(\cdot)$ is the Bernoulli density of the object $j$ under the global hypothesis $h$, and $l^{h,j}$ is its weight. Each Bernoulli follows $$f^{h,j}_{\mathrm{B}}(\mathcal{X}^{j})= \begin{cases} 1-r^{h,j} \quad& \mathcal{X}^{j}=\emptyset \\ r^{h,j}f^{h,j}(\boldsymbol{x}) \quad & \mathcal{X}^{j}=\{\boldsymbol{x}\} \end{cases}$$ and $f^{h,j}_{\mathrm{B}}(\mathcal{X}^{j})=0$ otherwise. Here, $r^{h,j}$ is the existence probability and $f^{h,j}(\cdot)$ is the state density. Then, can be parameterized by $\lambda(\boldsymbol{x})$, and can be parameterized by $\{l^{h,j},\{r^{h,j},f^{h,j}(\boldsymbol{x})\}_{j\in \mathbb{I}^{h}}\}_{h\in \mathbb{I}}$, where $\mathbb{I}$ is the index set. The PMBM filter follows the prediction and update steps of the Bayesian filtering recursion with RFSs, using the Chapman-Komogorov applied to sets [@mahler2003multitarget]. This then translates into prediction and update steps of the PMBM parameters $\lambda(\boldsymbol{x})$ and $\{l^{h,j},\{r^{h,j},f^{h,j}(\boldsymbol{x})\}_{j\in \mathbb{I}^{h}}\}_{h\in \mathbb{I}}$. Implementation of PMBM SLAM Filter ---------------------------------- We follow the Rao-Blackwellized approach, where we use a group of particles to represent the vehicle state, and use PMBM densities conditioned on each particles to represent the map. Given a landmark state $\boldsymbol{x}$ with the measurement cluster $\mathcal{Z}_{k}^{i}$ at time $k$, we assume we are given a likelihood $\ell(\mathcal{Z}_{k}^{i}\|\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{s}_{k})$. This likelihood will be derived in the next section. We assume at the end of time $k$, there are $N$ particles $\boldsymbol{s}_{0:k}^{n}$ with non-negative weights $\omega_{k\|k}^{n}$, $\sum_n\omega_{k\|k}^{n}=1$, where for each particle $n$ we have a PMBM density with PPP parameter $\lambda^{n}_{k\|k}(\boldsymbol{x})$ and MBM parameters $\{l_{k\|k}^{n,h,j},\{r_{k\|k}^{n,h,j},f_{k\|k}^{n,h,j}(\boldsymbol{x})\}_{j\in \mathbb{I}_{k}^{n,h}}\}_{h\in \mathbb{I}_{k}^{n}}$. For simplicity, we drop the particle index $n$ in map prediction and map update. ### Vehicle Prediction The state of ${n}^{\mathrm{th}}$ particle $\boldsymbol{s}_{k-1\|k-1}^{n}$ is predicted using , yielding $\boldsymbol{s}_{k\|k-1}^{n}=\boldsymbol{v}(\boldsymbol{s}_{k-1\|k-1}^{n})+\boldsymbol{q}^n_{k}$, where $\boldsymbol{q}^n_{k}\sim \mathcal{N}(\boldsymbol{0},\boldsymbol{Q}_k)$ and $\omega_{k\|k-1}^{n}=\omega_{k-1\|k-1}^{n}$. ### Map Prediction The positions of landmarks are fixed, so we do not need to predict the state. The prediction of PPP intensity is $\lambda_{k\|k-1}(\boldsymbol{x})=p_\text{S}\lambda_{k-1\|k-1}(\boldsymbol{x})+\lambda_{\mathrm{B},k}(\boldsymbol{x})$ [@li2019multiple], where $p_{\mathrm{S}}$ is the survival probability (assumed as a constant for simplicity), $\lambda_{\mathrm{B},k}(\boldsymbol{x})$ is the intensity of the birth model. For the MBM components, the prediction step is $l_{k\|k-1}^{h,j}= l_{k-1\|k-1}^{h,j}$ for the weight, and $r_{k\|k-1}^{h,j}=p_{\mathrm{S}}r_{k-1\|k-1}^{h,j}$, $f_{k\|k-1}^{h,j}(\boldsymbol{x})=f_{k-1\|k-1}^{h,j}(\boldsymbol{x})$ for the density [@li2019multiple]. ### Map Update {#mapupdate} The update step uses the measurements to correct the landmarks’ positions and types. The update step consists of four cases [@li2019multiple]: - Undetected objects that remain undetected by $\lambda_{k\|k}(\boldsymbol{x})=(1-p_{\mathrm{D}})\lambda_{k\|k-1}(\boldsymbol{x})$, where $p_{\mathrm{D}}$ is the detection probability (also assumed as a constant). - Undetected objects that are detected for the first time using grouped measurement $\mathcal{Z}_{k}^{i}$: $$\begin{aligned} &r_{\mathrm{U},k\|k}^{i}=\rho_{\mathrm{U},k\|k-1}^{i}(\mathcal{Z}_{k}^{i})/(c(\mathcal{Z}_{k}^{i})+\rho_{\mathrm{U},k\|k-1}^{i}(\mathcal{Z}_{k}^{i}))\\ &f_{\mathrm{U},k\|k}^{i}(\boldsymbol{x})=p_{\mathrm{D}}\ell(\mathcal{Z}_{k}^{i}\|\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{s}_{k\|k-1})\lambda_{k\|k-1}(\boldsymbol{x})/\rho_{\mathrm{U},k\|k-1}^{i}(\mathcal{Z}_{k}^{i})\\ &l_{\mathrm{U},k\|k}^{i}=c(\mathcal{Z}_{k}^{i})+\rho_{\mathrm{U},k\|k-1}^{i}(\mathcal{Z}_{k}^{i})\\ &\rho_{\mathrm{U},k\|k-1}^{i}(\mathcal{Z}_{k}^{i})=\int p_{\mathrm{D}}\ell(\mathcal{Z}_{k}^{i}\|\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{s}_{k\|k-1})\lambda_{k\|k-1}(\boldsymbol{x}) \text{d}\boldsymbol{x}, $$ where $c(\mathcal{Z}_{k}^{i})=\delta(\|\mathcal{Z}_{k}^{i}\|=1) c(\boldsymbol{z}^{i,0}_k)$. Note that $h$ and $j$ do not appear, since the object was undetected before (indicated by the notation ${\mathrm{U}}$). - Previously detected objects that are misdetected: $$\begin{aligned} &r_{k\|k}^{h,j,0}=(1-p_{\mathrm{D}})r_{k\|k-1}^{h,j}/(1-p_{\mathrm{D}} r_{k\|k-1}^{h,j} )\\ &f_{k\|k}^{h,j,0}(\boldsymbol{x})=f_{k\|k-1}^{h,j}(\boldsymbol{x})\\ &l_{k\|k}^{h,j,0}=l_{k\|k-1}^{h,j}(1-r_{k\|k-1}^{h,j} p_{\mathrm{D}}).\end{aligned}$$ - Previously detected objects that are detected again using set $\mathcal{Z}_{k}^{i}$: $$\begin{aligned} &r_{k\|k}^{h,j,i}=1\\ &f_{k\|k}^{h,j,i}(\boldsymbol{x})=p_{\mathrm{D}} \ell(\mathcal{Z}_{k}^{i}\|\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{s}_{k\|k-1})f_{k\|k-1}^{h,j}(\boldsymbol{x})/\rho_{k\|k-1}^{h,j,i}(\mathcal{Z}_{k}^{i})\\ &l_{k\|k}^{h,j,i}=l_{k\|k-1}^{h,j} r_{k\|k-1}^{h,j}\rho_{k\|k-1}^{h,j,i}(\mathcal{Z}_{k}^{i})\\ & \rho_{k\|k-1}^{h,j,i}(\mathcal{Z}_{k}^{i})=\int p_{\mathrm{D}}\ell(\mathcal{Z}_{k}^{i}\|\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{s}_{k\|k-1})f_{k\|k-1}^{h,j}(\boldsymbol{x})\text{d}\boldsymbol{x}.\end{aligned}$$ To avoid the exponential complexity associated with introducing new landmarks for each measurement, hypotheses can be removed, e.g., based on Murty’s algorithm [@murty1968letter], where weights $l_{\mathrm{U},k\|k}^{i}$, $l_{k\|k}^{h,j,0}$ and $l_{k\|k}^{h,j,i}$ calculated in \[mapupdate\] construct a cost matrix [@garcia2018poisson]. ### Vehicle Update Each particle weight can be update by $ \omega_{k\|k}^{n} \propto \omega_{k\|k-1}^{n} \sum_{h}l_{k\|k}^{n,h}$, where $l_{k\|k}^{n,h}$ is the weight of updated global hypothesis $h$ for particle $n$, given by the Murty’s algorithm. The estimate vehicle state is given by $\hat{\boldsymbol{s}}_{k\|k}=\sum_{n} \omega_{k\|k}^{n}\boldsymbol{s}_{k\|k}^{n}$. Finally, the resampling of particles can be applied. Likelihood function derivation {#subsection4} ============================== For brevity, we will omit the time index $k$ and the particle index $n$. Assumptions ----------- In order to derive the likelihood function $\ell(\mathcal{Z}^{i}\|\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{s})$ needed in the PMBM SLAM filter, we make several additional assumptions: - Channel estimation method: We consider the channel estimator in [@wen20195g], which uses a tensor ESPRIT-based method to estimate 5G channel parameters in the presence of combined specular and diffuse multipath from the surface. With this specific channel estimator, we can generate simulated data to determine the likelihood function. - State representation: In order to have a compact state representation, we consider 3 different types of surfaces: smooth surface (SM, with $S=0$, $R=0.8$, $\alpha_{\mathrm{R}}=100$), medium rough surface (MR, with $S=0.4, R=0.6, \alpha_{\mathrm{R}}=4$) and very rough surface (VR, with $S=0.8, R=0, \alpha_{\mathrm{R}}=0$). This allows us to set the landmark state to $\boldsymbol{x} = [\boldsymbol{x}^{\textsf{T}}_{\text{LM}},m]^{\textsf{T}}$, where $m\in\{\text{BS},\text{SM},\text{MR},\text{VR}\}$ and $\boldsymbol{x}_{\text{LM}}=\boldsymbol{x}_{\text{BS}}$ for $m=\text{BS}$, while $\boldsymbol{x}_{\text{LM}}=\boldsymbol{x}_{\text{VA}}$, for $m\neq \text{BS}$. Hence, we can write $\ell(\mathcal{Z}^{i}\|\boldsymbol{x}_{\text{LM}},\boldsymbol{s},m)$. - Measurement independence: We assume that the measurements within the set $\mathcal{Z}^{i}$ are independent, though not necessarily identically distributed, since scatter points are generated independently. For simplicity, we also assume that the number of measurements $\|\mathcal{Z}^{i}\|$ only depends on $m$. Likelihood Function ------------------- With these assumptions, the likelihood function is $$\begin{aligned} & \ell(\mathcal{Z}^i\|\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{LM}},\boldsymbol{s},m)\nonumber \\ & =p(\|\mathcal{Z}^{i}\|\|m)\prod^{\|\mathcal{Z}^{i}\|-1}_{l=0}p(\boldsymbol{z}^{i,l}\|\boldsymbol{x}_{\text{LM}},\boldsymbol{s},m). \label{likelihoodfunction_orginal}\end{aligned}$$ We would like to express this likelihood in a form compatible with , i.e., as a function of an incidence point on the surface for $m\neq \text{BS}$ or as a function of the BS location for $m= \text{BS}$. ### Case $m=\text{BS}$ In this case $\|\mathcal{Z}^{i}\|=1$ and $$\begin{aligned} \ell(\mathcal{Z}^{i}=\{\boldsymbol{z}^{i,0}\}\|\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{LM}},\boldsymbol{s},m=\text{BS})=p(\boldsymbol{z}^{i,0}\|\boldsymbol{x}_{\text{BS}},\boldsymbol{s}),\end{aligned}$$ which is in the desired form. ### Case $m\neq \text{BS}$ The incidence point on the surface of a specular component can be derived from Snell’s law of reflection, and is given by the intersection of the line between the VA location $\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{LM}}$ and the UE location $\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{UE}}$ with the surface: $$\begin{aligned} \boldsymbol{x}_{0}=\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{LM}}+\frac{(\boldsymbol{x}_{e}-\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{LM}})^{\textsf{T}}\boldsymbol{e}}{(\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{UE}}-\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{LM}})^{\textsf{T}}\boldsymbol{e}}(\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{UE}}-\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{LM}}), \label{reflection point}\end{aligned}$$ where $\boldsymbol{x}_{e}=({\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{BS}}+\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{LM}}})/{2}$ is a point on the surface, and $\boldsymbol{e}=({\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{BS}}-\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{LM}}})/{\left\\|\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{BS}}-\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{LM}}\right\\|}$ is a normal to the surface. We now separate $\mathcal{Z}^{i}$ into two parts, the path with the shortest delay $\boldsymbol{z}^{i,0}$, and the remaining paths $\{ \boldsymbol{z}^{i,1},\boldsymbol{z}^{i,2},\dots, \boldsymbol{z}^{i,\|\mathcal{Z}^{i}\|-1}\}$. Since $\boldsymbol{z}^{i,0}$ is the path closest to the specular component we associate it with the deterministic incidence point $\boldsymbol{x}_{0}$. The remaining paths are associated with random incidence points on the surface. Therefore, we write for $\boldsymbol{z}^{i,0}$ that $p(\boldsymbol{z}^{i,0}\|\boldsymbol{x}_{\text{LM}},\boldsymbol{s},m)= p(\boldsymbol{z}^{i,0}\|\boldsymbol{x}_{0},\boldsymbol{s},m)$, which is in the desired form. ![The principle of how to calculate $\hat{d}^{i,l}$ using $\boldsymbol{z}^{i,l}$, $\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{LM}}$ and $\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{BS}}$, when $m\neq \text{BS}$. We use one path $l$ as an example. []{data-label="fig.distance"}](distance_new1.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"} For diffuse paths $l>0$, the incidence point on the surface is unknown. We proceed as follows. From $\boldsymbol{z}^{i,l}$, we compute a position $\hat{\boldsymbol{x}}^{i,l} \in \mathbb{R}^3$, using the method in [@wymeersch2018simple]. This position is a function of $\boldsymbol{s}$ and $\boldsymbol{z}^{i,l}$. In the absence of uncertainty, which is caused by the measurement noise and the interpath interference, $\hat{\boldsymbol{x}}^{i,l}$ would lie on the surface. As we don’t know the random incidence points that gave rise to $\boldsymbol{z}^{i,l}$, our best guess is the projection of $\hat{\boldsymbol{x}}^{i,l}$ onto the surface, i.e., $\tilde{\boldsymbol{x}}^{i,l}=\hat{\boldsymbol{x}}^{i,l}+ (\boldsymbol{x}_{e}-\hat{\boldsymbol{x}}^{i,l})^{\textsf{T}}\boldsymbol{e}~\boldsymbol{e}$. We then have $p(\boldsymbol{z}^{i,l}\|\boldsymbol{x}_{\text{LM}},\boldsymbol{s},m)= p(\boldsymbol{z}^{i,l}\|\tilde{\boldsymbol{x}}^{i,l}),~l>0$, where $\tilde{\boldsymbol{x}}^{i,l}$ is the assumed incidence point that gave rise to measurement $\boldsymbol{z}^{i,l}$. Since the only non-zero error component in this likelihood function is the one orthogonal to the surface, we use it directly as a compressed measurement $$\begin{aligned} \hat{d}^{i,l}(\boldsymbol{z}^{i,l})=\boldsymbol{e}^{\mathsf{T}}(\hat{\boldsymbol{x}}^{i,l}-\boldsymbol{x}_{e}).\end{aligned}$$ Fig. \[fig.distance\] shows the principle of calculating $\hat{d}^{i,l}(\boldsymbol{z}^{i,l})$. Therefore, the overall likelihood function is $$\begin{aligned} &\ell({\mathcal{Z}^{i} }\|\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{LM}},\boldsymbol{s},m)=\label{likelihoodfunction_final} \\ &p(\|\mathcal{Z}^{i}\|\|m)p(\boldsymbol{z}^{i,0}\|\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{LM}},\boldsymbol{s},m)\prod^{\|\mathcal{Z}^{i}\|-1}_{l=1}p(\hat{d}^{i,l}(\boldsymbol{z}^{i,l})\|\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{LM}},\boldsymbol{s},m), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where all distributions can be obtained from the simulation of a channel estimator or provided directly in closed-form by a channel estimator. Results ======= Scenario -------- We consider a scenario with a single BS and a vehicle. During $k=40$ time steps, the BS sends $10\times64$ OFDM symbols to the vehicle with 200 subcarriers using the transmit power of 5.05 W at each time step; the subcarrier spacing is 0.5 MHz; the noise power spectral density is $4.0049\times10^{-9}$ mW/Hz; the carrier frequency is 28 GHz. The transmitter and the receiver are both equipped with a uniform rectangular array (URA) with $8\times8$ antennas. As shown in Fig. \[fig.env\], there are a SM, two MRs, and a VR in the environment, which can reflect or/and diffuse signals to the vehicle. The vehicle has a known constant turn rate movement around the BS. The movement has the same transition function as in [@kim20205g eq. 38]. The initial vehicle state is $[70.7285,0,0,\pi/2,22.22,\pi/10,300]^{\mathrm{T}}$; the process noise, the initial prior, the survival probability, the detection probability, the birth rate, the clutter intensity, and pruning thresholds are the same as in [@kim20205g]. We adopt the generalized optimal subpattern assignment (GOSPA) distance [@rahmathullah2017generalized] as the metric for evaluating the mapping result, and the parameter settings for calculating GOSPA distance are the same as in [@kim20205g]. ![Scenario with the environment of a BS and 4 surfaces. A vehicle moves counterclockwise along the trail.[]{data-label="fig.env"}](envfinal.pdf){width="0.95\linewidth"} [\|l\|l\|l\|l\|]{} Type ${m}$ & [$p(\|\mathcal{Z}^{i}\|\|m)$]{}& [[$p(\boldsymbol{z}^{i,0}\|\boldsymbol{x}_{\text{LM}},\boldsymbol{s},m)$]{}]{}& [[$p(\hat{d}^{i,l}\|\boldsymbol{x}_{\mathrm{LM}},\boldsymbol{s},m)$]{}]{}\ BS& $\|\mathcal{Z}^{i}\| \sim \delta(1)$& $\mathcal{N}(\boldsymbol{z}^{i,0};\boldsymbol{h}_{\mathrm{BS}},\mathrm{diag}([0.003,0.0001\times \boldsymbol{1}_{4}]^{2}))$ &N/A\ SM& $\|\mathcal{Z}^{i}\| \sim \delta(1)$&$\mathcal{N}(\boldsymbol{z}^{i,0};\boldsymbol{h}_{\mathrm{VA}},\mathrm{diag}([0.01,0.002\times \boldsymbol{1}_{4}]^{2}))$ &N/A\ MR& ---------------------------------------------- $(\|\mathcal{Z}^{i}\|-2)\sim \text{Geo}(0.55)$ ---------------------------------------------- &$\mathcal{N}(\boldsymbol{z}^{i,0};\boldsymbol{h}_{\mathrm{VA}}+[0.07,\boldsymbol{0}_{1\times4}]^{\mathrm{T}},\mathrm{diag}([0.1,0.008\times \boldsymbol{1}_{4}]^{2}))$ &$\mathcal{N}(\hat{d}^{i,l};0.435,0.3^{2})$\ VR& ---------------------------------------------- $(\|\mathcal{Z}^{i}\|-4)\sim \text{Geo}(0.27)$ ---------------------------------------------- &$\mathcal{N}(\boldsymbol{z}^{i,0};\boldsymbol{h}_{\mathrm{VA}}+[0.8,\boldsymbol{0}_{1\times4}]^{\mathrm{T}},\mathrm{diag}([0.5,0.05\times \boldsymbol{1}_{4}]^{2}))$ &$\mathcal{N}(\hat{d}^{i,l};0.435,0.3^{2})$\ \[tab1\] Experimental Likelihood Function -------------------------------- All three components in $\eqref{likelihoodfunction_final}$ for different sources are acquired by investigating the statistics of the simulation results of the ESPRIT estimator [@wen20195g] using the environment settings in this paper. To gain intuition, we will focus on the case $m=\text{VR}$ and analyze $p(\|\mathcal{Z}^{i}\|\|\text{VR})$, $p(\tau^{i,0}\|\boldsymbol{x}_{\text{LM}},\boldsymbol{s},\text{VR})$ and $p(\hat{d}^{i,l}\|\boldsymbol{x}_{\text{LM}},\boldsymbol{s},\text{VR})$, based on data gathered from the ESPRIT estimator in various UE locations. Fig. \[fig.pNz\] shows the histogram of the number of paths, as well as a geometric fit. We observe that at least 4 paths are always present, while up to 13 paths can be resolved for very rough surfaces. ![Geometric fit for $p(\|\mathcal{Z}^{i}\|\|\mathrm{VR})$.[]{data-label="fig.pNz"}](geofit1.pdf){width="1\linewidth"} Fig. \[fig.fitdelay\] shows the histogram of the delay of the first estimated path $\tau^{i,0}$ (subtracted with the delay of the specular path) as well as a Gaussian approximation. We observe that there is interpath interference, which leads to a shift of delay of 0.8 m. ![Histogram and Gaussian fit for $p(\tau^{i,0}\|\boldsymbol{x}_{\text{LM}},\boldsymbol{s},\mathrm{VR})$.[]{data-label="fig.fitdelay"}](delayfit1.pdf){width="1\linewidth"} Finally, Fig. \[fig.fitdistance\] shows the histogram and Gaussian fit of the distances $\hat{d}^{i,l},~l>0$. We observe that the estimated scatter points are more likely to be behind the surface, due to the delay shift. ![Histogram and Gaussian fit for $p(\hat{d}^{i,l}\|\boldsymbol{x}_{\text{LM}},\boldsymbol{s},\mathrm{VR})$.[]{data-label="fig.fitdistance"}](disfit1.pdf){width="1\linewidth"} A complete overview of the likelihood function for all surface types as well as LOS is provided in Table \[tab1\]. We make the following observations: there is one path present, and the measurement of the path follows Gaussian distribution for both cases $m=\text{BS}$ and $m=\text{SM}$; there are 2 to 6 paths present, and the measurement of the specular path and the distance follow Gaussian distributions for the case $m=\text{MR}$. SLAM Results and Discussions ---------------------------- Firstly, we study the performance of the proposed 5G SLAM scheme in mapping. We use the real vehicle states and compare the mapping results of two algorithms: (1) SLAM filter using all paths in every signal cluster based on the proposed likelihood function; (2) SLAM filter using the single (specular) path in every cluster. From Fig. \[fig.GOSPA\], we could find both algorithms perform similarly in mapping the SM. This is because there is one specular path in the SM signal cluster; two algorithms are equivalent in mapping the SM. The algorithm using all paths performs better in mapping MR and VR. At time step 2, the VR and an MR are successfully mapped; at time step 4, another MR is mapped. However, when using only the specular path, the VR is mapped until time step 4; a false alarm at time step 3 for MR is observed, which is because the algorithm associates the measurement cluster from the VR to an MR, causing an inaccurate estimate for MR. Using all paths provides better estimates for MR and VR, as the GOSPA distances are lower (see solid lines in Fig. \[fig.GOSPA\]). Overall, using all paths is better than using only the specular path, as the solid line is lower in Fig. \[fig.GOSPA\_VAs\]. The main reason is that using all paths in every cluster provides more information than a single path. ![The comparison of mapping results between two algorithms for three landmark types.[]{data-label="fig.GOSPA"}](GOSPA_alltype1.pdf){width="1\linewidth"} ![The comparison of overall mapping results between two algorithms.[]{data-label="fig.GOSPA_VAs"}](GOSPA_VAs1.pdf){width="1\linewidth"} Next, we study the performance of the proposed 5G SLAM scheme in vehicle state estimation. We add $[0.9,0.9,0,0.09,0,0,0.9]^{\mathrm{T}}$ bias to the initial state, use 2000 particles to represent the vehicle state, and obtain the mean absolute error (MAE) between the real vehicle state and the estimate vehicle state after the absolute error converges, as shown in Fig. \[Fig.positioning\]. We observe that the absolute error converges after 2 time steps. The algorithm using all paths has better performance in positioning, as MAEs are lower. ![The comparison of vehicle state estimation results between two algorithms.[]{data-label="Fig.positioning"}](position_bar.pdf){width="1\linewidth"} Conclusions =========== In this paper, we exploited diffuse multipath in 5G SLAM and proposed a novel 5G SLAM scheme, based on the PMBM filter, in which we have derived a new likelihood function for the filter that is able to utilize all 5G paths in every received signal cluster. Our results indicate that the proposed scheme can accurately estimate the number of landmarks, their types (i.e., roughness), and positions, and it outperforms the scheme using a single path in each signal cluster. The results also confirm the proposed method can handle mapping and vehicle state estimation simultaneously. [^1]: This work was partially supported by the Wallenberg AI, Autonomous Systems and Software Program (WASP) funded by Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, the Vinnova 5GPOS project under grant 2019-03085, by the Swedish Research Council under grant 2018-0370, by the MSIP, Korea, under the ITRC support program IITP-2020-2017-0-01637, and by the IITP grant funded by the Korea government No. 2019-0-01325. [^2]: In contrast to standard terminology we call $\alpha_\mathrm{R}$ smoothness and not roughness, as a larger value of $\alpha_\mathrm{R}$ indicates a more smooth surface.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We study the star formation activity of nearby galaxies with bars using a sample of late-type galaxies at 0.02$\leq z \leq$ 0.05489 and $M_r <-19.5$ from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. We compare the physical properties of strongly and weakly barred galaxies with those of non-barred galaxies that have stellar mass and redshift distributions similar to barred galaxies. We find that the star formation activity of strongly barred galaxies probed by starburstiness, $\it{g-r}$, NUV$-r$, and mid-infrared \[3.4\]$-$\[12\] colors is, on average, lower than that of non-barred galaxies. However, weakly barred galaxies do not show such a difference between barred and non-barred galaxies. The amounts of atomic and molecular gas in strongly barred galaxies are smaller than those of non-barred galaxies, and the gas metallicity is higher in strongly barred galaxies than in non-barred galaxies. The gas properties of weakly barred galaxies again show no difference from those of non-barred galaxies. We stack the optical spectra of barred and non-barred galaxies in several mass bins and fit to the stacked spectra with a spectral fitting code, STARLIGHT. We find no significant difference in stellar populations between barred and non-barred galaxies for both strongly and weakly barred galaxies. Our results are consistent with the idea that the star formation activity of barred galaxies is enhanced in the past along with significant gas consumption, and is currently lower than or similar to that of non-barred galaxies. The past star formation enhancement depends on the strength of bars.' author: - 'Eunbin Kim, Ho Seong Hwang, Haeun Chung, Gwang-Ho Lee, Changbom Park, Bernardo Cervantes Sodi, Sungsoo S. Kim' title: STAR FORMATION ACTIVITY OF BARRED SPIRAL GALAXIES --- INTRODUCTION ============ Star formation activity of galaxies is strongly affected by both internal and external physical processes. In the early universe, galaxy evolution is primarily determined by external effects that include hierarchical clustering and merging. Then, galaxy evolution becomes mainly secular, which is a rearrangement of energy and mass by non-axisymmetric galactic inner structures [@kormendy04]. The non-axisymmetric potential in galaxies can be driven by bars or ovals, which can cause the gas to lose angular momentum and to infall into a central region of galaxies from galactic disks. The gas accumulated in the galactic center becomes fuels for the central star formation [@athan92]. Early studies showed that bars can play such a role in transporting gas into the galactic center. When a galaxy contains a bar in the central region, gas far from resonances tends to settle on periodic orbits including $x_1$ orbits that are elongated along the major axis of bars [@contopoulos80; @binney91; @morris96]. The gas then goes through shocks, flows inwards by losing angular momentum, and moves to the $x_2$ orbits elongated along the minor axis. The gas finally settles into stable orbits, which are close to the position of the inner Lindblad resonance (ILR) of the bar [@simkin80; @combes85]. Because the gas accumulated in the central region is used for fuel of central star formation, the enhanced star formation activity in the central region could be a good indicator of recent gas inflow into the center [@knapen95]. Many numerical simulations indeed demonstrated that the star formation activity can be enhanced in central regions of galaxies when there are galactic bars [@shlosman90; @athan94; @combes01; @kimss11; @kimwt12; @seo13; @shin17]. Observations also showed enhanced star formation activity in central regions of barred galaxies. For example, @heckman80 found that recent star formation activity is more frequently observed in barred galaxies than in non-barred galaxies. The different star formation activity between barred and non-barred galaxies is also supported by multiwavelength observations [@hawarden86; @devereux87; @himmel90; @regan06; @wang12; @lin17]. The effects of bars tend to be stronger for the galaxies with earlier morphological types [@ho97; @oh12]. On the other hand, some observations found no increase in star formation activity in barred galaxies compared to non-barred galaxies [@pompea90; @martinet97; @chapelon99; @cheung13; @willett15]. Similarly, the amount of gas that is fuel for star formation is not larger in barred galaxies than in non-barred galaxies; the bar fraction decreases with increasing HI gas fraction of galaxies [@masters12; @sodi17]. @saintonge12 also suggested that bar instabilities do not significantly affect the star formation budget for local galaxies. The complicated situation is not much different for the role of bars in triggering nuclear activity of galaxies. [@oh12] found that the effects of bars on the activity in galactic nuclei are stronger in bluer galaxies than in redder galaxies. However, [@lee12b] showed that the nuclear activity of barred galaxies does not differ from that of non-barred galaxies once the physical properties of host galaxies are well matched (see also @cisternas13 [@cheung15]). To better understand the role of galactic bars in triggering star formation activity, we compare various physical properties of barred galaxies with those of carefully selected control sample of non-barred galaxies. The various physical parameters representing the star formation activity include starburstiness (a measure of the excess in specific star formation rate of a galaxy compared to the specific star formation rate of a main sequence star-forming galaxy with the same mass, @elbaz11), multiwavelength photometric data including ultraviolet (UV) and mid-infrared, the amounts of atomic and molecular gas, and the gas metallicity. We compare the star formation activity not only between barred and non-barred galaxies, but also between strongly and weakly barred galaxies. We also fit to the optical spectra with STARLIGHT to make a detailed comparison of the stellar populations between barred and non-barred galaxies. Section \[data\] describes the sample of barred galaxies and its control sample, and explains the observational data we use. We compare the star formation activity between barred and non-barred galaxies in Section \[results\]. We discuss the results and conclude in Sections \[discuss\] and \[sum\], respectively. Throughout, we adopt flat $\Lambda$ cold dark matter cosmological parameters: $H_0 = 70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, and $\Omega_{m}=0.3$. DATA ==== Samples of Galaxies with and without Bars ----------------------------------------- We use the samples of barred and non-barred galaxies described in [@lee12a], which were constructed from a volume-limited sample of 33,391 galaxies at 0.02 $\leq z \leq$ 0.05489 and $M_r < -19.5$[^1] from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey data release 7 (SDSS DR7, @abazajian09). [@lee12a] identified bars in galaxies through visual inspection of SDSS color images. They classified barred galaxies into three types based on the relative size of bars (i.e. strong, weak and ambiguous), which agrees well with the classification result of [@nair10]. [@lee12a] also provide a sample of galaxies without bars. The catalog contains both early- and late-type galaxies with an axis ratio $b/a >$ 0.6 where bar classification is reliable. Galaxy morphology is adopted from the Korea Institute for Advanced Study Value-Added Galaxy Catalog (KIAS VAGC; @choi10). We use only the sample of 10,674 late-type galaxies with strong, weak and no bars in this study: 2542 strongly-barred (23.8%), 698 weakly-barred (6.5%) and 7434 non-barred (69.7%) galaxies. Because we are interested in star formation activity of barred galaxies, we removed galaxies with active galactic nuclei (AGNs). These include optical AGNs identified with the criteria of @kewley06 based on Baldwin-Phillips-Terlevich (BPT) emission-line ratio diagrams. We also identified AGNs using the [Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer]{} ($\it{WISE}$, @wright10) mid-infrared color-color selection criteria of [@jarrett11] plus @mateos12, and removed them from the sample. ![image](fig1.eps){width="95.00000%"} We finally have a sample of 1686 strongly and 547 weakly barred galaxies at 0.02 $\leq z \leq$ 0.05489 and $M_r < -19.5$. To compare the physical properties of these barred galaxies with those of non-barred galaxies, we construct the control sample of barred galaxies using the non-barred galaxies. To have an unbiased control sample, we match the stellar mass and redshift distributions of barred and non-barred galaxies; we randomly select galaxies from the sample of non-barred galaxies to have the same distributions of stellar mass and redshift as for the sample of barred galaxies. We construct the control samples for strongly and weakly barred galaxies separately. Figure \[fig-sam\] shows stellar masses of strongly (left panels) and weakly (right panels) barred galaxies as a function of redshift with their control samples. We examine the redshift and stellar mass distributions of barred and non-barred galaxies using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test and the Anderson-Darling (A-D) k-sample test. Both tests cannot reject the null hypothesis that the distributions of barred and non-barred galaxies are extracted from the same parent population. We also examine the distributions of axial ratio and apparent isophotal size of barred and non-barred galaxies that can affect the measurement of star formation activity, and again find no systematic difference between the two samples. Physical Parameters of Galaxies ------------------------------- The physical parameters of galaxies that we consider in this study are star formation rate (SFR), stellar mass, UV/mid-infrared photometric data, atomic and molecular gas masses, and gas metallicity. Here we briefly describe these parameters. The SFRs of galaxies are adopted from the MPA/JHU DR7 VAGC [@brinchmann04], which provides extinction and aperture corrected SFR estimates for SDSS galaxies. When the SFRs of galaxies cannot be directly measured from the emission lines (e.g., AGN and composite galaxies), they use the 4000 Å break (D4000) to measure SFRs (see @brinchmann04 and the web site$\footnote{ http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/SDSS/DR7/sfrs.html}$ for details). The stellar mass estimates are also from the MPA/JHU DR7 VAGC, which are based on the fit of SDSS five-band photometry with the model of @bc03 (see also @kauffmann03). We convert SFR and stellar mass estimates in the MPA/JHU DR7 VAGC that are based on Kroupa initial mass function (IMF, @kroupa01) to those with Salpeter IMF [@salpeter55] by dividing them by a factor of 0.7 [@elbaz07]. The gas metallicity (i.e. gas-phase oxygen abundance) is also adopted from the MPA/JHU DR7 VAGC [@tremonti04]. We used the multiwavelength photometric data of SDSS galaxies compiled in @hwang13. The near-UV data are taken from the [Galaxy Evolution Explorer]{} ([GALEX]{}, @martin05) general release 6 (GR6), which provides a cross-matched table (xSDSSDR7) against the SDSS DR7. We also include the mid-infrared data from the [WISE]{} all-sky survey catalog [@wright10]. The catalog provides uniform photometric data for over 747 million objects at four mid-infrared bands (3.4, 4.6, 12, and 22 $\micron$m). The matching tolerance between the SDSS and [WISE]{} objects is 3. We adopt the point source profile-fitting magnitudes, and use only the flux density with the signal-to-noise ratio ${\rm S/N\geq3}$ at each band. The atomic gas mass, $M_{\rm HI}$, is adopted from the 70 per cent data ($\alpha$.70) of the Arecibo Legacy Fast ALFA Survey (ALFALFA, @giovanelli05 [@haynes11]), which provides HI data for 25,535 galaxies at $z<0.06$. The molecular gas mass, $M_{\rm H_2}$, is collected from the CO Legacy Database for GASS (COLDGASS, @saintonge11) and the Atacama Pathfinder Experiment (APEX) Low-redshift Legacy Survey for MOlecular Gas (ALLSMOG, @bothwell14). Among the 1686 strongly barred galaxies (their control sample has the same number of galaxies), there are 318 barred and 397 non-barred galaxies with HI detections, and are 11 barred and 23 non-barred galaxies with H$_2$ detections. Among the 547 weakly barred galaxies, there are 149 barred and 135 non-barred galaxies with HI detections, and are 3 barred and 9 non-barred galaxies with H$_2$ detections. --------------- -------------------------- ------------------------ -- ------------------------ ----------------------- -- -- Type Strongly Barred Galaxies Weakly Barred Galaxies Bars No Bars Bars No Bars Starburst $~~~3$ ($~0.2\pm$0.1%) $~~11$ ($~0.7\pm$0.1%) $~~4$ ($~0.7\pm$0.1%) $~10$ ($~1.8\pm$0.1%) Main Sequence 1065 (63.1$\pm$0.9%) 1139 (67.5$\pm$0.9%) 441 (80.6$\pm$1.5%) 430 (78.6$\pm$1.5%) Quiescent $~618$ (36.7$\pm$0.7%) $~536$ (31.8$\pm$0.7%) 102 (14.7$\pm$0.7%) 107 (19.6$\pm$0.8%) Total 1686 1686 547 547 --------------- -------------------------- ------------------------ -- ------------------------ ----------------------- -- -- \[tab:frac\] ![image](fig2.eps){width="70.00000%"} ![image](fig3.eps){width="95.00000%"} ![Barred galaxy fraction as a function of starburstiness, log(R$_{SB}$): (left) strongly barred galaxies, (right) weakly barred galaxies. The dashed line represents $f_{\rm Bar}=0.5$. []{data-label="fig-rsbfrac"}](fig4.eps){width="48.00000%"} --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ![image](fig5_1.eps){width="49.00000%"} ![image](fig5_2.eps){width="49.00000%"} --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- RESULTS ======= Star Formation Activity of Barred Galaxies {#sfa} ------------------------------------------ The top panels of Figure \[fig-sfrm\] show the SFRs of barred (blue dots) and non-barred (red dots) galaxies as a function of stellar mass. The left and right panels display strongly and weakly barred galaxies, respectively. We also show the locus of main-sequence star-forming galaxies defined in @elbaz07. The solid line is the best-fit to the SDSS main sequence star-forming galaxies, and the upper and lower dashed lines are a factor 4 above and below this fit. We adopt the main-sequence locus of @elbaz07 for ease of comparison with other studies, and note that the following results do not change much even though we newly define the main sequence using the galaxies in this study. We then consider the galaxies within these dashed lines as main sequence (MS), those above the upper dashed line as starburst (SB, ${\rm SFR>4\times SFR_{MS}}$), and those below the lower dashed line as quiescent galaxies (QS, i.e. ${\rm SFR<0.25\times SFR_{MS}}$). The majority of our samples of barred and non-barred galaxies are in the main sequence as expected. It is difficult to tell the difference in the distributions of barred and non-barred galaxies in this SFR-M$_$ plane by eye, consistent with previous results [@willett15]. Weakly barred galaxies tend to have more low-mass galaxies with $M_<3\times10^{10}$ M$_\odot$ than high-mass galaxies, which is different from the case of strongly barred galaxies. The bottom panels show the specific SFRs (sSFRs) for the same samples as a function of stellar mass. Both strongly and weakly barred galaxies follow the tight star-forming sequence. We calculate the fraction of galaxies in each group of star-formation mode, and summarize the result in Table \[tab:frac\]. The fraction of main-sequence galaxies is very high for both strongly and weakly barred galaxies as expected, but is lower in strongly barred galaxies than in weakly barred galaxies. The left columns for strongly barred galaxies show that the fractions of starburst and main sequence groups are smaller in barred galaxies than in non-barred galaxies; the fraction of quiescent galaxies for strongly barred galaxies is larger than for non-barred galaxies accordingly. The error represents 68% ($1\sigma$) confidence interval that is determined by the bootstrap resampling method. Considering the errors, the difference between strongly barred galaxies and their control sample is not negligible. However, the fraction of each group for weakly barred galaxies is similar to that for their control sample. To better compare the star formation activity between barred and non-barred galaxies by minimizing the mass effects, we plot the starburstiness ($\rm R_{SB}$) distribution in Figure \[fig-rsb\]. The starburstiness is a measure of the excess in sSFR of a galaxy compared to sSFR of a main-sequence star-forming galaxy with the same mass, and is defined by ${\rm R_{SB} = sSFR/sSFR_{MS}}$ [@elbaz11]. Figure \[fig-rsb\] displays the starburstiness distributions of strongly (left panel) and weakly (right panel) barred galaxies. The left panel shows that the strongly barred galaxies (blue histogram) have a wider, lower peak than their control sample (red histogram) at $\rm R_{SB}\approx$ 0.7. The K-S and A-D k-sample tests on the starburstiness distributions of strongly barred galaxies and their control sample yield $p$-values of $p_{\rm KS}<0.001$ and $p_{\rm AD}<0.006$, indicating a significant difference between the two distributions. However, the right panel for weakly barred galaxies shows no such difference between barred (blue histogram) and non-barred (red histogram) galaxies, confirmed by the K-S and A-D k-sample tests. To explore a possible mass dependence of the starburstiness distribution, we also examine the starburstiness distributions at several narrow mass ranges (not shown here, but from log($M_/M_\odot$)$=9.5$ to log($M_/M_\odot$)$=11$ with a 0.5 dex bin). The histogram at each mass bin shows the similar results to the one using all the galaxies (i.e. statistically different distribution between strongly-barred galaxies and their control sample except the mass range of $10.0<$log($M_/M_\odot$)$<10.5$, and no statistically difference between weakly-barred galaxies and their control sample), suggesting that the starburstness difference between barred and non-barred galaxies persists throughout the entire mass range. When we compare $\rm R_{SB}$ distributions between strongly and weakly barred galaxies, the strongly barred galaxies appear to have a relatively higher fraction of quiescent galaxies (R$_{\rm SB}$ $\approx$ 0.01) than the weakly barred galaxies (see also Table \[tab:frac\]). The K-S and A-D k-sample tests on the starburstiness distributions of strongly and weakly barred galaxies reject the null hypothesis at $>$3$\sigma$ level, suggesting a significant difference in the star formation activity between the two. To better understand the correlation between the presence of bars and the starburstiness of galaxies, we show the fraction of barred galaxies as a function of starburstiness in Figure \[fig-rsbfrac\]. The left panel for the strongly barred galaxies shows a hint of decrease of bar fraction with starburstiness, but it is not conclusive because of large error bars. The weakly barred galaxies in the right panel show no clear dependence of bar fraction on the starburstiness. Comparison of Physical Parameters between Barred and Non-barred Galaxies {#comparison} ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ### Multiwavelength Data from near-UV to mid-infrared Figure \[fig-color\] shows several multiwavelength colors of barred and non-barred galaxies as a function of stellar mass (left: strongly barred galaxies, right: weakly barred galaxies). Beginning from the top panel, we display, sequentially, $\it{g-r}$, NUV$ - r$, mid-infrared \[3.4\]$-$\[12\] colors, the flux ratios between H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ (i.e., Balmer decrement), and $D_n4000$. The optical $\it{g-r}$ color is a good tracer of star formation activity in galaxies (e.g., @strateva01 [@blanton03]). The NUV$ - r$ and \[3.4\]$-$\[12\] colors are good indicators of recent star formation activity of galaxies with slightly different timescales (e.g., @ko13 [@ko16; @lee15; @lee17]); both NUV and mid-infrared are sensitive to very recent ($<1$ Gyr) star formation, but only the mid-infrared is sensitive to star formation over longer (up to $\sim2$ Gyr) timescales. The flux ratio between H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ (i.e., Balmer decrement) is a measure of dust extinction. When there is no dust in galaxies, H$\alpha/$H$\beta$ ratios are expected to be 2.86 and 3.1 for star-forming and AGN-host galaxies, respectively (in the nominal case B recombination for $T=10,000$ K and $n_e\approx 10$ cm$^{-3}$, @ost06). Therefore, flux ratios larger than these values indicate dust extinction. $D_{n}4000$ is a measure of the 4000 Å break [@bruzual83; @balogh99], which results from an accumulation of absorption lines of ionized metals in low mass stars at wavelength $<$4000 Å. The amplitude of the break is smaller in galaxies with young stellar populations because the opacity decreases in hot young stars. It is larger for old metal-rich populations. Therefore, $D_n4000$ is a useful measure of the age of the stellar population. ![image](fig6.eps){width="90.00000%"} ![image](fig7.eps){width="90.00000%"} ![image](fig8.eps){width="90.00000%"} Figure \[fig-color\] shows that as stellar mass increases, $\it{g-r}$ and NUV$-r$ colors increase [@blanton03; @lee12b; @ko13], \[3.4\]$-$\[12\] color decreases [@ko13], and $D_n4000$ increases [@geller14; @geller16]. The difference between barred and non-barred galaxies in each mass bin is not obvious. To minimize the mass effects on the comparisons of color distributions between the two samples, we show the histogram of each parameter for the galaxies in a narrow mass bin (i.e. 10.5 $\leq$ log(M$_{\star}$/M$_\odot$) $<$11.0), as indicated with vertical dashed lines in Figure \[fig-color\] where we can have a large number of galaxies. The strongly barred galaxies tend to be redder in $\it{g-r}$ and NUV$-r$ colors, and bluer in \[3.4\]$-$\[12\] color than their control sample. This systematic difference in colors between the strongly barred galaxies and their control sample seems to result from the different dust extinction between the two. The second panel from the bottom shows that there is a statistically significant difference in the Balmer decrement distribution between strongly-barred galaxies and their control sample; barred galaxies appear to experience slightly more dust extinction than non-barred galaxies, which can make the barred galaxies redder in $\it{g-r}$ and NUV$-r$ colors. There also could be an additional effect on this color difference, which is hinted by the smaller number of actively star-forming galaxies in the sample of strongly barred galaxies than in their control sample in Figure \[fig-rsb\]. On the other hand, $D_n4000$ does not show a systematic difference between strongly barred galaxies and their control sample. Although the K-S and A-D k-sample tests on $D_n4000$ distribution at 10.5 $\leq$ log(M$_{\star}$/M$_\odot$) $<$11.0 indicate a significant difference between the two, the Student’s t-test suggests that the probability that the two samples have significantly different means is only at $<2\sigma$ level; this means that the low $p$-values of the K-S and A-D k-sample tests are not because of different means (or medians) but because of different distributions. The right panels for the weakly barred galaxies show that barred and non-barred galaxies are statistically different only in the NUV$-r$ color distribution. ### Gas Properties Star formation activity is directly connected to the amount of gas in galaxies. We therefore compare the amounts of atomic (HI) and molecular (H$_{2}$) gas between barred and non-barred galaxies. Figure \[fig-HI\] shows the fraction of HI gas mass as a function of stellar mass for our samples. As expected, the HI gas fraction decreases with stellar mass. The left panel for strongly barred galaxies shows that the HI gas fraction of barred galaxies is systematically lower than that of non-barred galaxies, consistent with the results in previous studies [@masters12; @sodi17]. The K-S and A-D k-sample tests on the HI gas fraction distributions between the two also reject the null hypothesis that the two distributions are extracted from the same parent population at $>$3$\sigma$ level. Interestingly, the weakly barred galaxies in the right panel appear to have higher HI gas fractions than non-barred galaxies in all mass bins, different from the case of strongly barred galaxies. However, the difference is not statistically significant. We also show the fraction of H$_2$ gas mass as a function of stellar mass in Figure \[fig-H2\]. The left panel for strongly barred galaxies shows a hint of different H$_2$ gas fractions between barred and non-barred galaxies (i.e. lower gas fraction in barred galaxies), similar to the result of HI gas fraction. However, the difference is not statistically significant as the K-S and A-D tests suggest. The right panel for the weakly barred galaxies does not show any meaningful comparison between barred and non-barred galaxies because of small number statistics. We also examine the distribution of gas depletion time, $t_{\rm dep} \equiv M_{\rm gas}/{\rm SFR}$ for both HI and H$_2$ gas, but do not find any significant difference between barred and non-barred galaxies for both strongly and weakly barred galaxies (not shown here). Figure \[fig-metal\] shows a comparison of gas metallicity between barred and non-barred galaxies. The metallicity of galaxies increases with stellar mass, which follows a well-known mass-metallicity relation [@lequeux79; @tremonti04; @zahid13]. The metallicity of strongly barred galaxies is systematically higher than of their control sample at each mass bin. This is confirmed by the K-S and A-D k-sample tests at $>3\sigma$ level, consistent with the results of @vera16. Overall gas metallicity between weakly-barred galaxies and their control sample is similar (confirmed by the K-S and A-D k-sample tests), but the galaxies at 10.5 $\leq$ log(M$_{\star}$/M$_\odot$) $<$11.0 show a $>2.8\sigma$ difference. Stellar Populations of Barred Galaxies: Fit to the Optical Spectra with STARLIGHT {#sfh} --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this section, we compare stellar populations of barred and non-barred galaxies. We perform a decomposition of stellar populations of barred and non-barred galaxies by fitting the SDSS optical spectra with the spectral fitting code, STARLIGHT [@cid05]. To minimize the mass effects on the stellar population comparison and to increase the signal-to-noise ratio of the spectra, we divide the galaxy samples into four mass bins and stack the rest-frame spectra in each mass bin. We normalize the individual spectrum at rest-frame 4150$-$4250 Å and take the median for the stacking. The wavelength coverage for the stacked spectra is $3800-7650$ Å. We fit to the spectra using 45 spectral templates of [@bc03] with 15 ages (between 1 Myr and 13 Gyr) and 3 metallicities ($Z=$0.004, 0.02, 0.05). These templates are generated from STELIB library [@leborgne03] with Padova evolutionary tracks [@bertelli94] and @chabrier03 IMF. We perform the STARLIGHT fit 100 times with different seeds for the random number generator and adopt the medians of derived parameters as the best-fit results. Figure \[fig-spec\] shows the stacked spectra of galaxies in different mass bins (gray lines) with the best-fit STARLIGHT models for barred (blue lines) and non-barred (red lines) galaxies. ![image](fig9.eps){width="80.00000%"} The top panels of Figure \[fig-mfrac\] show the resulting mass fractions of different stellar populations for strongly barred galaxies and their control sample. As expected, the mass fractions of young ($\leq$2 Gyr) and intermediate-age ($\sim$2–5 Gyr) populations decrease with stellar mass for both barred and non-barred galaxies. The difference in the mass fraction between barred and non-barred galaxies is not obvious. The weakly barred galaxies in the bottom panels show similar trends; the mass fraction of old stellar populations increases with stellar mass, and the difference between barred and non-barred galaxies is not significant. To make a more quantitative comparison between barred and non-barred galaxies, we plot the mass fraction of young stellar population with age $<$ 2 Gyrs in Figure \[fig-ypop\]. Both barred and non-barred galaxies show that the mass fraction of young stellar population decreases with stellar mass, which confirms the visual impression of Figure \[fig-mfrac\]. At the lowest mass bin (9.5$<$log(M$_$/M$_\odot$)$<$10.0), the strongly barred galaxies show a possible hint of lower mass fraction of young stellar population than in non-barred galaxies, but it is not statistically significant. The weakly barred galaxies in the right panel show a pattern different from strongly barred galaxies (i.e. higher mass fraction of young stellar population in barred galaxies than in non-barred galaxies), but again it is not statistically significant. @ko16 examined the dependence of the fit on the choice of spectral templates with various combinations of age/metallicity distributions (i.e. different star formation history), stellar population models, and IMFs. They found that the mass fraction of young and intermediate-age stars does not change much with different combinations of age and metallicity distributions, which suggests that our results would not change much with different choices of spectral templates for the fit. ![image](fig10.eps){width="90.00000%"} ![image](fig11.eps){width="80.00000%"} DISCUSSION {#discuss} ========== We use various tracers of star formation activity in galaxies to examine the difference between barred and non-barred galaxies. The comparisons of starburstiness, $\it{g-r}$, NUV$-r$, mid-infrared \[3.4\]$-$\[12\] colors, the HI gas fraction, and gas metallicity between strongly barred galaxies and their control sample show significant differences between the two; the barred galaxies generally show weaker star formation activity than non-barred galaxies. The H$_2$ gas fraction and the mass fraction of young stellar population ($<$ 2 Gyrs) from the decomposition of the optical spectra also show similar differences, but the statistical significance is not very high. On the other hand, most star formation activity tracers for the weakly barred galaxies show no such differences between barred and non-barred galaxies. The weaker star formation activity of strongly barred galaxies than their control sample is consistent with previous results [@vera16]. Because the weakly barred galaxies show no such difference, comparisons between barred and non-barred galaxies including both strongly and weakly barred galaxies would have made the possible difference weak, which can result in no increase in star formation activity in barred galaxies [@pompea90; @martinet97; @chapelon99; @cheung13; @willett15]. We also show that the HI gas fraction of strongly barred galaxies is, on average, lower than their control sample, confirming the previous findings [@sodi17] even though some studies did not distinguish strongly and weakly barred galaxies [@masters12]. Figure \[fig-H2\] shows a hint of lower H$_2$ gas fraction in barred galaxies than in non-barred galaxies, but it needs to be examined with more H$_2$ gas mass measurements of galaxies for better statistical significance. We could not find a significant difference in the distribution of gas depletion time between barred and non-barred galaxies for both HI and H$_2$ gas. Similarly, @saintonge12 found only a marginal difference in molecular gas depletion time between barred and non-barred galaxies. @sodi17 also found that only strongly barred galaxies show a mild increase of bar fraction with atomic gas depletion time. Many numerical simulations showed that the star formation activity in central regions of galaxies could be enhanced by the presence of galactic bars [@shlosman90; @athan94; @combes01; @kimss11]. Although at first instance our results seem at odds with these theoretical expectations, we explore two scenarios that can help to ease the discrepancy. First, [@carles16] suggested that the star formation activity of barred galaxies could be triggered when the bars are formed and the SFRs of barred galaxies become similar to or lower than non-barred galaxies in 2 Gyrs; the difference between barred and non-barred galaxies would be larger strongly barred galaxies. The consumption of hydrogen gas is accelerated along with the star formation activity in barred galaxies, then the amount of gas in barred galaxies also becomes similar to or lower than for non-barred galaxies. These could explain why many observations show no increase in [current]{} star formation activity of barred galaxies compared to non-barred galaxies. These also could explain lower gas mass and higher metallicity currently in barred galaxies than in non-barred galaxies. This was the motivation of the decomposition of the stellar populations of barred and non-barred galaxies by fitting to the SDSS spectra with STARLIGHT in this study. However, our decomposition could not find any significant difference in the mass fraction of young stellar populations ($<2$ Gyrs) between barred and non-barred galaxies even though there is a hint of difference only at the lowest mass bin (9.5$<$log(M$_$/M$_\odot$)$<$10.0). Second, the star formation indicators we consider in this study are global galaxy parameters rather than central ones, and the bar-induced star formation activity is expected to take place only in central regions where bars can shock the gas. Observational evidence of this localized star formation in the central region of barred galaxies has already been reported. For instance, by studying the central-to-total star formation activity in a large volume-limited sample of SDSS galaxies, @wang12 found that more than half of the galaxies with enhanced central star formation activity have bars. More recently, @lin17 analyzed the integral field spectroscopic data of 57 galaxies, and found that among the 17 “turnover” galaxies with rejuvenated pseudobulges most of them (15/17) have bars. More two-dimensional spectroscopic observations of these barred galaxies will be useful for better localizing the star formation activity in barred galaxies. If bar-triggered star formation is not reflected globally, it would be difficult to imagine these systems being efficient in exhausting their gas though enhanced star formation. In this case, the low gas fraction in barred galaxies could be explained through the inhibiting effect that the gas has in the formation and growth of bars (i.e. bars form later and grow more slowly in gas-rich galaxies than in gas-poor galaxies), as shown in hydrodynamical simulations [@villa-vargas10; @athan13]. We could not distinguish which scenario is more plausible at this stage, but studying barred galaxies at high redshift to understand their evolution will be helpful for testing these scenarios. Bar strength has been considered as one of important parameters in the star formation activity of barred galaxies [@athan03; @buta05; @nair10; @hoyle11]. In this study, we construct the control samples of non-barred galaxies for strongly and weakly barred galaxies separately by matching the stellar mass and redshift distributions. Our results suggest that many physical properties of strongly and weakly barred galaxies could be different; the current star formation activity of strongly barred galaxies appears lower than that of their control sample, but the weakly barred galaxies do not differ much from their control sample. If we assume that weak bars in galaxies evolve into strong bars and that the star formation activity is enhanced because of the presence of bars, we expect enhanced star formation activity in weakly barred galaxies compared to non-barred galaxies. However, we found no significant difference in star formation activity between weakly barred galaxies and their control sample. This can suggest that weakly and strongly barred galaxies are not linked by an evolutionary sequence or that the star formation activity of galaxies is not strongly affected by the presence of bars. We note that the barred galaxy sample used in this study is constructed from the visual inspection of SDSS images with a typical seeing $\sim$1.4 arcsec [@lee12a]. To identify bars in galaxies, the size of bars should be typically 3–4 times larger than the point spread function (PSF) size. This means that some bars smaller than 2–5 kpc at 0.02 $\leq z \leq$ 0.05 (i.e. redshift range in our sample) could be missed in our galaxy sample because of seeing effect. This can partly explain why some studies using nearby galaxy samples found higher bar fractions than other studies that use relatively more distant galaxy samples (e.g. @menendez07 [@diaz16]). On the other hand, the size of bars increases with galaxy mass. Then Figure 20 in [@diaz16] suggests that a significant amount of barred galaxies less massive than a few times $10^{10}$ M$_\odot$ could be missed in our galaxy sample because of the spatial resolution limit (i.e. $r_{\rm bar}\lesssim2$ kpc). This means that some less massive galaxies classified as non-barred galaxies in our sample could indeed be barred galaxies. This can explain why some of the differences in physical parameters between barred and non-barred galaxies are only prominent for relatively more massive galaxies (e.g. 10.5$<$log(M$_$/M$_\odot$)). CONCLUSIONS {#sum} =========== We use samples of strongly and weakly barred galaxies in the local universe, and compare their physical properties with those of non-barred galaxies focusing on the star formation activity. Our primary results are: 1. The distributions of starburstiness (R$_{\rm SB}$), a measure of the excess in sSFR of a galaxy compared to the sSFR of a main sequence star-forming galaxy, for strongly barred galaxies and their control sample are different; the strongly barred galaxies have a wider, lower peak near main sequence and have more quiescent galaxies than their control sample. However, the starburstiness distribution of weakly barred galaxies is similar to that of their control sample. 2. The $\it{g-r}$, NUV$-r$, and mid-infrared \[3.4\]$-$\[12\] colors of strongly barred galaxies are statistically different from those of their control sample. These color differences seem to result from the different dust extinction between the two, evidenced by the Balmer decrement (H$_\alpha$/H$_\beta$). There also could be an additional effect on this color difference, which is that the star formation activity of strongly barred galaxies is, on average, lower than that of non-barred galaxies. On the other hand, weakly barred galaxies do not show such significant differences in these multiwavelength parameters. 3. The HI gas fraction of strongly barred galaxies, on average, is lower than the one of their control sample. There is also a hint of different H$_2$ gas fraction between strongly barred galaxies and their control sample, which needs to be confirmed with more data. Gas metallicity of strongly barred galaxies is, on average, higher than for their control sample. Again, weakly barred galaxies do not show such significant differences in these gas properties. 4. The stellar population analysis of the optical spectra shows no significant difference between barred and non-barred galaxies. However, strongly barred galaxies show a possible hint of lower mass fraction of a young stellar population than in non-barred galaxies only at the lowest mass bin (9.5$<$log(M$_$/M$_\odot$)$<$10.0). Interestingly, weakly barred galaxies show a hint of higher mass fraction of a young stellar population than their control sample in the same mass bin. Our results appear consistent with the idea that the star formation activity of strongly barred galaxies was enhanced in the past and is currently low (e.g. @carles16). Because of large gas consumption along with the star formation in the past, the amount of gas and the gas metallicity of strongly barred galaxies are also expected to be currently low and high, respectively, consistent with our results. This star formation history depends on the strength of bars. To better understand the star formation activity in barred galaxies, a systematic survey of barred galaxies with two-dimensional spectroscopy and studying high-redshift barred galaxies will be helpful. We thank the anonymous referee for helpful comments. SSK and EK were supported by the National Research Foundation grant funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning of Korea (NRF-2014R1A2A1A11052367). BCS acknowledges financial support through PAPIIT project IA103517 from DGAPA-UNAM. Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/. The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington. This publication makes use of data products from the [Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer*]{}, which is a joint project of the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. [99]{} Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J., K., Agueros, M. A., et al. 2009, , 182, 543 Athanassoula, E. 1992, , 259, 345 Athanassoula, E. 1994, , 11,11 Athanassoula, E. 2003, , 341, 1179 Athanassoula, E., Machado, R. E. G., & Rodionov, S. A. 2013, , 429, 1949 Balogh, M. L., Morris, S. L., Yee, H. K. C., Carlberg, R. G., & Ellingson, E. 1999, , 527, 54 Bertelli, G., Bressan, A., Fagotto, F., & Nasi, E., 2009, , 508, 335 Binney, G., Gerhard, O. E., Stark, A. A., Bally, J., & Uchida, K.I. 1991, , 252, 210 Blanton, M. R., Hogg, D. W., Bahcall, N. A., et al. 2003, , 594, 186 Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., Tremonti, C., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T., & Brinkmann, J. 2004, , 351, 1151 Bothwell, M. S. et al. 2014, , 445, 2599 Boselli, A. et al. 2010, , 122, 261 Bruzual A., G. 1983, , 273, 105 Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, , 344, 1000 Buta, R., Vasylyev, S., Salo, H., & Laurikainen, E. 2005, , 130, 506 Carles, C., Martel, H., Ellison, S. L., & Kawata, D. 2016, , 463, 1074 Cervantes Sodi, B., 2017, , 835, 80 Chabrier, G. 2003, , 115, 763 Chapelon, S., Contini, T., & Davoust, E. 1999, , 345, 81 Cheung, E., Athanassoula, E., Masters, K. L., et al. 2013, , 779, 162 Cheung, E., Trump, J. R., Athanassoula, E., et al. 2015, , 447, 506 Choi, Y.-Y., Han, D.-H., & Kim, S. S. 2010, , 43, 191 Cid Fernandes, R., Mateus, A., Sodré, L., Stasińska, G., & Gomes, J. M., 2005, , 358, 363 Cisternas, M., Gadotti, D. A., Knapen, J. H., et al. 2013, , 776, 50 Combes, F., & Gerin, M. 1985, , 150, 327 Combes F., 2001, in Aretxaga I., Kunth D., Mujica R., eds, Advanced Lectures on the starbursts-AGN. World Scientific, Singapore, p. 223 Conotopoulos, G., & Papayannopoulos, T., , 92, 33 D[í]{}az-Garc[í]{}a, S., Salo, H., Laurikainen, E. & Herrera-Endoqui, M. 2016, å, 587, 160 Devereux, L., 1987, 323, 91 Elbaz, D., Daddi, E., Le Borgne, D., et al. 2007, , 468, 33 Elbaz, D., el al. 2011, , 533, 119 Gao, Y., & Solomon, P. M. 2004, , 606, 271 Geller, M. J., Hwang, H. S., Fabricant, D. G., et al. 2014, , 213, 35 Geller, M. J., Hwang, H. S., Dell’Antonio, I. P., et al. 2016, , 224, 11 Giovanelli, R. et al. 2005, , 130, 2598 Jarrett, T. H., Cohen, M., Masci, F., et al. 2011, , 735, 112 Hawarden, T. G., Mountain, C. M., Leggett, S. K., & Puxley, P. J 1986, , 221, 41 Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., Martin, A. M., et al. 2011, , 142, 170 Heckman, T. M. 1980, , 88, 365 Himmel, E., van der Hulst, J. M., Kennicutt, R. C., Keel, W. C. 1990, , 236, 333 Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1997, , 487, 591 Hoyle, B., Masters, K. L., Nichol, R. C., et al. 2011, , 415, 3627 Hwang, H. S., & Geller, M. J. 2013, , 769, 116 Kauffmann G. et al., 2003, 341, 33 Kim, W.-T, Seo, W.-Y., Stone, J. M., Yoon, D., & Teuben P. J. 2012, ,747, 23 Kim, S. S., Saitoh, T. R., Jeon, M., Figer, D. F., Merritt, D., & Wada, K. 2011, , 735, L11 Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T 2006, , 372, 961 Knapen, J. H., Beckman, J. E., Heller, C. H., Shlosman, I., & de Jong, R. S. 1995, , 454, 623 Ko, J., Hwang, H. S., Lee, J. C., & Sohn, Y.-J. 2013, , 767, 90 Ko, J., Chung, H., Hwang, H. S., & Lee, J. C. 2016, , 820, 132 Kormendy, J, & Kennicutt, R. C. 2004, , 42, 603 Kroupa, P. 2001, , 322, 231 Le Borgne, J.-F., Bruzual, G., Pell[ó]{}, R., et al. 2003, , 402, 433 Lee, G.-H., Park, C., Lee, M. G. & Choi, Y.-Y. 2012a, , 745, 125 Lee, G.-H., Woo, J.-H., Lee. M. G., Hwang, H. S., Lee, J. C., Sohn, J., & Lee, J. H. 2012b, , 750, 141 Lee, G.-H., Hwang, H. S., Lee, M. G., et al. 2015, , 800, 80 Lee, G.-H., Hwang, H. S., Sohn, J., & Lee, M. G. 2017,, 835, 280 Lequeux, J., Peimbert, M., Rayo, J. F., Serrano, A., & Torres-Peimbert, S. 1979, , 80, 155 Lin, L., Li, C., He, Y., Xiao, T., & Wang, E. 2017, , 838, 105L Mateos, S., Alonso-Herrero, A., Carrera, F. J., et al 2012, , 426, 3271 Martin, D. C., Fanson, J, Schiminovich, D. et al. 2005, , 619, L1 Martinet, L., & Friedli, D. 1997, , 323, 363 Masters, K. L., Nichol R. C., Haynes, M. P., et al. 2012, , 424, 2180 Menendez-Delmestre, K., Schinnerer, E., Jarrett et al. 2007, , 657, 790 Morris, M, & Serabyn, E. 1996, , 34, 645 Nair, P. B., & Abraham, R. G. 2010, , 714, L260 Oh, S, Oh, K., & Yi, S. K. 2012, , 198, 4 , D. E., & [Ferland]{}, G. J. 2006, [Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei]{}, ed. [Osterbrock, D. E. & Ferland, G. J.]{} Pompea, S. M., & Rieke, G. H. 1990, , 356, 416 Regan, M. W. et al. 2006, , 652, 1112 Saintonge, A., Kauffmann, G., Kramer, C., et al., 2011, , 415 Saintonge, A., Tacconi, L. J., Fabello, S., et al, 2012, , 758, 73 Salpeter, E. E., 1955, , 121, 161S Seo, W.-Y., & Kim, W.-T. 2013, , 769, 100 Shin, J. et al. 2017, ApJ, accepted (arXiv:1704.09006) Simkin, S. M., Su, H. J.,& Schwarz, M. P. 1980, , 237, 404 Shlosman, I., Begelman, M. C., & Frank, J. 1990, , 11, 111 Strateva, I., Ivezi[ć]{}, [Ž]{}., Knapp, G. R., et al. 2001, , 122, 1861 Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, , 613, 898 Vera, M, Alonso, S., & Coldwell, G. 2016, , 595, 63 Villa-Vargas, J., Shlosman, I., & Heller, C. 2010, , 719, 1470 Wang, J., Kauffmann, G., Overzier, R., et al. 2012, , 423, 3486 Willett, K. W., Schawinski, K., Simmons, B. D., et al. 2015, , 449, 820 Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al., 2010, , 140, 1868 Zahid, H. J., Geller, M. J., Kewley, L. J., et al. 2013, , 771, L19 [^1]: The $r$-band absolute magnitude, $M_r$, is based on $H_0 = 100$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ in @lee12a.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We present a model describing a single brane with tension embedded into a five-dimensional space-time with compact extra dimension, which can be easily stabilized. We examine the linearized gravity in the model and obtain an expression for the four-dimensional Planck mass on the brane in terms of the model parameters. It is also shown that the scalar sector of the effective four-dimensional theory contain a tachyonic mode, and we discuss the problem of stability of the model.' --- [Single-brane world\ with stabilized extra dimension]{}\ Mikhail N. Smolyakov, Igor P. Volobuev\ Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University\ 119991 Moscow, Russia\ Introduction ============ Brane world models and their phenomenology have been widely discussed in the last years. One of the most interesting brane world models is the Randall-Sundrum model with two branes, – the RS1 model [@Randall:1999ee]. This model solves the hierarchy problem due to the warp factor in the metric and predicts an interesting new physics in the $TeV$ range of energies. Most of the brane world models with one compact extra dimension and thin branes with tension demand the existence of at least two branes. At the same time the matter located on the brane, which is not “our” brane, can strongly affect the world located on “our”brane. For the case of the RS1 model it was shown in [@SV-RS]. So it would be quite interesting to find out, whether it is possible to construct a model with only one tensionful brane in a compact extra dimension, admitting a solution to the hierarchy problem in the way analogous to that proposed in [@Randall:1999ee]. A characteristic feature of models with single brane is the presence of at least one tachyonic mode in the perturbative linearized theory [@Lesgourgues:2003mi]. At the same time the linearized theory, as well as the five-dimensional effective action describing a brane world model, is valid for the energy range of the order of the fundamental energy scale of the theory, defined by the five-dimensional gravity (we suppose that this scale is of the order of $1-10\,\, TeV$). Thus, if the masses of the tachyonic modes are far beyond the energy range of its applicability, their influence on the theory cannot be accessed in the linear approximation, and one needs to consider the nonlinear effects. Some solutions with single brane in a compact extra dimension, interesting from the cosmological point of view, were obtained in [@Kanti:1999nz]. But the energy-momentum tensors used for obtaining these solution are “phenomenological”, i.e. they are added to the action “by hand”. Here we present a model describing the scalar field minimally coupled to gravity in a five-dimensional space-time, admitting the existence of a single brane quite naturally and being of interest from the point of view of the hierarchy problem. Moreover, the size of the extra dimension in this model can be easily stabilized. Thus, the model appears to be devoid of the main flaw of the original Randall-Sundrum model – the existence of the massless scalar mode, called the radion, which arises due to the fluctuations of the branes with respect to each other and whose interactions contradict the existing experimental data. We argue that the stabilization of the size of extra dimension is made in the same way as in [@wolfe]. This method is free from the main disadvantage of the approach proposed in [@wise], where the backreaction of the scalar field on the background metric is not taken into account. There is only one tachyonic mode in the model with the mass of the order of the four-dimensional Planck mass $\sim 10^{19} GeV$, thus lying far beyond the applicability range of the theory. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we present the background solution and the method of its stabilization. In Section 3 we obtain gauge conditions and equations of motion for linearized gravity in the model. In Section 4 we consider the tensor modes and obtain an expression for the four-dimensional Planck mass on the brane in terms of the model parameters. In Section 5 we consider the scalar sector of the theory, discuss the stability of the model and obtain the estimates for the mass of the lowest scalar mode and its coupling constant to matter on the brane. And finally, we discuss the obtained results. The model ========= Let us denote the coordinates in five-dimensional space-time $E=M_4\times S^{1}$ by $\{ x^N\} \equiv \{x^{\mu},y\}$, $N= 0,1,2,3,4, \, \mu=0,1,2,3 $, the coordinate $x^4 \equiv y, -L\leq y \leq L$ parametrizing the fifth dimension with identified points $-L$ and $L$. The brane is located at the point $y=L$. The action of stabilized brane world model can be written as $$\begin{aligned} \label{actionDW} S=\int d^{4}x \int_{-L}^L dy \sqrt{-g} \left[ 2 M^3R -\frac{1}{2} g^{MN}\partial_M\phi\partial_N\phi-V(\phi)\right] -\int_{y=L}d^{4}x\sqrt{-\tilde g}\lambda(\phi),\end{aligned}$$ Here $V(\phi)$ is a bulk scalar field potential and $\lambda(\phi)$ is the brane scalar field potential, $\tilde{g}=det\tilde g_{\mu\nu}$, and $\tilde g_{\mu\nu}$ denotes the metric induced on the brane. The signature of the metric $g_{MN}$ is chosen to be $(-,+,+,+,+)$. The standard ansatz for the metric and the scalar field, which preserves the Poincaré invariance in any four-dimensional subspace $y=const$, looks like $$\begin{aligned} \label{metricDW} &ds^2= e^{-2A(y)}\eta_{\mu\nu} {dx^\mu dx^\nu} + dy^2 \equiv \gamma_{MN}(y)dx^M dx^N,& \\ &\phi(x, y) = \phi(y),&\end{aligned}$$ $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ denoting the flat Minkowski metric. If one substitutes this ansatz into the equations corresponding to action (\[actionDW\]), one gets a rather complicated system of nonlinear differential equations for functions $A(y),\phi(y)$: $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \frac{d V}{d\phi}+\frac{d\lambda}{d\phi}\delta(y-L)= -4A'\phi'+\phi'',\\ \nonumber 12M^3 (A')^2+\frac{1}{2}(V-\frac{1}{2} (\phi')^2)=0, \\ \label{yd} \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{2}(\phi')^2+V+\lambda\delta(y-L) \right)=-2M^3\left(-3A''+6(A')^2\right). \end{aligned}$$ Here and below $'\equiv{d}/{d{y}}$. An interesting conclusion following from these equations is that the relation $$A''(y)=\frac{1}{12M^{3}}{\phi'}^{2}$$ holds in the bulk for any potential $V(\phi)$, and thus $A''\ge 0$ in the bulk. This inequality was also obtained in [@Freedman] from the weaker energy condition. To find an analytic solution to this system we will use the results of [@wolfe; @Brandhuber]. Let us consider a special class of potentials, which can be represented as $$V(\phi)=\frac{1}{8} \left(\frac{d W}{d\phi}\right)^2- \frac{1}{24M^3}W^2(\phi).$$ Let us also suppose that $$W(\phi)=\frac{8\gamma}{3}\phi^{\frac{3}{2}}.$$ In this case the scalar field potential takes a simple polynomial form $$V(\phi)=\gamma^{2}\left(2\phi-\left(\frac{2}{3M}\right)^{3}\phi^{3}\right),$$ and the corresponding continuous background solution can be easily found (with the help of the procedure described in [@wolfe; @Brandhuber]): $$\begin{aligned} \label{bckgrsol} \phi=\left(\gamma y\right)^{2},\\ \nonumber A=\frac{1}{36M^{3}}\left(\left(\gamma y\right)^{4}-\left(\gamma L\right)^{4}\right). \end{aligned}$$ The additive constant in the solution for $A(y)$ is chosen in such a way that the coordinates $\{x^\mu\}$ are Galilean on the brane (see [@Rubakov:2001kp; @Boos:2002ik] for details). We will refer all the energy parameters, which appear in the theory, to this Galilean coordinate system on the brane. In order the equations of motion be valid on the brane too, one needs to finetune the brane potential $\lambda(\phi)$. We choose $$\lambda(\phi)=-W(\phi)=-\frac{8\gamma}{3}\phi^{\frac{3}{2}}.$$ In this case the brane appears to be of the BPS type. The size of the extra dimension is not defined by the solution yet. To stabilize the size of the extra dimension, let us add the following term to the scalar field potential on the brane: $$\Delta\lambda(\phi)=\beta^{2}\left(\phi-\phi_{0}\right)^{2}.$$ Such an addition will not affect the equations of motion provided $$\phi\|_{y=L}=\phi_{0},$$ which means that $$L=\frac{\sqrt{\phi_{0}}}{\gamma}.$$ Thus, we see that the size of the extra dimension is stabilized. It is necessary to note that the background solution presented above was obtained without imposing $Z_{2}$ orbifold symmetry, which is inherent to the most brane world models, although the solution itself possesses reflection symmetry with respect to the point $y=0$. We also suppose that the parameters of the potentials $\gamma, \phi_{0}, \beta$, when made dimensionless by the fundamental five-dimensional energy scale of the theory $M$, should be positive quantities of the order $O(1)$, i.e. there should be no hierarchical difference in the parameters. We note that action (\[actionDW\]) and the corresponding four-dimensional effective theory can be used only at the energy scales $E\lesssim M$ measured in Galilean coordinates on the brane. Linearized gravity ================== Now let us turn to the examination of linearized gravity in the model. We represent the metric and the scalar field as $$\begin{aligned} \label{metricparDW} g_{MN}(x,y)&=& \gamma_{MN}(y) + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2M^3}} h_{MN}(x,y), \\ \label{metricparDW1} \phi(x,y) &=& \phi(y) + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2M^3}} f(x,y).\end{aligned}$$ To simplify the analysis, let us impose $Z_{2}$ orbifold symmetry conditions (although this symmetry is not necessary for obtaining the background solution). Correspondingly, the metric $g_{MN}$ and the scalar field $\phi$ satisfy the orbifold symmetry conditions $$\begin{aligned} \label{orbifoldsym}\nonumber g_{\mu \nu}(x,- y)= g_{\mu \nu}(x, y), \quad g_{\mu 4}(x,- y)= - g_{\mu 4}(x, y), \\ g_{44}(x,- y)= g_{44}(x, y), \quad \phi(x,- y)= \phi(x, y).\end{aligned}$$ We realize that imposing $Z_{2}$ orbifold symmetry is a rather artificial procedure. But a consistent and thorough analysis of linearized gravity without this symmetry, i.e. taking into all the degrees of freedom coming from the metric, is a very complicated problem (for example, we cannot impose the gauge conditions which will be used later). At the same time, a theory with the orbifold symmetry makes sense and was studied, for example, in [@Lesgourgues:2003mi]. Moreover, we have a developed formalism for studying linearized gravity in brane world models stabilized by the bulk scalar field and with extra dimension forming the orbifold $S^1/Z_2$ – see [@BMSV1]. The only difference from this case is that all the fields should have a “good” behavior at the point $y=0$, i.e. the fields should be smooth at $y=0$, which corresponds to the absence of the brane as a physical object at this point. For these reasons, in this paper we restrict ourselves to the case with $Z_{2}$ orbifold symmetry conditions. Substituting representation (\[metricparDW\]) and (\[metricparDW1\]) into action (\[actionDW\]) and keeping the terms of the second order in $h_{MN}$ and $f$, we get the second variation Lagrangian of this action [@BMSV1]. This Lagrangian is invariant under the gauge transformations $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber &h_{MN}^{(\prime)}(x,y)=h_{MN}(x,y)-(\nabla_M{\xi_N}+\nabla_N{ \xi_M}),&\\ \nonumber &f^{(\prime)}(x,y)=f(x,y)-\phi'\xi_4,&\end{aligned}$$ where $\nabla_M$ is the covariant derivative with respect to the background metric, provided ${\xi_M(x,y)}$ satisfy the orbifold symmetry conditions $$\xi_{\mu}(x,-y)= \xi_{\mu}(x,y), \quad \xi_4(x,-y)= -\xi_4(x,y).$$ These gauge transformations are a generalization of the gauge transformations in the unstabilized RS1 model [@Rubakov:2001kp; @Boos:2002ik]. We will use them to isolate the physical degrees of freedom of the fields $h_{MN}$ and $f$. We also note that since $\xi_{4}\|_{y=L}=0$, the brane appears to be straight (the disadvantages of bent-brane formalism were discussed in [@Arefeva]). It was shown in [@BMSV1] that with the help of these gauge transformations one can impose the gauge $$\begin{aligned} \label{gauge} (e^{-2A}h_{44})'-\frac{1}{3 M^3}e^{-2A}\phi'f=0, \\ \nonumber h_{\mu 4} =0,\end{aligned}$$ after which there remain the gauge transformations satisfying $$\label{restr} ({e^{2A}\xi_\mu})'=0.$$ A substitution $$\begin{aligned} \label{subst} h_{\mu\nu} = b_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2} \gamma_{\mu\nu} h_{44}\end{aligned}$$ allows us to decouple the equations of motion, following from the second variation Lagrangian, in gauge (\[gauge\]). Gauge transformations satisfying (\[restr\]) allow one to impose the traceless-transverse gauge condition on the field $b_{\mu\nu}$ [@Boos:2002ik; @BMSV1] $$\begin{aligned} \label{compl_gauge} \tilde b = \gamma^{\mu\nu}{ b_{\mu\nu}}=0, \quad \partial^\nu{ b_{\mu\nu}}=0,\end{aligned}$$ the residual gauge transformations now being $$\label{ok1} \xi_\mu=e^{-2A}\epsilon_\mu(x),\qquad \partial^\nu\epsilon_\nu(x)=0,\qquad \Box{\epsilon_\nu}=0,$$ where $\Box=\eta^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}$. Transformations (\[ok1\]) act only on the massless mode of the field $b_{\mu\nu}$ and provide the correct number of degrees of freedom of the massless graviton [@Boos:2002ik]. Finally, we get the equations of motion in the interval $(0,L)$ with corresponding boundary conditions at the points $y=0$, $y=L$ for the field $b_{\mu\nu}$ $$\label{ub} \frac{1}{2}\left(e^{2A(y)}\Box {b_{\mu\nu}}+\frac{\partial^2{b_{\mu\nu}}}{\partial y^2}\right)-b_{\mu\nu}\left(2(A')^2-A''\right)=0,$$ $$\begin{aligned} b'_{\mu\nu}\|_{y=+0}=0,\\ \nonumber b'_{\mu\nu}+2A'b_{\mu\nu}\|_{y=L-0}=0,\end{aligned}$$ and for the field $g =e^{-2A(y)}h_{44}(x,y)$ $$\label{ug0} g'' +2g'\left(A'-\frac{\phi''}{\phi'}\right)-\frac{ (\phi')^2}{6M^3} g+\partial_\mu \partial^\mu g =0,$$ $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber g'\|_{y=+0}=0, \\ \label{bc} \beta^{2}g' -\partial_\mu \partial^\mu g\|_{y=L-0}=0,\end{aligned}$$ see [@BMSV1] for details. Tensor modes and the hierarchy problem ====================================== Let us study first the modes of the tensor field $b_{\mu\nu}(x,y)$, which satisfies Eq. (\[ub\]). Substituting into this equation $$b_{\mu\nu}(x,y) = c_{\mu\nu}e^{ipx} \psi_n(y),\quad c_{\mu\nu} = const, \quad p^2 = -m_n^2,$$ we get: $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \frac{d^2 \psi_n}{dy^2} -2(2(A')^2 -A'')\psi_n = -m_n^2 e^{2A} \psi_n, \\ \label{bmode} \psi_n^\prime \|_{y=+0}= \psi_n^\prime + 2 A' \psi_n \|_{y=L-0}=0.\end{aligned}$$ The boundary conditions suggest a substitution $\psi_n = \exp(-2A)\omega_n $ (note that $A'\|_{y=+0}=0$), which turns this equation into $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \frac{d}{dy} \left(e^{-4A}\omega_n'\right) = -m_n^2 e^{-2A} \omega_n, \\ \label{bmode1} \omega_n' \|_{y=+0}= \omega_n'\|_{y=L-0}=0.\end{aligned}$$ We see that the eigenfunctions $\omega_n$ are solutions of a Sturm-Liouville problem with von Neumann boundary conditions. In accordance with the general theory [@BKM], the problem at hand has no negative eigenvalues for arbitrary $A$, only one zero eigenvalue, corresponding to $\omega_0 = const$. The eigenfunctions $\{\psi_n(y)\}$ of eigenvalue problem (\[bmode\]) build a complete orthonormal set, the eigenfunction of the zero mode being $$\label{zeromode} \psi_0(y) = N e^{-2A(y)}.$$ Expanding $b_{\mu\nu}$ in this system $$\label{decomp} b_{\mu\nu}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty b_{\mu\nu}^n(x)\psi_n(y),$$ we get four-dimensional tensor fields $b_{\mu\nu}^n(x)$ with definite masses. A standard technique gives us an expression for the four-dimensional Planck mass on the brane $$\begin{aligned} M_{Pl}^{2}=M^{3}\int_{-L}^{L}e^{-2A}dy\simeq M^{3}2e^{\frac{\left(\gamma L\right)^{4}}{18M^{3}}}\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\frac{\left(\gamma y\right)^{4}}{18M^{3}}}dy=\\ \nonumber =2M^{3}e^{\frac{\left(\gamma L\right)^{4}}{18M^{3}}}\frac{\left(18M^{3}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}}{4\gamma}\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{4}\right)\approx 3.7\cdot M^{3}e^{\frac{\left(\gamma L\right)^{4}}{18M^{3}}}\frac{M^{\frac{3}{4}}}{\gamma}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} M_{Pl}\approx 2M\frac{M^{\frac{7}{8}}}{\sqrt{\gamma}}\,e^{\frac{\left(\gamma L\right)^{4}}{36M^{3}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Let us suppose that all fundamental parameters of the theory lie in the $TeV$ range. To have the hierarchy problem solved, one should take $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\gamma^{4}L^{4}}{36M^{3}}=\frac{\phi_{0}^{2}}{36M^{3}}\approx 36,\end{aligned}$$ which means that $$\begin{aligned} \phi_{0}\simeq 36M^{\frac{3}{2}}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{L6} L\simeq\frac{6M^{\frac{3}{4}}}{\gamma}.\end{aligned}$$ Although Eq. (\[bmode1\]) cannot be solved analytically for $n\ne 0$, it is reasonable to suppose that the lowest masses of the four-dimensional tensor excitations $b_{\mu\nu}^n(x)$ are of the order of $L^{-1}$. Scalar sector and stability =========================== In order to find the mass spectrum of the scalar particles described by Eq. (\[ug0\]) let us substitute $$g(x,y) = e^{ipx} g_n(y), \quad p^2 = -\mu_n^2,$$ into this equation: $$\label{eq_sc} g_n'' +2A'g_n'-2\frac{\phi''}{\phi'}g_n'-\frac{ (\phi')^2}{6M^3} g_n= - \mu_n^2 e^{2A}g_n,$$ $$\begin{aligned} g'_n\|_{y=+0}=0, \\ \label{bc11} \beta^{2}g'_n -\mu_n^2e^{2A}g_n\|_{y=L-0}=0.\end{aligned}$$ It is necessary to note that since the field $f$ should be smooth at the point $y=0$, from (\[gauge\]) it follows that the value $\left(g'_{n}/{\phi'}\right)'$ should be continuous at $y=0$ too. First, let us solve Eq. (\[eq\_sc\]) for the case $\mu_{0}=0$, i.e. for the zero mode. In the case of background solution (\[bckgrsol\]) the wave function $g_0$, satisfying boundary condition at $y=0$, has the form $$g_{0}\sim e^{-\frac{\gamma^{4}y^{4}}{18M^{3}}} +\frac{\gamma^{3}} {\left(18M^{3}\right)^{\frac{3}{4}}}\|y\|^{3} \int_{0}^{\frac{\gamma^{4}y^{4}}{18M^{3}}}q^{-\frac{3}{4}}e^{-q}dq.$$ It is not difficult to check that $g'_{0}\|_{y=L}\ne 0$. Thus, the scalar zero mode is absent in the model. Now let us examine, whether there are scalar tachyons in the model. To this end we denote ${\tilde\mu}^{2}=-\mu^{2}>0$ (here and below we omit the subscript $n$) and introduce a new dimensionless variable $$t=\frac{\gamma}{M^{\frac{3}{4}}}y.$$ In this case Eq. (\[eq\_sc\]) and boundary conditions take the form $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq_sc1} \ddot g + 2\dot g\left(\frac{t^{3}}{9}-\frac{1}{t}\right)-\frac{2}{3}t^{2}g-{\bar\mu}^{2}\exp{\left(\frac{t^{4}}{18}\right)}g=0, \\ \label{gcondt} \left. \frac{M^{\frac{3}{4}}\beta^{2}}{\gamma}\dot g+{\bar\mu}^{2}\exp{\left(\frac{t^{4}}{18}\right)}g\right\|_{t=\frac{\gamma L}{M^{\frac{3}{4}}}}=0,\\ \dot g\|_{t=0}=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar\mu=\tilde\mu\frac{M^{\frac{3}{4}}}{\gamma}\exp{\left(-\frac{\left(\gamma L\right)^{4}}{36M^{3}}\right)}$, $\frac{\gamma L}{M^{\frac{3}{4}}}\approx 6$ (see (\[L6\])) and $\dot{g}\equiv {dg}/{dt}$. Unfortunately we cannot solve Eq. (\[eq\_sc1\]) analytically. Numerical analysis (see Appendix A) shows that for $\bar\mu\le 0.9507$, $t=3.2$: $g(t)>0$ and $\dot g(t)>0$ (see examples on Figs. \[fig1\], \[fig2\]). At the same time for $\bar\mu\ge 0.9509$, $t=3.2$: $g(t)<0$ and $\dot g(t)<0$ (see examples on Figs. \[fig3\], \[fig4\]; Fig. \[fig4\] is shown for $t\leq 2$, but one can check that for $\bar\mu=1.5$ and $t=3.2$ $g(t)<0$ and $\dot g(t)<0$). The graphs on Figs. \[fig1\], \[fig2\], \[fig3\] are shown for $t\le 3.3$, it is made to show the behavior of $g(t)$ in the interval $t\in [0,3.2]$, especially for the cases $\bar\mu=0.9507$ and $\bar\mu=0.9509$. For $t>3.2$: $\dot g/g>0$, it can be easily seen from the structure of Eq. (\[eq\_sc1\]). Indeed, let us divide (\[eq\_sc1\]) by $g$ and pass to the equation for $q(t)=\dot g/g$, which takes the form of a Riccati equation $$\label{eqforq} \dot q + q^{2}+2\left(\frac{t^{3}}{9}-\frac{1}{t}\right)q=\frac{2}{3}t^{2}+{\bar\mu}^{2}\exp{\left(\frac{t^{4}}{18}\right)}.$$ If initially for some value of $t=t_{q}>0$: $q>0$, then $q$ will remain positive for any $t>t_{q}$. Indeed, the function $q$ should pass through zero to change the sign. But if $0<q\ll 1$, then from Eq. (\[eqforq\]) it follows that $\dot q>0$, $q$ appears to be a growing function and thus remains positive. Thus, for $t>3.2$: $\dot g(t)>0$, $g(t)>0$ or $\dot g(t)<0$, $g(t)<0$ depending on the sign of $g(t)$ at $t=3.2$. In both cases (\[gcondt\]) is not satisfied, since $M>0$, $\gamma>0$ and $\beta^{2}>0$. ![Numerical solution for $g(t)$, $\bar\mu=0.5$[]{data-label="fig1"}](sv1.eps){width="16cm"} ![Numerical solution for $g(t)$, $\bar\mu=0.9507$[]{data-label="fig2"}](sv2.eps){width="16cm"} ![Numerical solution for $g(t)$, $\bar\mu=0.9509$[]{data-label="fig3"}](sv3.eps){width="16cm"} ![Numerical solution for $g(t)$, $\bar\mu=1.5$[]{data-label="fig4"}](sv4.eps){width="16cm"} Eq. (\[gcondt\]) can be satisfied if $\dot g(t)=g(t)=0$ at the point $t=\frac{\gamma L}{M^{\frac{3}{4}}}\approx 6$. But such boundary conditions imply that $g(t)\equiv 0$ in the interval $t\in \left[\epsilon, \frac{\gamma L}{M^{\frac{3}{4}}}\right]$ for any $\epsilon>0$ – this conclusion follows from the theorem about the existence and uniqueness of solution for the Cauchy problem – see, for example, [@elsgolts]. Finally, due to the continuity of the function $g(t)$, we get $g(t)\equiv 0$ in the interval $t\in \left[0,\frac{\gamma L}{M^{\frac{3}{4}}}\right]$. Of course, the same conclusion can be made for any $0<t_{1}<\frac{\gamma L}{M^{\frac{3}{4}}}$ such that $\dot g(t_{1})=g(t_{1})=0$. As for the region $0.9507<\bar\mu<0.9509$, we have made a large number of numerical simulations with different values of $\bar\mu$. The behavior of the corresponding solutions is such that for $t\ge 3.6$: $g(t)>0$, $g(t)>0$ or $\dot g(t)<0$, $g(t)<0$ respectively, analogous to the behavior of solutions presented on Figs. \[fig2\], \[fig3\]. A simple qualitative explanation of this fact can be given. For $0.9507<\bar\mu<0.9509$ and $t>3.6$ the coefficient ${\bar\mu}^{2}\exp{\left(\frac{t^{4}}{18}\right)}$ in (\[eq\_sc1\]) grows rapidly, which leads to the growth of the absolute value of function $g(t)$ with coordinate $t$ for $t>3.6$. Nevertheless, for some value of $\bar\mu$ such that $0.9507<\bar\mu<0.9509$ there exists a solution, which satisfies condition (\[gcondt\]). Indeed, let us define a function $F(\bar\mu)=\frac{M^{\frac{3}{4}}\beta^{2}}{\gamma}\dot g(t)+{\bar\mu}^{2}\exp{\left(\frac{t^{4}}{18}\right)}g(t)\|_{t=\frac{\gamma L}{M^{\frac{3}{4}}}}$. For $\bar\mu<0.9507$ it is positive, whereas for $0.9509<\bar\mu$ it is negative (see Figs. \[fig1\], \[fig2\], \[fig3\], \[fig4\]). Thus, it is reasonable to suppose that there exists an appropriate value $\bar\mu^{}$ ($0.9507<\bar\mu^{}<0.9509$) such that $F(\bar\mu^{})\|_{t=\frac{\gamma L}{M^{\frac{3}{4}}}}=0$, which corresponds to a tachyonic mode. It appears to be very difficult to find the exact value of the tachyonic mass numerically. At the same time the physical mass of the tachyon is such that $${\mu^{}}^{2}\approx -{\bar\mu}^{2}M_{Pl}^{2}\frac{\gamma^{3}}{3.7\cdot M^{\frac{21}{4}}}\approx -\frac{0.9}{3.7} M_{Pl}^{2}\approx -\left(0.5\cdot 10^{19}GeV\right)^{2}$$ for the given values of the model parameters (we suppose that $\gamma\approx M^{\frac{7}{4}}$). Such energy scale lies outside the range of validity of our effective theory, described by action (\[actionDW\]) (because $\left\|\mu^{}\right\|\sim E\gg M$, see Section 2). From the classical point of view it can be understood as follows: the tachyonic mode should behave as $e^{\mu^{} x^{0}}$. The time derivative of the tachyon field $\sim\mu^{} e^{\mu^{} x^{0}}$, i.e. it is enhanced by the large value of $\mu^{}\sim M_{Pl}$ in comparison with the tachyon field itself. Thus, even if the value of the tachyon field is small, its time derivative would lead to breakdown of perturbative approach and corresponding nonlinear effects, coming from the five-dimensional curvature (through substitution (\[subst\])). Another remarkable thing is that the wave function of the tachyon is such that if $g\|_{y=0}=1$, then in the leading order $g\|_{y=L}\sim\exp\left(-\mu^{} \exp\left({\frac{(\gamma L)^{4}}{36M^{3}}}\right)\right)\approx \exp\left(-\mu^{} \exp\left(36\right)\right)$. It means that when the nonlinear effects and (or) effects of the underlaying fundamental theory begin to affect the behavior of the theory in the bulk, the theory on the brane remain intact, because the coupling constant of the tachyon to matter on the brane, which is proportional to the value of the wave function on the brane, is negligibly small - much smaller than the coupling constant of the massless tensor graviton. Thus, the runaway of the scalar field can be stopped in the bulk because of the nonlinear effects coming from action (\[actionDW\]) or from the underlaying fundamental theory. Of course, we cannot argue that it is indeed so, but such situation can be realized. Of course, our examination is not explicit since it is based on the numerical calculations. But we think that the analysis made testifies in favor of absence of scalar tachyons in the model below the energy scale of our effective theory (\[actionDW\]). As for the ghosts, the form of the effective action for the scalar modes ensures the proper signs of the appropriate kinetic terms [@BMSV1]. The form of Eq. (\[eq\_sc1\]) allows us to estimate the mass of the lowest scalar excitation and its coupling to matter on the brane. Indeed, let us suppose that the lowest mass $\mu_{1}$ (see (\[eq\_sc\])) is such that $\mu_{1}/M\approx O(1)$. In this case we can neglect the last term in Eq. (\[eq\_sc\]) in comparison with the last but one term of this equation, and the solution of the resulting equation takes the form $$\label{zero-one-mode} g_{1}(y)\approx A_{1}\left( e^{-\frac{\gamma^{4}y^{4}}{18M^{3}}} +\frac{\gamma^{3}} {\left(18M^{3}\right)^{\frac{3}{4}}}\|y\|^{3} \int_{0}^{\frac{\gamma^{4}y^{4}}{18M^{3}}}q^{-\frac{3}{4}}e^{-q}dq\right)\sim g_{0}(y),$$ where $A_{1}$ is a normalization constant. Let us suppose that the size of the extra dimension is such that $\gamma L/M^{\frac{3}{4}}=6$, see (\[L6\]). The values $g_{1}(L)$ and $g_{1}'(L)$ can be easily calculated, which gives us $$\begin{aligned} \label{estim1} g_{1}(L)\approx A_{1}\cdot 89.6,\\ \label{estim2} g_{1}'(L)\approx A_{1}\cdot 44.8\frac{\gamma}{M^{\frac{3}{4}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting (\[estim1\]) and (\[estim2\]) into (\[bc11\]) we easily get $$\mu_{1}^{2}\simeq\frac{\beta^{2}\gamma}{2M^{\frac{3}{4}}}.$$ For example, if $\beta^{2}\simeq M$, $\gamma\simeq M^{7/4}$ and $M\approx 10\, TeV$, the lowest mass $\mu_{1}\approx 7\, TeV$. Of course, it can be even smaller depending on the values of the parameters $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $M$. It is also necessary to note that the analysis carried out with the help of the numerical solution of Eq. (\[eq\_sc\]) for such small $\mu_{1}$ reproduces the results obtained using (\[zero-one-mode\]) with a very good accuracy (of the order of $1-2\%$). Now let us calculate the coupling constant of the first scalar mode to matter on the brane. To this end we need to calculate the normalization constant $A_{1}$. The normalization condition for the scalar modes takes the form [@BMSV1] $$\int_{0}^{L} dye^{2A}\left(g_{1}^{2}+\frac{6M^{3}}{(\phi')^2}{g'_{1}}^{2}\right)=\frac{2}{3}.$$ It is more convenient to pass to the variable $t=\frac{\gamma}{M^{\frac{3}{4}}}y$: $$\label{int-t} e^{-72}\int_{0}^{6} dt e^{\frac{t^{4}}{18}}\left(g_{1}^{2}+\frac{6}{4t^{2}}\dot g_{1}^{2}\right)=\frac{2\gamma}{3M^{\frac{3}{4}}}.$$ The integral in (\[int-t\]) can be evaluated numerically, which gives us $$A_{1}^{2}\approx 0.004\frac{\gamma}{M^{\frac{3}{4}}}.$$ Now we can calculate the coupling constant of the lightest scalar mode to matter on the brane (see [@BMSV1]): $$\epsilon_{1}=-\frac{g_{1}(L)}{2\sqrt{8M^{3}}}\approx -\frac{A_{1}\cdot 89.6}{2\sqrt{8M^{3}}}\approx -\sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{M^{\frac{15}{4}}}}.$$ One can see that $\epsilon_{1}\approx \frac{-1}{10\, TeV}$ for the given values of the fundamental parameters $\gamma$ and $M$. Unfortunately it is impossible to calculate even the lowest mass of the tensor excitations using the method described above. One should carry out a very precise numerical analysis to get an information about the spectrum of the tensor modes. Conclusion ========== In this paper a model describing the scalar field minimally coupled to gravity in the spacetime with one compact extra dimension is proposed. It admits the existence of a single tensionful brane, contrary to the most brane world models with one compact extra dimension demanding the existence of at least two branes (of course, except the simplest case of the ADD model [@ADD; @Ant] with tensionless branes). We also showed that the model could be interesting in view of the hierarchy problem. The linearized gravity in the model was studied under the assumption of the $Z_{2}$ orbifold symmetry. We obtained the expression for the four-dimensional Planck mass on the brane in terms of the fundamental five-dimensional parameters of the theory. We also made a stability analysis of the model, – analytical for the tensor modes and numerical for the scalar modes, which resulted in the conclusion that the scalar sector of the model contain one tachyon, which corresponds to the result obtained in [@Lesgourgues:2003mi], its “mass” being of the order of the four-dimensional Planck mass. Thus, the model as it is, at least in the linear approximation, is unstable and its “lifetime” is of the order of the four-dimensional Planck time. Nevertheless, the energy scale of the tachyon is such that multidimensional nonlinear fundamental underlaying theory can come to play and “lift up” the scalar sector from falling down. Of course it is not necessarily so, but in principle it seems to be possible. The background solution can also be used to describe the world with two branes. Indeed, the second brane can be placed at the point $y=L_{0}$, $0<L_{0}<L$. The results of [@BMSV1] suggest that such a system is totally devoid of tachyons. It is very interesting to carry out a numerical calculation of the coupling constants and the masses of the tensor modes and a complete description of the scalar sector of the model, as well as the model without $Z_{2}$ orbifold symmetry (in the latter case there should appear antisymmetric modes). One can also use the model discussed in this paper (for example, the stable configuration with two branes) as a basis for constructing models with universal extra dimensions. These tasks deserve additional thorough investigation. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== The work was supported by grant of Russian Ministry of Education and Science NS-8122.2006.2. M.S. also acknowledges support of grant for young scientists MK-8718.2006.2 of the President of Russian Federation, grant of the “Dynasty” Foundation and scholarship for young teachers and scientists of M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University. The authors are grateful to R. Bogdanov, D. Levkov, M. Libanov, V. Rubakov and V. Shakhparonov for valuable discussions. Appendix: note on numerical analysis {#appendix-note-on-numerical-analysis .unnumbered} ==================================== We solve Eq. (\[eq\_sc1\]) numerically with the following initial conditions on the “time” variable $t$: $$\begin{aligned} g(t)\|_{t=0}=1,\\ \dot g(t)\|_{t=0}=0.\end{aligned}$$ But since the coefficient $$\frac{t^{3}}{9}-\frac{1}{t}$$ in (\[eq\_sc1\]) is not defined at the point $t=0$, it is inconvenient to use the point $t=0$ as the initial point for numerical calculations. To bypass this problem, we find an approximate analytical solution of Eq. (\[eq\_sc1\]) in the vicinity of the point $t=0$: $$\begin{aligned} g(t)\approx 1-\frac{\bar\mu^{2}}{2}t^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Now we choose the point $t_{0}=10^{-11}$ as the initial point instead of $t=0$. The corresponding initial conditions take the form $$\begin{aligned} g(t)\|_{t=t_{0}}=1-\frac{\bar\mu^{2}}{2}10^{-22},\\ \dot g(t)\|_{t=t_{0}}=-\bar\mu^{2}10^{-11}.\end{aligned}$$ The numerical analysis for a large number of different values of $\bar\mu$ was made using the program package [Mathematica]{}, version 5.2. Selected solutions are presented on Figs. \[fig1\], \[fig2\], \[fig3\], \[fig4\]. [00]{} L. Randall and R. Sundrum, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [83]{} (1999) 3370. I.P. Volobouev and M.N. Smolyakov, [Theor. Math. Phys.]{} [139]{} (2004) 458. J. Lesgourgues and L. Sorbo, [Phys. Rev. D]{} [69]{} (2004) 084010. P. Kanti, I.I. Kogan, K.A. Olive and M. Pospelov, [Phys. Rev. D]{} [61]{} (2000) 106004. O. DeWolfe, D.Z. Freedman, S.S. Gubser and A. Karch, [Phys. Rev. D]{} [62]{} (2000) 046008. W.D. Goldberger and M.B. Wise, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [83]{} (1999) 4922. D.Z. Freedman, S.S. Gubser, K. Pilch and N.P. Warner, [Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.]{} [3]{} (1999) 363. A. Brandhuber and K. Sfetsos, [JHEP]{} [9910]{} (1999) 013. V.A. Rubakov, [Phys. Usp.]{} [44]{} (2001) 871. E.E. Boos, Yu.A. Kubyshin, M.N. Smolyakov and I.P. Volobuev, [Class. Quant. Grav.]{} [19]{} (2002) 4591. E.E. Boos, Yu.S. Mikhailov, M.N. Smolyakov and I.P. Volobuev, [Mod. Phys. Lett. A]{} [21]{} (2006) 1431. I.Y. Aref’eva, M.G. Ivanov, W. Muck, K.S. Viswanathan and I.V. Volovich, [Nucl. Phys. B]{} [590]{} (2000) 273. V.M. Babich, M.B. Kapilevich and S.G. Mikhlin, [Linear Equations of Mathematical Physics]{} (in Russian), (Nauka, Moscow, 1964). L. Elsgolts, [Differential Equations and the Calculus of Variations]{} (University Press of the Pacific, Honolulu, 2003). N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, [Phys. Lett. B]{} [429]{} (1998) 263. I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, [Phys. Lett. B]{} [436]{} (1998) 257.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'In this work we report the study of conformation dependent electronic transport properties of DNA double-helix within tight-binding framework including its helical symmetry. We have studied the changes in localization properties of DNA as we alter the number of stacked bases within a pitch of the double-helix keeping the total number of nucleotides in the DNA chain fixed. We take three DNA sequences, two of them are periodic and one is random and observe that localization length increases as we increase the radius of DNA double-helix [i.e.]{}, number of nucleotides within a pitch. We have also investigated the effect of backbone energetic on the I-V response of the system and we find that in presence of helical symmetry, depending on the interplay of conformal variation and disorder strength DNA can be found in either metallic or semiconducting and even in an insulating phase, which in turn successfully explain all the experimental findings by a single model.' author: - Sourav Kundu - 'S. N. Karmakar' title: 'Conformation dependent electronic transport in a DNA double-helix' --- Introduction ============ The advancements of nanoscience and technology with everyday encouraging a growing number of scientists across the various disciplines to devise ingenious ways for decreasing the size and increasing the performance of the nano-electronic circuits. One of the promising route is to use molecules and molecular structures as a component of those circuits. From these efforts a new branch has emerged called molecular electronics. Among different branches of molecular electronics, DNA and alike biomolecules have drawn maximum attention in the last decade from both the theoreticians as well as experimentalists and still growing in numbers. The main reason behind this attraction is the potential of DNA to become an inevitable agent for the future nanoelectronic devices and computers, as it might can serve in different ways in a nano-electronic circuits such as a wire, transistor or a switch depending on its electronic properties [@endres; @dekker]. Not only this, a precise knowledge of charge transfer mechanism through DNA could help in understanding the process like oxidative damage sensing, protein binding, gene regulation and cell division. On the other hand electrical properties, specially conductivity of DNA can be used for marker-free gene test [@kleine] which is one of the most highly desired biophysical methods [@mckendry]. Inspite of the vast efforts from physicists as well as biologists around the world, charge transport results through DNA are still quite controversial [@fink; @porath; @cai; @tran; @zhang; @storm; @yoo]. Experimentally it is found that DNA can behave either as a good conductor [@fink], semiconductor [@porath; @yoo], insulator [@storm; @pablo] and even as a superconductor [@kasumov] at low temperature. Several experiments both on synthetic periodic DNA chains [@porath; @yoo] as well as unordered sequence of basepairs [@cohen; @hihtah] show the presence of a conduction gap in I-V curves at room temperature. Whereas linear response observed in Ref. [@xu] and both the staircase and linear behaviour in I-V curves shown in poly(dG)-poly(dC) chains [@hwang]. Due to this experimental ambiguity and lack of understanding of charge transfer mechanism in DNA, leads to different phenomenological models in which charge transfer is mediated via polarons [@conwell], solitons [@hermon] or electrons or holes [@dekker; @ratner; @beratan]. This diversity of experimental findings on transport properties of DNA is due to several reasons such as, DNA varies widely in terms of its composition, length and structure, presence of counterions and impurities which can attach to the phosphate group of the backbones, environmental effects, thermal vibration and contact resistance variation. In this communication, we try to address the effects of structure of DNA [i.e.]{}, conformal behaviour on its transport properties. Experiments done more than half a century ago by Wilkins [et. al.]{}, [@wilkins] first suggested that overstretched DNA (quite longer than its natural length) undergoes transition to a structure that can accommodate elongation up to twice the length of a relaxed DNA. Crucial developments in understanding mechanical properties of DNA was achieved via stretching experiments [@smith; @cluzel; @strick]. Depending on the stretching force applied, DNA first uncoils, then exhibit stiff elastic response and at last undergoes an abrupt structural transformation. Now as all the DNA are twisted (natural double-helix structure) and the amount of twist-stretch [i.e.]{}, radius of the helix varies from one situation to another, this study has to be made in details. People have already tried to study the effects of conformation introducing twist angle or chirality [@yega; @song] into [ab-initio]{} calculations. Studies also have been done on electronic properties of stretched DNA [@maragakis] but the effects of helical structure and conformality on its transport properties are yet not well explored. While study within much simpler tight-binding framework is hardly available in current literature. In our work we try to find out these effects within the tight-binding model. To do this we follow Ref. [@gore], where a mechanical model of DNA is proposed. DNA being modelled as an elastic rod, wrapped helically by a stiff wire. The radius of elastic rod can change upon stretching with a Poisson’s ratio $\eta$=0.5. The outer wire is affixed to the rod helically with a given pitch. As stretching force being applied, the elastic rod elongates in the length and its radius decreases. As a result the stiff wire overwinds and the number of turn increases. We take this mechanical model and interpret in the language of tight-binding formulation. We use twisted ladder model [@sourav], to imitate this mechanical model which includes both the helical symmetry and conformation. We have been able to show three different phases of DNA [i.e.]{}, metallic, semiconducting and insulating depending on helical symmetry, conformation (twist-stretching) and disorder. We have also found some structural configurations at which system hardly disturbed by external changes. This paper is organized in the following way: In Sec. II we discuss about our theoretical formulation and describe the model Hamiltonian. We explain our numerical results in Sec. III and summarized in Sec. IV. Model and Theoretical Formulation ================================= DNA, carrier of genetic code of all forms of life, a $\pi$-stacked array of four different nitrogenous bases adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C) and thymine (T) attached among themselves via hydrogen bond following complementary base pairing and coupled with sugar-phosphate backbones forming the double-helix structure. In most of the theoretical models, electronic conduction [@guti2; @cuni; @zhong; @bakhshi; @ladik] is assumed through the long-axis of the DNA molecule. To model DNA, in our present study, we take the tight-binding (TB) dangling backbone ladder model [@klotsa; @gcuni] and add extra hopping channels due to the proximity of bases in the upper strand with the corresponding bases of the lower strand in the next pitch to incorporate its helical symmetry. The Hamiltonian for the said model can be expressed as (for schematic representation of this model we refer to [@sourav]) $$H_{DNA}=H_{ladder}+ H_{helicity}+H_{backbone}~, \label{hamilton}$$ where, $$\begin{aligned} & H_{ladder}&= \sum\limits_{i=1}^N\sum\limits_{j=I,II}\left(\epsilon_{ij} c^\dagger_{ij}c_{ij} +t_{ij}c^\dagger_{ij}c_{i+1j}+\mbox{H.c.} \right)\nonumber \\ &&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ \sum_{i=1}^N v \left(c^\dagger_{iI}c_{i II}+ \mbox{H.c.} \right)~, \\ & H_{helicity}&=\sum\limits_{i=1}^N v^{\prime} \left(c^\dagger_{i II}c_{i+n I}+ \mbox{H.c.} \right)~, \\ & H_{backbone}&=\sum\limits_{i=1}^N\sum\limits_{j=I,II} \left(\epsilon_i^{q(j)}c^\dagger_{i q(j)}c_{i q(j)}\right.\nonumber \\ &&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+\left.t_i^{q(j)}c^\dagger_{ij}c_{i q(j)}+ \mbox{H.c.} \right)~,\end{aligned}$$ where $c_{ij}^\dagger$ and $c_{ij}$ are the electron creation and annihilation operators at the [i]{}th nucleotide at the jth stand, $t_{ij}=$ nearest neighbour hopping amplitude between nucleotides along the jth branch of the ladder, $\epsilon_{ij}=$ on-site energy of the nucleotides, $\epsilon_{i}^{q(j)}=$ on-site energy of the backbone site adjacent to ith nucleotide of the jth strand with $q(j)=\uparrow,\downarrow$ representing the upper and lower strands respectively, $t_{i}^{q(j)}=$ hopping amplitude between a nucleotide and the corresponding backbone site, $v=$ interstrand hopping integral between nucleotides in two strands of ladder within a given pitch, $v'=$ interstrand hopping integral between neighboring atomic sites in the adjacent pitches which actually accounts for the helical structure of DNA. Here $n$ denotes the number of sites in each strand within a given pitch. For simplicity, we set $\epsilon_i^{q(j)}=\epsilon_b$, $t_{ij}=t_i$ and $t_i^{q(j)}=t_b$. To explore the transport properties of DNA, we use semi-infinite 1D chains as source (S) and drain (D) electrodes connected to alternative strands of the DNA in cross-wise fashion to the left and right ends respectively and the Hamiltonian of the entire system is given by $ H=H_{DNA}+H_S+ H_D + H_{tun}$. The explicit form of $H_S$, $H_D$ and $H_{tun}$ are $$\begin{aligned} & H_S & =\sum\limits_{i=-\infty}^0\left(\epsilon c^\dagger_ic_i+ t c^\dagger_{i+1}c_i+\mbox{H.c.} \right)~, \\ & H_D & =\sum\limits_{i=N+1}^\infty\left(\epsilon c^\dagger_ic_i+ t c^\dagger_{i+1}c_i+\mbox{H.c.} \right)~, \\ & H_{tun}& = \tau \left(c^\dagger_0c_1+c^\dagger_Nc_{N+1} + \mbox{H.c.}\right)~,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau$ is the tunneling matrix element between DNA and the electrodes. ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------- ![image](dadteb0locvp_w5.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](dgdceb0locvp_w5.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](ratgceb0locvp_w5.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](dadteb0locvp_w7.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](dgdceb0locvp_w7.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](ratgceb0locvp_w7.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](dadteb0locvp_w10.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](dgdceb0locvp_w10.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](ratgceb0locvp_w10.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](dadteb0locvp_w12.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](dgdceb0locvp_w12.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](ratgceb0locvp_w12.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](dadteb0locvp_w15.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](dgdceb0locvp_w15.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](ratgceb0locvp_w15.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](dadteb0locvp_w20.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](dgdceb0locvp_w20.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](ratgceb0locvp_w20.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------- To obtain transmission probability $T(E)$ of electrons [@datta1; @datta2] through DNA double-helix for this two-probe set up, we use the Green’s function formalism. The single particle retarded Green’s function operator representing the complete system [i.e.]{}, ds-DNA and two semi-infinite electrodes, at an energy $E$ can be written as $G^r=(E-H+i\eta)^{-1}$, where $\eta\rightarrow0^+$ and H is the Hamiltonian of the entire system. Using Fisher-Lee [@datta1; @datta2; @fisher] relation the two terminal transmission probability is defined as $T(E)={\mbox {\rm Tr}} [\Gamma_L G^r \Gamma_R G^a]$, where $E$ being the incident electron energy and the trace is over the reduced Hilbert space spanned by the DNA molecule. The effective Green’s functions can be expressed in the reduced Hilbert space in terms of the self-energies of the source and drain electrodes $G^r=[G^a]^\dagger=[E- H_{DNA}-\Sigma^r_S-\Sigma^r_D+i\eta]^{-1}$, where $\Sigma^{r(a)}_{S(D)}=H^\dagger_{\mbox{tun}} G^{r(a)}_{S(D)} H_{\mbox{tun}}$ and $\Gamma_{S(D)}=i[\Sigma^r_{S(D)}-\Sigma^a_{S(D)}]$, $G^{r(a)}_{S(D)}$ being the retarded (advanced) Green’s function for the source (drain) electrodes. Here $\Sigma^r_{S(D)}$ and $\Sigma^a_{S(D)}$ are the retarded and advanced self-energies of the source (drain) electrodes due to its coupling with the DNA molecule. It can easily be shown that the coupling matrices $\Gamma_{S(D)}$ corresponding to the couplings of the DNA chain to the source (drain) electrodes $\Gamma_{S(D)}=-2~{\mbox{\rm Im}} (\Sigma^r_{S(D)})$. Whereas the self-energies are the sum of $\Sigma^r_{S(D)}$=$\Delta_{S(D)}$+i$\Lambda_{S(D)}$, $\Delta_{S(D)}$ being the real part of $\Sigma^r_{S(D)}$ corresponds to the shift of energy levels of DNA, and the imaginary part $\Lambda_{S(D)}$ is liable for the broadening of these levels. Considering linear transport regime, at absolute zero temperature, the two terminal Landauer conductance is given by $g=\frac{2e^2}{h}T(E_F)$, and the current passing through the DNA chain for an applied bias voltage V can be written as $$I(V)=\frac{2e}{h} \int^{E_F+eV/2}_{E_F-eV/2} T(E)dE~,$$ where $E_F$ being the Fermi energy. Here we have assumed that entire voltage drop occurs only at the boundaries of the conductor. Results and Discussions ======================= --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ![(Color online). Lyapunov exponent ($\gamma$) vs disorder (w) for three DNA sequences with $v'$=0.3 eV, for four different values of n = 3, 5, 7, 10. Unifrom behaviour of localization has been observed for all the sequences for whole range of disorder.[]{data-label="fig2"}](dadteb0locw.eps "fig:"){width="43mm" height="33mm"} ![(Color online). Lyapunov exponent ($\gamma$) vs disorder (w) for three DNA sequences with $v'$=0.3 eV, for four different values of n = 3, 5, 7, 10. Unifrom behaviour of localization has been observed for all the sequences for whole range of disorder.[]{data-label="fig2"}](dgdceb0locw.eps "fig:"){width="41mm" height="32mm"} ![(Color online). Lyapunov exponent ($\gamma$) vs disorder (w) for three DNA sequences with $v'$=0.3 eV, for four different values of n = 3, 5, 7, 10. Unifrom behaviour of localization has been observed for all the sequences for whole range of disorder.[]{data-label="fig2"}](ratgceb0locw.eps "fig:"){width="44mm" height="34mm"} --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ![(Color online). Lyapunov exponent ($\gamma$) vs number of nucleotides within a pitch (n) for three DNA sequences with $v'$=0.3 eV, at different disorder strengths (w). Variation is quite uniform except for poly(dA)-poly(dT) sequence, a sharp peak is present there around n = 5 for heigher values of disorder, showing this may be the most localized configuration for that sequence.[]{data-label="fig3"}](dadt_locn_vp0.3_eb0.eps "fig:"){width="42mm" height="32mm"} ![(Color online). Lyapunov exponent ($\gamma$) vs number of nucleotides within a pitch (n) for three DNA sequences with $v'$=0.3 eV, at different disorder strengths (w). Variation is quite uniform except for poly(dA)-poly(dT) sequence, a sharp peak is present there around n = 5 for heigher values of disorder, showing this may be the most localized configuration for that sequence.[]{data-label="fig3"}](dgdc_locn_vp0.3_eb0.eps "fig:"){width="42mm" height="32mm"} ![(Color online). Lyapunov exponent ($\gamma$) vs number of nucleotides within a pitch (n) for three DNA sequences with $v'$=0.3 eV, at different disorder strengths (w). Variation is quite uniform except for poly(dA)-poly(dT) sequence, a sharp peak is present there around n = 5 for heigher values of disorder, showing this may be the most localized configuration for that sequence.[]{data-label="fig3"}](ratgc_locn_vp0.3_eb0.eps "fig:"){width="44mm" height="34mm"} ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- We first study the localization properties of the system by altering the number of bases in a given pitch of the helical structure. In order to do that we define localization length ($l$) from Lyapunov exponent ($\gamma$) [@ventra], $$\gamma = 1/l = -\lim\limits_{L\to\infty}\frac{1}{L}<\ln(T(E))>~,$$ where $L$ = length of the entire DNA chain in terms of basepairs, and $ <> $ denotes average over different disorder configurations. Though other distribution functions e.g., Gaussian and binary have been used to simulate experimental effects in previous studies [@klotsa], but we think it is appropriate to employ the most disordered case to simulate the actual experimental complications where the on-site energies of backbones $\epsilon_b$ to be randomly distributed within the range \[$\bar\epsilon_b$-w/2, $\bar\epsilon_b$+w/2\], where $\bar\epsilon_b$ is the average backbone site energy and w represents the backbone disorder strength. For the purpose of numerical investigation the on-site energies of the nucleotides are chosen as the ionization potentials of the respective bases, i.e., $\epsilon_G=-0.56 eV$, $\epsilon_A=-0.07 eV$, $\epsilon_C= 0.56 eV$, $\epsilon_T= 0.83 eV$. The intrastrand hopping integrals between identical nucleotides are taken as $t=0.35eV$ while those between different nucleotides are taken as $t=0.17 eV$. We take interstrand hopping parameter to be $v=0.3 eV$. We emphasize that in case of the extended ladder model [@paez; @wells], diagonal hopping between different nucleotides are also taken into account. But as in our case no diagonal hopping being considered, we compensate this by taking a quite larger value of interstrand hopping parameter $v$. Now as all the nucleotides are connected with sugar-phosphate backbones by identical C-N bonds, we take the hopping parameter between a base and corresponding backbone site same for all $t_b=0.7 eV$ [@cuni]. The parameters used here are the same as those used in [@guo] which are consistent with [ab initio]{} calculations [@voit; @yan; @senth]. For interstrand hopping $v'$ between nucleotides of adjacent pitches we follow Ref [@sourav]. Nevertheless, we want to mention that choice of the tight-binding parameters is not unique and several parameter sets have been proposed in the existing literature [@roche]. ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ![image](dadteb0_loce_w0.5.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](dgdceb0_loce_w0.5.eps){width="48mm" height="34mm"} ![image](ratgcb0_loce_w0.5.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](dadteb0_loce_w0.8.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](dgdceb0_loce_w0.8.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](ratgcb0_loce_w0.8.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](dadteb0_loce_w2.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](dgdceb0_loce_w2.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](ratgcb0_loce_w2.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](dadteb0_loce_w5.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](dgdceb0_loce_w5.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](ratgcb0_loce_w5.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](dadteb0_loce_w10.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](dgdceb0_loce_w10.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ![image](ratgcb0_loce_w10.eps){width="48mm" height="35mm"} ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- In Fig. \[fig1\] we have plotted the variation of inverse localization length ($\gamma$) for three sequences with $v'$ (which accounts for the helicity of DNA) at different values of n [i.e.]{}, number of nitrogen bases within a pitch of the helix, for various values of backbone disorder degree (w). It is clear that all the curves have the same general shape for the periodic as well as the random DNA sequences and the variation of $\gamma$ with $v'$ is not monotonic. There exists a flat minima in these curves which indicates that at this point system is maximally extended. Now as we vary n (whatever be the disorder strength w is), $\gamma$ decreases, which indicates that system is less localized and effects of environmental fluctuations also becoming weaker. This behaviour can be explained easily, as we increase n we are allowing more channels for conduction between two adjacent pitches. As n increases, an electron can eventually hops from one pitch to the next, galloping other nucleotides in that pitch. With increasing n, the length of this gallop also increases [i.e.]{}, an electron gets the path to bypass more number nucleotides as it move along the DNA chain. Because of this the effective length become shorter for an electron and it feels less disorder. Hence, first due to helical symmetry system become less localized and then due to conformation (n) it gets more and more extended. So, at this configuration system is hardly effected by external disturbances. This information can help to perform experiments on DNA in more easier way and reproducible results can be generated which is a challenging task for a long time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![(Color online). I-V response for two periodic sequences: poly(dA)-poly(dT) and poly(dG)-poly(dC) for five different disorder strength (w) at different values of n. For low disorder, cut off voltage reduces as we increase n, showing semiconducting behaviour. For strong disorder, current is considerably enhanced with increasing n giving a insulator to metallic transition.[]{data-label="fig5"}](dadtiveb0sys50_w0.5.eps "fig:"){width="40mm" height="30mm"} ![(Color online). I-V response for two periodic sequences: poly(dA)-poly(dT) and poly(dG)-poly(dC) for five different disorder strength (w) at different values of n. For low disorder, cut off voltage reduces as we increase n, showing semiconducting behaviour. For strong disorder, current is considerably enhanced with increasing n giving a insulator to metallic transition.[]{data-label="fig5"}](dgdciveb0sys50_w0.5.eps "fig:"){width="40mm" height="30mm"} ![(Color online). I-V response for two periodic sequences: poly(dA)-poly(dT) and poly(dG)-poly(dC) for five different disorder strength (w) at different values of n. For low disorder, cut off voltage reduces as we increase n, showing semiconducting behaviour. For strong disorder, current is considerably enhanced with increasing n giving a insulator to metallic transition.[]{data-label="fig5"}](dadtiveb0sys50_w0.8.eps "fig:"){width="40mm" height="30mm"} ![(Color online). I-V response for two periodic sequences: poly(dA)-poly(dT) and poly(dG)-poly(dC) for five different disorder strength (w) at different values of n. For low disorder, cut off voltage reduces as we increase n, showing semiconducting behaviour. For strong disorder, current is considerably enhanced with increasing n giving a insulator to metallic transition.[]{data-label="fig5"}](dgdciveb0sys50_w0.8.eps "fig:"){width="40mm" height="30mm"} ![(Color online). I-V response for two periodic sequences: poly(dA)-poly(dT) and poly(dG)-poly(dC) for five different disorder strength (w) at different values of n. For low disorder, cut off voltage reduces as we increase n, showing semiconducting behaviour. For strong disorder, current is considerably enhanced with increasing n giving a insulator to metallic transition.[]{data-label="fig5"}](dadtiveb0sys50_w2.eps "fig:"){width="40mm" height="30mm"} ![(Color online). I-V response for two periodic sequences: poly(dA)-poly(dT) and poly(dG)-poly(dC) for five different disorder strength (w) at different values of n. For low disorder, cut off voltage reduces as we increase n, showing semiconducting behaviour. For strong disorder, current is considerably enhanced with increasing n giving a insulator to metallic transition.[]{data-label="fig5"}](dgdciveb0sys50_w2.eps "fig:"){width="40mm" height="30mm"} ![(Color online). I-V response for two periodic sequences: poly(dA)-poly(dT) and poly(dG)-poly(dC) for five different disorder strength (w) at different values of n. For low disorder, cut off voltage reduces as we increase n, showing semiconducting behaviour. For strong disorder, current is considerably enhanced with increasing n giving a insulator to metallic transition.[]{data-label="fig5"}](dadtiveb0sys50_w5.eps "fig:"){width="40mm" height="30mm"} ![(Color online). I-V response for two periodic sequences: poly(dA)-poly(dT) and poly(dG)-poly(dC) for five different disorder strength (w) at different values of n. For low disorder, cut off voltage reduces as we increase n, showing semiconducting behaviour. For strong disorder, current is considerably enhanced with increasing n giving a insulator to metallic transition.[]{data-label="fig5"}](dgdciveb0sys50_w5.eps "fig:"){width="40mm" height="30mm"} ![(Color online). I-V response for two periodic sequences: poly(dA)-poly(dT) and poly(dG)-poly(dC) for five different disorder strength (w) at different values of n. For low disorder, cut off voltage reduces as we increase n, showing semiconducting behaviour. For strong disorder, current is considerably enhanced with increasing n giving a insulator to metallic transition.[]{data-label="fig5"}](dadtiveb0sys50_w10.eps "fig:"){width="40mm" height="30mm"} ![(Color online). I-V response for two periodic sequences: poly(dA)-poly(dT) and poly(dG)-poly(dC) for five different disorder strength (w) at different values of n. For low disorder, cut off voltage reduces as we increase n, showing semiconducting behaviour. For strong disorder, current is considerably enhanced with increasing n giving a insulator to metallic transition.[]{data-label="fig5"}](dgdciveb0sys50_w10.eps "fig:"){width="40mm" height="30mm"} -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Fig \[fig2\] we plot $\gamma$ vs. disorder strength (w), at a fixed value of $v'$=0.3 eV, for several values of n. Here also as we increase n, $\gamma$ decreases for all values of w. But the variation of $\gamma$ with w is also not unidirectional. $\gamma$ reaches a peak value for disorder strength within 3$<$w$<$4 for all n values being considered. It signifies that at certain disorder level, localization length becomes minimum, which implies that at this point system is most effected by external disturbances. This typical behaviour of localization is due to backbone structure of DNA [@guo]. The effect of variation of n is also less for low disorder compared to higher ones. The effect of conformation (n) is maximum when the system is at its most localized state (3$<$w$<$4). In Fig \[fig3\] we show the variation of $\gamma$ with n. It also shows with increasing n, $\gamma$ decreases, except there is some different features around n=5 for one of the sequence (ploy(dA)-poly(dT)). Though the reason is not yet clearly understood but it seems that system may has a critical configuration, at which it does feel environmental effects most as we vary n. Because of that at n=5, $\gamma$ increases instead of decreasing, showing it is the most localized configuration under appreciable disorder. This behaviour is not present in the other sequences, which shows different localization behaviour depending on sequential variety. We also investigate localization behaviour with energy. In Fig \[fig4\] we plot the variation of $\gamma$ with energy for different values of n. The same thing is also happened here, with increasing n, $\gamma$ decreases. Though the rate of decreasing is fast for small n (n=3, 5), then the variation of n become less effective for changes at higher values of n (n=7, 10). Effect is more prominent near centre of the bands for low disorder. As the disorder increases, effect of variation of n gradually delocalize towards the edges. At high disorder, variation is more sensitive around the edges of the band rather being at the centre. In Fig. \[fig5\] we plot I-V characteristics for the two periodic sequences for several values of n. We set the temperature at 0 K. To minimize the contact effects we choose tunnelling parameter $\tau$ to be optimum $\it{i.e.}$, $\tau$=$\sqrt{t_{ij}\times t}$ between ds-DNA and the electrodes, where t is the hopping parameter for the electrodes [@macia]. It is clear that effect of n is less at low disorder which is obvious because at low disorder any path of charge conduction is equivalent as an electron feels almost no potential variation. As the disorder increases effect of n becomes more distinctive. For strong disorder there is substantial variation of potential at different sites and change in n gives an electron more number of shortcut pathways to move along the DNA chain. So, with increasing n, current is enhanced and the effect is sharp for high disorder values. For low disorder values cut-off voltage being reduced with increasing n, showing semiconductor-like transport. At high disorder for both the periodic sequences, current is considerably enhanced and almost linear response is observed at higher values of n, which indicates a transition from insulating to metallic phase. Our results are consistent with several experimental findings [@fink; @porath; @storm]. Concluding Remarks ================== Till now different models have been used to study transport properties of DNA but none of these has taken into account of helical symmetry which is a basic feature of DNA structure. Using twisted ladder model we first incorporate the helicity and then by varying the number of nucleotides within a pitch we try to model the conformational variation of DNA. Though some calculations are present in the literature [@yega; @song; @maragakis] but investigation within tight-binding framework is lacking. We report that depending on helical symmetry and conformation, localization properties can change considerably. The effect of conformation is less when environmental complications are small and increases with it. We have two interesting results. First one is by incorporating helical symmetry and conformation we have been able to minimize the environmental effects to a great extent. It is clear from localization data that interplay of helical symmetry and conformation can provide some configurations where system is hardly disturbed by external agencies. If this information can be used correctly in experiments, we think the operation of such experiments would become less complicated. We investigated these properties in every aspect possible and it shows unambiguous variation with conformational changes. The second result is, in presence of helical symmetry, depending on the cooperative effect of backbone disorder and conformation system can undergo a transition from insulating to metallic phase as it is eminent from the I-V responses of periodic sequences for higher disorder values. Whereas for low disorder with increasing n, cut-off voltage being reduced for semiconducting response. In summary, we can say that conformal changes have prominent effects on charge transport properties of DNA as it shows that DNA can be found in three different phases e.g., insulating, semiconducting and metallic depending on the mutual variation of environmental fluctuations and conformation. We hope in near future our results will be tested experimentally to find exact effects of helical symmetry as well as conformation on transport properties of DNA. [50]{} R. G. Endres, D. L. Cox, and R. R. P. Singh, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 195 (2004). C. Dekker and M. A. Ratner, Physics World 14(8): 29-33 (2001). K.-Ostmann, C. Jördens, K. Baaske, T. Weimann, and M. H. de Angelis, App. Phys. Lett. 88, 102102 (2006). R. McKendry [et al]{} Proc. natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99, 9783 (2002). H. W. Fink and C. Schönenberger, Nature (London) 398, 407 (1999). D. Porath, A. Bezryadin, S. De Vries, and C. Decker, Nature (London) 403, 635 (2000). L. Cai, H. Tabata, and T. Kawai, Appl. Phys. Lett. 77, 3105 (2000). P. Tran, B. Alavi, and G. Grüner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85,1564 (2000). Y. Zhang, R. H. Austin, J. Kraeft, E. C. Cox, and N. P. Ong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 198102 (2002). A. J. Storm [et al.]{}, Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 3881 (2001). K. H. Yoo [et al.]{}, Phys. Rev.Lett. 87, 198102 (2001). P. J. de Pablo, F. Moreno-Herrero, J. Colchero, J. Gómez Herrero, P. Herrero, A. M. Baró, P. Ordejón, J. M. Soler, and E. Artacho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4992 (2000). A. Y. Kasumov [et al.]{}, Science 291, 280 (2001). H. Cohen, C. Nogues, R. Naaman, and D. Porath, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102, 11589 (2005). J. Hihath, B. Xu, P. Zhang, and N. Tao, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102, 16979 (2005). B. Xu, P. Zhang, X. Li, and N. Tao, Nano Lett. 4, 1105 (2004). J. S. Hwang, K. J. Kong, D. Ahn, G. S. Lee, D. J. Ahn, and S. W. Hwang, Appl. Phys. Lett. 81, 1134 (2002). E. M. Conwell and S. V. Rakhmanova, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 4557 (2000). Z. Hermon, S. Caspi, and E. Ben-Jacob, Europhys. Lett. 43, 482 (1998). M. A. Ratner, Nature (London) 397, 480 (1999). D. N. Beratan, S. Priyadarshy, and S. M Risser, Chem. Biol. 4, 3 (1997). M. H. F. Wilkins, R. G. Gosling, and W. E. Seeds, Nature (London) 167, 759 (1951). S. B. Smith, Y.J. Cui, and C. Bustamante, Science 271, 795 (1996). P. Cluzel, A. Lebrun, C. Heller, R. Lavery, J.L. Viovy, D. Chatenay, and F. Caron, Science 271, 792 (1996). T. R. Strick, J. F. Allemand, D. Bensimon, and V. Croquette, Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 29, 523 (2000). S. Yeganeh, M. A. Ratner, E. Medina, and V. Mujica, J. Chem. Phys. 131, 041707 (2009). B. Song, M. Elstner, and G. Cuniberti, Nano Lett. 8, 3217 (2008). P. Maragakis, R. L. Barnett, E. Kaxiras, M. Elstner, and T. Frauenheim, Phys. Rev. B. 66, 241104(R) (2002). J. Gore, Z. Bryant, M. Nöllmann, M. U. Le, N. R. Cozzarelli, and C. Bustamante, Nature 442, 836 (2006). S. Kundu and S. N. Karmakar, Phys. Rev. E 89, 032719 (2014). R. Gutiérrez, S. Mohapatra, H. Cohen, D. Porath, and G. Cuniberti, Phys. Rev. B 74, 235105 (2006). G. Cuniberti, L. Craco, D. Porath, and C. Dekker, Phys. Rev. B 65, 241314(R) (2002). J. Zhong, in [Proceedings of the 2003 Nanotechnology Conference]{}, Vol. 2. Edited by M. Laudon and B. Romamowicz. Computational Publications, CAMBRIDGE, MA. Nanotech 105-108 (2003). A. K. Bakhshi, P. Otto, J. Ladik, and M. Seel, Chem. Phys. 108, 215 (1986). J. Ladik, M. Seel, P. Otto, and A. K. Bakhshi, Chem. Phys. 108, 203 (1986). D. Klotsa, R. A. Römer, and M. S. Turner, Biophysical Journal 89, 2187 (2005). G. Cuniberti, E. Maciá, A. Rodriguez, and R. A. Römer, in [Charge Migration in DNA: Perspectives from Physics, Chemistry and Biology]{}, edited by T. Chakraborty, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2007). S. Datta, [Electronic transport in mesoscopic systems]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995). S. Datta, [Quantum Transport: Atom to Transistor]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005). D. S. Fisher and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 23, 6851 (1981). M. D. Ventra, [Electrical transport in nanoscale system]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008). C. J. Páez, P. A. Schulz, N. R. Wilson, and R. A. Römer, New. J. Phys. 14, 093049 (2012). S. A. Wells, C.-T. Shih, and R. A. Römer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 23, 4138 (2009). A-M Guo, S-J Xiong, Z. Yang, and H-J Zhu, Phys. Rev. E 78, 061922 (2008). A. A. Voityuk, J. Jortner, M. Bixon, and N. Rösch, J. Chem. Phys. 114, 5614 (2001). Y. J. Yan and H. Y. Zhang, J. Theor. Comput. Chem. 1, 225 (2002). K. Senthilkumar, F. C. Grozema, C. F. Guerra, F. M. Bickelhaupt, F. D. Lewis, Y. A. Berlin, M. A. Ratner, and L. D. A. Siebbeles, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127, 14894 (2005). S. Roche, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 108101 (2003). E. Maciá, F. Triozon, and S. Roche, Phys. Rev. B 71, 113106 (2005).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We analyze high-field current fluctuations in degenerate conductors by mapping the electronic Fermi-liquid correlations at equilibrium to their semi-classical non-equilibrium form. Our resulting Boltzmann description is applicable to diffusive mesoscopic wires. We derive a non-equilibrium connection between thermal fluctuations of the current and resistive dissipation. In the weak-field limit this is the canonical fluctuation-dissipation theorem. Away from equilibrium, the connection enables explicit calculation of the excess “hot-electron” contribution to the thermal spectrum. We show that excess thermal noise is strongly inhibited by Pauli exclusion. This behaviour is generic to the semi-classical metallic regime.' address: - ' $\dagger$ GaAs IC Prototyping Facility, CSIRO Telecommunications and Industrial Physics, PO Box 76, Epping NSW 1710, Australia ' - ' $\ddagger$ Department of Theoretical Physics, Research School of Physical Sciences and Engineering, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia ' author: - 'Frederick Green$\dagger$ and Mukunda P Das$\ddagger$' title: 'High-field noise in metallic diffusive conductors' --- Introduction ============ In this paper we address a technologically important open problem: non-equilibrium noise in strongly driven degenerate conductors. Nano-fabrication has made possible a variety of refined measurements of transport and noise, for many different structures at sub-micron dimensions [@liefr; @rez; @ksgje; @smd; @sbkpr; @poth; @depic; @sami]. Alongside the experiments there has been much theoretical activity [@theor; @khlus; @lesovik; @but; @beebut; @thmldr; @nagaev1; @djb2]. A thriving topic is the behaviour of current fluctuations in diffusive wires. Typically, this concerns structures shorter than the bulk inelastic mean free path but still much longer than that for elastic scattering. They are in an operating region where randomness of the carrier motion prevails. This is our regime of interest. Two theories have come to the fore as methods of choice for describing mesoscopic transport. These are inherently [weak-field]{} models, predicated upon exclusively linear forms of transport analysis. One technique (Landauer-Büttiker) is based on coherent quantum transmission [@theor; @blbu]. This has been adapted to fluctuations and noise by Khlus [@khlus], Lesovik [@lesovik], Beenakker and Büttiker [@but; @beebut], Martin and Landauer [@thmldr], and many others [@theor; @blbu]. Another approach (Boltzmann-Langevin) uses stochastic transport equations [@theor], reduced to a diffusive model [@datta]. The same phenomenology has since been applied to fluctuations and noise by Nagaev [@nagaev1] and de Jong and Beenakker [@theor; @djb2]. Although these mesoscopic-noise methodologies are markedly distinct, both agree on their paradigm. They view a mesoscopic wire as a random assembly of individual elastic scatterers, in a bath of free carriers whose propagation, impeded by the scatterers, must be regarded as [strictly]{} diffusive and must be calculated as such [@datta]. For an exhaustive survey of diffusive noise theories we cite the recent review of Blanter and Büttiker [@blbu] as well as the earlier one of de Jong and Beenakker [@theor]. The leading diffusive methods for noise also share a number of difficulties. Not least among these is the issue of conformity with the fluctuation structure of charged Fermi liquids [@csr]. This and other basic problems are analyzed in detail in references and . Clean, truly first-principles solutions certainly exist for non-equilibrium noise. Monte Carlo simulations are very well established, as witness those of the Lecce group [@lecce1], even if high-field Monte Carlo is still rare for metals [@mc; @lecce2]. In the non-degenerate case an analytical, self-contained and computable theory of noise has been formulated by Korman and Mayergoyz [@kormay]. Their approach is strictly kinetic and free of superfluous phenomenological props. In philosophy it is akin to Green-function models for fluctuations, such as Stanton and Wilkins’ [@sw2; @sw0]. In developing a microscopically consistent account of noise, there are cogent reasons to stay within the traditional kinetic canons rather than embrace novel diffusive doctrines. The chief reason, perhaps, is sheer technological need; device designers can scarcely afford to be hobbled by phenomenologies whose congenital linearity denies any access to the vital high-field region. The small scale of modern device structures means that they are routinely driven into non-linear response [@ferry]. To illustrate this point we estimate the range of validity for linear diffusion. In the weak-field limit the Einstein relation [@datta; @upon99], or drift-diffusion equivalence, underpins diffusive transport. Roughly speaking, drift-diffusion equivalence breaks down (and linear diffusive transport with it) when the energy gained in drift mediated by inelastic scattering exceeds the energy scale for diffusion mediated by elastic processes. In a short metallic wire this means that $(eV/L)\min{\{L, L_{\rm in}\}} \gtrsim \hbar v_{\rm F}/L_{\rm el}$, where $V$ is the driving voltage, $L$ is the sample length and $L_{\rm in}$ is the (bulk) inelastic mean free path at the Fermi surface. Similarly $L_{\rm el}$ is the elastic mean free path ($v_{\rm F}$ is the Fermi velocity). Note that for $L_{\rm in} > L$ the effective inelastic path becomes the sample length, since dissipation in the bounding leads is dominant. For a typical mesoscopic silver wire of electron density $6\!\times\!10^{22}{~}{\rm cm}^{-3}$, the low-temperature transport parameters are [@smd] $L_{\rm in} = 1 {~}{\rm cm} \gg L = 30{~}\mu$m and $L_{\rm el} = 50{~}$nm. The threshold voltage is then $V \gtrsim 40{~}$mV for the breakdown of the diffusive regime. In a two-dimensional mesoscopic channel at density $2\!\times\!10^{11}{~}{\rm cm}^{-2}$ the threshold is appreciably lower, with [@liefr] $L = 17{~}\mu$m, $L_{\rm in} = 6{~}\mu$m and $L_{\rm el} = 1.4{~}\mu$m giving $V \gtrsim 0.25{~}$mV. This shows how readily mesoscopic devices, particularly low-dimensional ones, can enter the non-linear regime beyond diffusive theory. The present is the first of three studies covering the essential formalism for non-equilibrium noise, the action of Coulomb correlations in non-uniform systems [@gdii] and finally the kinetic description of shot noise [@gdcond]. Throughout, we follow one overarching principle. It is that a consistent model of non-equilibrium fluctuations will conform to basic properties of the electron gas in a natural way, if and [only]{} if such a model is grounded explicitly in the theory of the electronic Fermi liquid. To require that a kinetic description of fluctuations and noise respect fundamental conservation laws in equilibrium, is to place a unifying constraint on its low- and high-field forms together. Our aim is to catalogue all the physical consequences of this assertion. A viable kinetic model will necessarily recover the fluctuation-dissipation relation [@kogancpu], but it must also contain the equally fundamental conserving sum rules [@pinoz]. Much of the authoritative literature on diffusive noise theory, if not all of it, prefers to make a virtue of its heavy dependence on drift-diffusion equivalence and the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, while remaining oblivious to every other basic sum-rule requirement. Such an understanding is too scanty. It is the [full]{} physics of Fermi liquids which governs their fluctuations, a fact which cannot simply be ignored. An established tool for scattering-dominated noise in degenerate conductors is the semi-classical Green-function approach [@sw2; @sw0; @kogan; @ggk; @gc]. We take it beyond its well-understood role in time-dependent response, by proving that the dynamical Green function also governs the structure of the adiabatic (steady-state) fluctuations. In turn, these determine the mean initial strength of the time-dependent fluctuations. The non-equilibrium adiabatic fluctuations are exact closed functionals of their equilibrium form. This offers the key to practical and flexible calculations over a wide range of useful non-perturbative collision models. (Here the detailed classical studies of Stanton and Wilkins [@sw2; @sw0] show the way.) Such problems are entirely out of range for the Boltzmann-Langevin models, of wide currency but quite narrow practicality for conductors in strong driving fields [@sw2], with strong internal interactions [@nvk]. In section 2 we present a wholly conventional Boltzmann description of carrier fluctuations in non-uniform metallic systems, down to the [same]{} mesoscopic range accessible to alternative (diffusive) models [@theor; @blbu]. We demonstrate the quantitative connection between fluctuations and power dissipation well out of equilibrium. In the weak-field limit, this connection is the canonical fluctuation-dissipation theorem (FDT). At high fields, it describes the hot-electron contribution to current noise. This lets us calculate, in section 3, the excess thermal spectrum, which is strongly suppressed in a degenerate system. In section 4 we sum up, and preview the two forthcoming works. Theory ====== The theoretical discussion is in six parts. We begin by formulating the transport problem as a direct mapping of the electron Fermi liquid to its non-equilibrium steady state. Next we describe the steady-state fluctuations, after which we discuss time dependence, then the dynamic fluctuations and their formal connection with the steady state. This produces a self-contained expression for the current-current fluctuation, which determines thermal noise. Last, we analyze the connection between fluctuations and dissipation in the non-equilibrium region. Transport Model --------------- The semi-classical Boltzmann transport equation for the electron distribution function $f_{\alpha} (t) \equiv f_{s}({\bf r}, {\bf k}, t)$ is $$\begin{aligned} %IOP+ \fl {\left[ { {\partial}\over {\partial t} } + { {\bf v}_{{\bf k} s } }{\bbox \cdot} { {\partial}\over {\partial {\bf r} }} - { { { e{\bf E}({\bf r},t) }\over {\hbar} }{\bbox \cdot} } { {\partial}\over {\partial {\bf k}} } \right]} f_{\alpha}(t) = && -\sum_{\alpha'} {\Bigl[ W_{\alpha' \alpha} (1 - f_{\alpha'}) f_{\alpha} %\Bigr.} \cr %&& {\Bigl. - W_{\alpha \alpha'} (1 - f_{\alpha}) f_{\alpha'} \Bigr]}. \label{AX1}\end{aligned}$$ Label $\alpha = \{{\bf k}, s, {\bf r}\}$ denotes a point in single-particle phase space, while sub-label [s]{} indexes both the discrete sub-bands (or valleys) of a multi-level system and the spin state. The system is acted upon by the total field ${\bf E}({\bf r},t)$. We study single-particle scattering, with a rate $W_{\alpha \alpha'} \equiv \delta({\bf r} - {\bf r'}) W_{s s'}({\bf k}, {\bf k'}; {\bf r})$ that is local in real space, independent of the driving field, and that satisfies detailed balance: $W_{\alpha' \alpha} (1 - f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha'}) f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha} = W_{\alpha \alpha'} (1 - f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha}) f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha'}$ where $f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha}$ is the equilibrium distribution. In a system with $\nu$ dimensions, we make the following correspondence for the identity operator: $$\delta_{\alpha \alpha'} \equiv \delta_{s s'} {\left\{ { {\delta_{{\bf r} {\bf r'}}}\over {\Omega({\bf r})} } \right\}} {\left\{ \Omega({\bf r}) \delta_{{\bf k} {\bf k'}} \right\}} \longleftrightarrow \delta_{s s'} \delta({\bf r} - {\bf r'}) (2\pi)^{\nu} \delta({\bf k} - {\bf k'}).$$ The volume $\Omega({\bf r})$ of a local cell in real space becomes the measure for spatial integration, while its inverse defines the scaling in wave-vector space for the local bands $\{ {\bf k}, s \}$. The first step is to construct the steady-state solution $f_{\alpha} \equiv f_{\alpha}(t \to \infty)$ explicitly from $f^{\rm eq}$, which satisfies the equilibrium form of equation (\[AX1\]): $$\begin{aligned} %IOP+ \fl {\left[ { {\bf v}_{{\bf k} s } }{\bbox \cdot} { {\partial}\over {\partial {\bf r} }} - { { { e{\bf E}_0({\bf r}) }\over {\hbar} }{\bbox \cdot} } { {\partial}\over {\partial {\bf k}} } \right]} f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha} = 0 = %%% && -\sum_{\alpha'} {\Bigl[ W_{\alpha' \alpha} (1 - f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha'}) f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha} %%% \Bigr.} \cr %%% && {\Bigl. - W_{\alpha \alpha'} (1 - f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha}) f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha'} \Bigr]}. \label{AX1.1}\end{aligned}$$ The internal field ${\bf E}_0({\bf r})$ is defined in the absence of a driving field. The quantities $f^{\rm eq}$ and ${\bf E}_0$ are linked self-consistently by the usual constitutive relations, the first being the Poisson equation \[AX1.2\] $${\partial\over {\partial {\bf r}} } {\bbox \cdot} \epsilon {\bf E}_0 = -4\pi e {\Bigl( {\langle f^{\rm eq}({\bf r}) \rangle} - n^+({\bf r}) \Bigr)} \label{AX1.2a} %\label{poissoneq}$$ in terms of the dielectric constant $\epsilon({\bf r})$, the electron density $\langle f^{\rm eq}({\bf r}) \rangle \equiv {\Omega({\bf r})}^{-1}{\sum}_{{\bf k},s} f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha}$, and the positive background density $n^+({\bf r})$, which is taken to be independent of the driving field [@embed]. Normalization to the total particle number is $\sum_{\bf r} \Omega({\bf r}) {\langle f^{\rm eq}({\bf r}) \rangle} = N$. The second relation is the form of the equilibrium function itself, $$f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha} ~=~ {\left[ 1 + \exp \! {\left( { {\varepsilon_{\alpha} - \phi_{\alpha}}\over k_{B}T } \right)} \right]}^{-1} \label{AX1.2b}$$ at temperature $T$. The conduction-band energy $\varepsilon_{\alpha} = \varepsilon_s({\bf k}; {\bf r})$ may have structural parameters that depend on position implicitly. The locally defined Fermi level $\phi_{\alpha} = \mu - V_0({\bf r})$ is the difference of the global chemical potential $\mu$ and the electrostatic potential $V_0({\bf r})$, whose gradient is $e{\bf E}_0({\bf r})$. Define the difference function $g_{\alpha} = f_{\alpha} - f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha}$. From each side of equation (\[AX1\]) in the steady state, subtract its equilibrium counterpart [@variat]. We obtain $$\begin{aligned} %IOP+ \fl { {\bf v}_{{\bf k} s } }{\bbox \cdot} {{\partial g_{\alpha} }\over { \partial {\bf r} }} - { { { e{\bf E}({\bf r}) }\over {\hbar} }{\bbox \cdot} } { {\partial g_{\alpha} }\over {\partial {\bf k}} } =&& { { { e({\bf E} - {\bf E}_0) }\over {\hbar} }{\bbox \cdot} } { {\partial f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha} }\over {\partial {\bf k}} } - \sum_{\alpha'} ( W_{\alpha' \alpha} g_{\alpha} - W_{\alpha \alpha'} g_{\alpha'} ) \cr &&+ \sum_{\alpha'} ( W_{\alpha' \alpha} - W_{\alpha \alpha'} ) ( f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha'} g_{\alpha} + g_{\alpha'} f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha} + g_{\alpha} g_{\alpha'} ). \label{AX3}\end{aligned}$$ The solutions to equations (\[AX1.1\]) and (\[AX3\]) are determined by the asymptotic conditions in the source and drain reservoirs, be it at equilibrium or with an external electromotive force. The active region includes the carriers within source and drain terminals out to several screening lengths. This means that local fields are negligible at the interfaces with the reservoirs; in practice, one shorts out the fields so that ${\bf E}({\bf r}) = {\bf E}_0({\bf r}) = {\bf 0}$ beyond these boundaries. Then Gauss’s theorem implies that the system remains globally neutral: $$\sum_{\bf r} \Omega({\bf r})\langle g ({\bf r}) \rangle \equiv \sum_{\alpha} g_{\alpha} = 0. \label{gauss}$$ Recast equation (\[AX3\]) as an integro-differential equation. The inhomogeneous term on its right-hand side generates the explicit dependence on the equilibrium state of the system: $$\sum_{\alpha'} B[W^A f]_{\alpha \alpha'} g_{\alpha'} = { { e{\bf {\widetilde E}} ({\bf r})} \over {\hbar} }{\bbox \cdot} { {\partial f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha} }\over {\partial {\bf k}} } + \sum_{\alpha'} W^A_{\alpha \alpha'} g_{\alpha'} g_{\alpha}. \label{AX5}$$ The net non-equilibrium field ${\bf E} - {\bf E}_0$ is represented here as ${\bf {\widetilde E}} \equiv {\bf E}_{\rm ext} + {\bf E}_{\rm ind}$, consisting of ${\bf E}_{\rm ext}({\bf r})$, the externally applied field [@wmws], plus the local induced response ${\bf E}_{\rm ind}({\bf r})$. The linearized Boltzmann operator $B[W^A f]$ is $$\begin{aligned} %IOP+ \fl B[W^A f]_{\alpha \alpha'} =&& \delta_{\alpha \alpha'} {\left[ { {\bf v}_{{\bf k'} s'} }{\bbox \cdot} {{\partial }\over { \partial {\bf r'} }} - { { { e{\bf E}({\bf r'}) }\over {\hbar} }{\bbox \cdot} } { {\partial }\over {\partial {\bf k'}} } + \sum_{\beta} ( W_{\beta \alpha'} - W^A_{\beta \alpha'} f_{\beta} ) \right]} %\cr %&& - W_{\alpha \alpha'} + W^A_{\alpha \alpha'} f_{\alpha}, \label{bop}\end{aligned}$$ with $W^A_{\alpha \alpha'} = W_{\alpha \alpha'} - W_{\alpha' \alpha}$. Note that $W^A = 0$ if the scattering is elastic or if a linear approximation (such as Drude) replaces the explicit Boltzmann collision term. If it is to represent the physical solution, $g$ must vanish with ${\bf {\widetilde E}}$ in the equilibrium limit. This is guaranteed by the Poisson equation for the induced field, $${\partial\over {\partial {\bf r}} } {\bbox \cdot} \epsilon {\bf E}_{\rm ind} = -4\pi e {\Bigl( \langle f({\bf r}) \rangle - \langle f^{\rm eq}({\bf r}) \rangle \Bigr)} = -4\pi e \langle g ({\bf r}) \rangle.$$ Steady-State Response --------------------- To calculate the adiabatic response of the system about its steady non-equilibrium operating point, we introduce the propagator [@fg1] $$G_{\alpha \alpha'} \buildrel \rm def \over = { { \delta g_{\alpha} }\over { \delta f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha'} } }, \label{AX6.1}$$ with a global constraint following directly from equation (\[gauss\]): $$\sum_{\alpha} G_{\alpha \alpha'} = 0 {~~} {\rm for {~}all} {~}\alpha'. \label{dgauss}$$ The equation for $G$ is derived by taking variations on both sides of equation (\[AX3\]): $$%IOP+ \fl \sum_{\beta} B[W^A f]_{\alpha \beta} G_{\beta \alpha'} = \delta_{\alpha \alpha'} {\left[ { { e{\bf {\widetilde E}} ({\bf r'})} \over {\hbar} }{\bbox \cdot} { {\partial }\over {\partial {\bf k'}} } + \sum_{\beta} W^A_{\beta \alpha'} g_{\beta} \right]} - W^A_{\alpha \alpha'} g_{\alpha}. \label{AXG}$$ The variation is restricted by excluding the reaction of the local fields ${\bf E}_0({\bf r})$ and ${\bf E}({\bf r})$. This means that $G$ is a response function free of Coulomb screening. Here we treat the electrons as an effectively neutral Fermi liquid. In our second paper we will describe the complete fluctuation structure, with Coulomb effects [@gdii]. All of the steady-state fluctuation properties induced by the thermal background will be specified in terms of $G$ and the equilibrium two-body fluctuation. This consists of the “proper” electron-hole pair correlation in its static long-wavelength limit (up to a normalization factor). In the free-electron approximation [@pinoz], that correlation is \[AX7.0\] $$\lim_{q \ll k_{\rm F}} {\left[ \lim_{\omega \to 0} {\left( {{f^{\rm eq}_s({\bf r}, {\bf k}\!-\!{\bf q}/2) - f^{\rm eq}_s({\bf r}, {\bf k}\!+\+{\bf q}/2)} \over {\hbar\omega - \varepsilon_s({\bf k}\!+\!{\bf q}/2; {\bf r}) + \varepsilon_s({\bf k}\!-\!{\bf q}/2; {\bf r})}} \right)} \right]} = -{{\delta f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha}}\over {\delta \varepsilon_{\alpha}}} = {{\delta f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha}}\over {\delta \phi_{\alpha}}} \label{AX7.0a}$$ where the net momentum transfer becomes negligible relative to the Fermi wave number $k_{\rm F}$. The formal statistical-mechanical definition of the (mean square) occupation-number [fluctuation]{} $\Delta f^{\rm eq}$ takes it as the variation of the occupancy $f^{\rm eq}$ of equation (\[AX1.2b\]) with respect to the electro-chemical potential and normalized to the thermal energy, keeping $T$ and the local volume $\Omega({\bf r})$ fixed. That is, $$\Delta f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha} \equiv k_{\rm B} T { {\delta f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha} } \over {\delta \phi_{\alpha}} }. \label{AX7.0b}$$ It is easy to derive the free-electron form of the equilibrium fluctuation: $$\Delta f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha} = f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha}(1 - f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha}). \label{AX7.0c}$$ When there are strong exchange-correlation interactions the two-body correlation, equation (\[AX7.0a\]), is renormalized by a coefficient that depends on the Landau quasi-particle parameters. This coefficient carries through in $\Delta f^{\rm eq}$. In the present model we neglect exchange-correlation effects. This is a valid approximation in dense degenerate systems [@pinoz]. Before discussing the non-equilibrium fluctuations we comment on the crucial contrast between the quantum-Fermi-liquid origin of equation (\[AX7.0\]) and the widespread Boltzmann-Langevin approach, which is essentially classical. Equation (\[AX7.0a\]) describes an elementary and [kinematically coupled]{} electron-hole excitation \[a fact that is particularly obvious in the particle-hole structure of the energy denominator, ${\hbar\omega - \varepsilon_s({\bf k}\!+\!{\bf q}/2; {\bf r}) + \varepsilon_s({\bf k}\!-\!{\bf q}/2; {\bf r})}$\]. Its form is determined by the same quantum dynamical equation whose semi-classical limit is the Boltzmann equation itself [@kb]. The physical character of a polarized excitation demands its representation as a self-contained entity. In thermodynamic terms, stochasticity attaches to the spontaneous generation of electron-hole [pairs]{} in the system and not to their electron and hole constituents independently (as if pairwise charge balance were of no real consequence). By its nature, a pair fluctuation cannot be decomposed [ad hoc]{} into two stochastically unlinked single-particle factors. The Boltzmann-Langevin approach, on the other hand, is tantamount to such a notional decomposition [@kogancpu]. Neither natural nor necessary for the right description of the elementary fluctuations in a charged Fermi liquid, it is eminently dispensable. Define the two-point particle-hole function $\Delta f^{(2)}_{\alpha \alpha'} \equiv ( \delta_{\alpha \alpha'} + G_{\alpha \alpha'} ) \Delta f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha'}$. The steady-state distribution of the local number fluctuation is the sum of all of the two-body terms: $$\Delta f_{\alpha} = \sum_{\alpha'} \Delta f^{(2)}_{\alpha \alpha'} = \Delta f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha} + \sum_{\alpha'} G_{\alpha \alpha'} \Delta f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha'} {~~~} {\rm for {~}all} {~}\alpha. \label{AX7}$$ Once the explicit solution for $G$ is obtained, the behaviour of $\Delta f$ is known completely. This non-equilibrium fluctuation satisfies the linearized steady-state Boltzmann equation: $$\sum_{\beta} B[W^A f]_{\alpha \beta} {\Delta f}_{\beta} = 0. \label{AX7.B}$$ We see that the solution to this equation is manifestly a linear functional of its equilibrium counterpart. Jointly, equations (\[AX7\]) and (\[AX7.B\]) mean that any scaling behaviour exhibited by the fluctuations at equilibrium must also be exhibited by the actual fluctuations for the non-equilibrium problem. That is the direct result of local equilibrium in the asymptotic leads, and of overall neutrality in the system made up of conductor plus leads. The proportionality of [all]{} thermally induced noise to ambient temperature $T$ is inevitable in the degenerate limit. This has implications for understanding shot noise in metallic conductors [@upon99; @ithaca; @gdcond]. Shot noise never scales with $T$. We comment further on the scaling issue in the later sections. One may compare the analysis in terms of $G$ and $\Delta f^{(2)}$ with the equal-time correlator introduced by Gantsevich [et al.]{} [@ggk]. The equal-time correlator is itself a hierarchical functional of other correlators (such as the current fluctuations), whose solutions are unknown [a priori]{} and which must be closed by force, either by truncation or by an [ad hoc]{} heuristic device such as Boltzmann-Langevin. This makes for a less-than-tractable computational scheme, at least beyond a narrow repertoire of special limits (linear response; classical particles; weak non-uniformity). In particular, a calculable strategy for degenerate non-equilibrium fluctuations, based on the equal-time correlator, has yet to be demonstrated. By contrast, we show below that $G$ is explicitly determined by the dynamical Green function for the linearized Boltzmann equation \[see equation (\[cvlv5\])\]. As pointed out by Stanton [@sw0], the Boltzmann-Green functions are much more straighforward to compute for a wide range of collision models. This ease of calculation extends to $G$ and hence to $\Delta f^{(2)}$, which provides the initial conditions for a naturally closed dynamical solution. Global charge neutrality requires that the total fluctuation strength over the sample, $\Delta N = {\sum}_{\bf r} \Omega({\bf r}) \langle \Delta f ({\bf r}) \rangle$, be conserved. This constrains not only the steady-state but also the time-dependent fluctuations. Time Dependence --------------- Calculation of the dynamic response requires the time-dependent Green function [@kogan] $$R_{\alpha \alpha'}(t - t') \buildrel \rm def \over = \theta(t - t') { {\delta f_{\alpha}(t)}\over {\delta f_{\alpha'}(t')} }, \label{AX8}$$ with initial value $R_{\alpha \alpha'}(0) = \delta_{\alpha \alpha'}$. As with $G$, the variation is restricted. The linearized Boltzmann equation satisfied by $R(t - t')$ is derived from equation (\[AX1\]) and takes the form $$\sum_{\beta} {\left\{ \delta_{\alpha \beta} {{\partial}\over {\partial t}} + B[W^A f]_{\alpha \beta} \right\}} R_{\beta \alpha'}(t - t') = \delta(t - t') \delta_{\alpha \alpha'}. \label{drdt}$$ Summation over $\alpha$ on both sides of this equation gives zero contribution from $\sum_{\alpha} \sum_{\beta}B[W^Af]_{\alpha \beta}R_{\beta \alpha'}(t-t')$. Subsequent integration over $t$ leads to conservation of normalization [@kogan]: $$\sum_{\alpha} R_{\alpha \alpha'}(t - t') = \theta(t - t'). \label{rgf1}$$ The time-dependent propagator is a two-point correlation. It tracks the history of a fluctuation of unit strength, created in state $\alpha'$ at time $t'$. The fluctuation strength in state $\alpha$, at the later time $t$, is $R_{\alpha \alpha'}(t - t')$. In the long-time limit equation (\[drdt\]) goes to the steady-state equation (\[AX7.B\]) independently of $\alpha'$, so that $R_{\alpha \alpha'}(t \to \infty) \propto \Delta f_{\alpha}$. Together with equation (\[rgf1\]) this gives [@kogan] $$R_{\alpha \alpha'}(t \to \infty) = { {\Delta f_{\alpha}}\over {\Delta N}}. \label{rgf2}$$ All of the time-dependent fluctuation properties induced by the thermal background are specified in terms of $R$ and the steady-state non-equilibrium fluctuation $\Delta f$. From the dynamical particle-hole propagator [@ggk], that is $\Delta f_{\alpha \alpha'}^{(2)}(t) \equiv R_{\alpha \alpha'}(t) \Delta f_{\alpha'}$, one constructs the lowest-order moment $$\Delta f_{\alpha}(t) = \sum_{\alpha'} {\Delta f^{(2)}_{\alpha \alpha'}}(t) \label{rgf3}$$ in analogy with equation (\[AX7\]). Equation (\[drdt\]), with its adjoint [@kogan], implies that $\Delta f_{\alpha}(t) = \Delta f_{\alpha}$ for $t > 0$. Thus the intrinsic time dependence of $\Delta f^{(2)}(t)$ is not revealed through this quantity [@fg1warn]. Equation (\[rgf1\]) ensures constancy of the total fluctuation strength: ${\sum}_{\bf r} \Omega({\bf r}) \langle \Delta f ({\bf r}, t) \rangle = \Delta N$ for $t > 0$. Dynamic Correlations -------------------- We move to the frequency domain. An important outcome is the quantitative link between fluctuations and resistive power dissipation in the non-equilibrium regime. This requires expressing both the difference function $g$ and the adiabatic propagator $G$ directly in terms of the dynamical Green function. The Fourier transform ${\rm R}(\omega) = \int dt e^{i\omega t} R(t)$ of the retarded time-dependent Green function satisfies $$\sum_{\beta} {\left\{ B[W^A f]_{\alpha \beta} - i\omega \delta_{\alpha \beta} \right\}} {\rm R}_{\beta \alpha'}(\omega) = \delta_{\alpha \alpha'}, \label{AXX}$$ showing that ${\rm R}(\omega)$ is the resolvent for the linearized Boltzmann operator of equation (\[bop\]). From equation (\[rgf1\]), the global condition on the resolvent is $$\sum_{\alpha} {\rm R}_{\alpha \alpha'}(\omega) = -{1\over {i(\omega + i\eta)} } {~~~~~~ }(\eta \to 0^+). \label{rgf5}$$ At face value this does not match the corresponding criterion for $G$, equation (\[dgauss\]). To solve equation (\[AXG\]) for the steady-state propagator explicitly in terms of the dynamic one, we follow Kogan and Shul’man [@kogan] in introducing the intrinsically correlated part of ${\rm R}(\omega)$. This is $${\rm C}_{\alpha \alpha'}(\omega) = {\rm R}_{\alpha \alpha'}(\omega) + {1\over {i(\omega + i\eta)} } { {{\Delta f}_{\alpha}}\over {\Delta N} }. \label{f2.2}$$ Once the long-time adiabatic term is removed, ${\rm C}(\omega)$ conveys the purely transient response of the system. It satisfies a pair of identities [@kogan]. First, the Fourier transform of the relation $\Delta f(t) = \theta(t)\Delta f$ translates to $$\sum_{\alpha'} {\rm C}_{\alpha \alpha'}(\omega) \Delta f_{\alpha'} = 0 {~~} {\rm for {~}all} {~}\alpha, \label{cckta}$$ while equation (\[rgf5\]) leads to $$\sum_{\alpha} {\rm C}_{\alpha \alpha'}(\omega) = 0 {~~} {\rm for {~}all} {~}\alpha'. \label{ccktb}$$ The latter parallels the constraint on $G$. Like ${\rm R}(\omega)$, the correlated propagator is analytic in the upper half-plane ${\rm Im}\{\omega\} > 0$, and satisfies the Kramers-Krönig dispersion relations. Unlike ${\rm R}(\omega)$, however, ${\rm C}(\omega)$ is regular for $\omega \to 0$. We now obtain $g$ and $G$ in terms of the correlated dynamical response. Consider the equation $$%IOP+ \fl \sum_{\alpha'} {\left\{ B[W^A f]_{\alpha \alpha'} - i\omega \delta_{\alpha \alpha'} \right\}} {\rm g}_{\alpha'}(\omega) = { { e{\bf {\widetilde E}}({\bf r}) }\over {\hbar} }{\bbox \cdot} { {\partial f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha}}\over {\partial {\bf k}} } + \sum_{\alpha'} {g}_{\alpha} W^A_{\alpha \alpha'} {g}_{\alpha'}; \label{cvlv1}$$ inversion with the resolvent yields $${\rm g}_{\alpha}(\omega) = \sum_{\alpha'} {\rm C}_{\alpha \alpha'}(\omega) { e{\bf {\widetilde E}} ({\bf r'})\over \hbar } {\bbox \cdot} { {\partial f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha'}}\over {\partial {\bf k'}} } + \sum_{\alpha' \beta} {\rm C}_{\alpha \alpha'}(\omega) {g}_{\alpha'} W^A_{\alpha' \beta} {g}_{\beta}. \label{AX15.3}$$ The dominant low-frequency component of ${\rm R}(\omega)$ does not contribute to the right-hand side of this equation. In the first term it results in a decoupling of the summation over ${\alpha'}$, yielding zero because $\partial f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha'}/\partial {\bf k'}$ is odd in ${\bf k'}$; in the second term, decoupling means that the double summation over ${\alpha'}$ and ${\beta}$ vanishes by antisymmetry. In the static limit equation (\[cvlv1\]) becomes the inhomogeneous equation (\[AX5\]); moreover equation (\[ccktb\]) means that ${\rm g}(\omega = 0)$ satisfies equation (\[gauss\]), the sum rule for $g$. Therefore $g = {\rm g}(0)$, or $$g_{\alpha} = \sum_{\alpha'} {\rm C}_{\alpha \alpha'}(0) { e{\bf {\widetilde E}} ({\bf r'})\over \hbar } {\bbox \cdot} { {\partial f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha'}}\over {\partial {\bf k'}} } + \sum_{\alpha' \beta} {\rm C}_{\alpha \alpha'}(0) g_{\alpha'} W^A_{\alpha' \beta} g_{\beta}. \label{cvlv2}$$ This identity is central to the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. In models with symmetric scattering, $W^A$ is zero and the adiabatic Green function assumes a simple form on varying both sides of equation (\[cvlv2\]): $$G_{\alpha \alpha'} = {\rm C}_{\alpha \alpha'}(0) { e{\bf {\widetilde E}} ({\bf r'})\over \hbar } {\bbox \cdot} { {\partial}\over {\partial {\bf k'}} }. \label{AXG2}$$ More generally, an analysis similar to that for ${\rm g}(\omega)$ can be used directly for the adiabatic propagator. Introduce the operator ${\rm G}(\omega)$, defined to satisfy the dynamic extension of equation (\[AXG\]), $$%IOP+ \fl \sum_{\beta} {\left\{ B[W^A f]_{\alpha \beta} - i\omega \delta_{\alpha \beta} \right\}} {\rm G}_{\beta \alpha'}(\omega) = \delta_{\alpha \alpha'} \!{\left[ { { e{\bf {\widetilde E}} ({\bf r'})} \over {\hbar} }{\bbox \cdot} { {\partial }\over {\partial {\bf k'}} } + \sum_{\beta} W^A_{\beta \alpha'} {g}_{\beta} \right]}\!- W^A_{\alpha \alpha'} {g}_{\alpha}. \label{AYG}$$ This has the solution $${\rm G}_{\alpha \alpha'}(\omega) = {\rm C}_{\alpha \alpha'}(\omega) { { e{\bf {\widetilde E}} ({\bf r'})} \over {\hbar} }{\bbox \cdot} { {\partial }\over {\partial {\bf k'}} } - \sum_{\beta} {\Big( {\rm C}_{\alpha \alpha'}(\omega) - {\rm C}_{\alpha \beta}(\omega) \Big)} W^A_{\alpha' \beta} {g}_{\beta}. \label{cvlv4}$$ In the first term on the right-hand side, the low-frequency component of ${\rm R}(\omega)$ makes no contribution after decoupling because the physical distributions $F_{\alpha}$ on which ${\rm G}(\omega)$ operates vanish sufficiently fast that ${\sum}_{\bf k} {\partial F}_{\alpha}/{\partial {\bf k}} = {\bf 0}$. In the second right-hand term the uncorrelated parts of ${\rm R}_{\alpha \alpha'}(\omega)$ and ${\rm R}_{\alpha \beta}(\omega)$ cancel directly. We conclude as before that $$G_{\alpha \alpha'} = {\rm C}_{\alpha \alpha'}(0) { { e{\bf {\widetilde E}} ({\bf r'})} \over {\hbar} }{\bbox \cdot} { {\partial }\over {\partial {\bf k'}} } - \sum_{\beta} {\Big( {\rm C}_{\alpha \alpha'}(0) - {\rm C}_{\alpha \beta}(0) \Big)} W^A_{\alpha' \beta} g_{\beta}. \label{cvlv5}$$ This is a crucial result. It shows (i) that the adiabatic structure of the steady state, through $G$, is of one piece with the correlated dynamic response (the result of causality and global charge neutrality), and (ii) that the non-equilibrium correlation structure evolves [expressly]{} out of the equilibrium state, through the specific functional form of $G \Delta f^{\rm eq}$. We have proved that this non-perturbative kinetic description of fluctuations is self-contained, given its conventional set of assumptions and boundary conditions. The kinetic formalism has inherent predictive power. Hence, extraneous phenomenologies are not needed to make it viable. This is in sharp distinction to the diffusive Boltzmann-Langevin viewpoint [@kogancpu]. Spectral Density ---------------- The vehicle for the physics of current noise is the velocity auto-correlation. It is a two-point distribution in real space, built on the correlated part of the two-particle fluctuation $\Delta {\rm f}^{(2)}_{\alpha \alpha'}(\omega) = {\rm R}_{\alpha \alpha'}(\omega) \Delta f_{\alpha'}$. Following Gantsevich, Gurevich, and Katilius [@ggk] it is a double sum over the kinematic states: $$%IOP+ \fl { \langle\!\langle {\bf v} {\bf v'} {\Delta {\rm f}^{(2)} } ({\bf r}, {\bf r'}; \omega) \rangle\!\rangle}_{\rm c}' \buildrel \rm def \over = {1\over \Omega({\bf r})} \sum_{{\bf k}, s} {1\over \Omega({\bf r'})} \sum_{{\bf k'}, s'} {\bf v}_{{\bf k} s} {{\rm Re} \{{\rm C}_{\alpha \alpha'}(\omega)\} } {\bf v}_{{\bf k'} s'} \Delta f_{\alpha'}. \label{AXY}$$ Its physical meaning is the following. At any time, the system in steady state has a fluctuation background that is fed by spontaneous energy exchanges with the (equilibrium) thermal bath. The average strength of the fluctuations is fixed by the distribution $\Delta f$. The elementary modes making up this background are long-wavelength electron-hole excitations; these are given by $\Delta {\rm f}^{(2)}(\omega)$. The pair excitations are not themselves dynamically stable. Their transient evolution is determined by the propagator ${\rm C}(\omega)$ acting upon the ensemble-averaged background source, $\Delta f$. Finally, the velocity-velocity correlation for the pair process is obtained by attaching velocity operators at the start and end of the electron-hole excitations, and summing over states [@pinoz]. This approach to auto-correlations makes straightforward, and completely standard, use of the Boltzmann [@ggk] and Fermi-liquid [@pinoz] theories. Our particular contribution is to have given an explicit recipe for computing the steady-state form of $\Delta f$ semi-classically, by analyzing the underlying adiabatic propagator $G$. Practical calculations should thereby become easier for degenerate systems at high driving fields. The one-point object derived from equation (\[AXY\]), $$S_f ({\bf r}, \omega) = e^2 \sum_{\bf r'} \Omega({\bf r'}) {\langle\!\langle ( {\bf {\widetilde E}}({\bf r}){\bbox \cdot}{\bf v} ) ( {\bf {\widetilde E}}({\bf r'}){\bbox \cdot}{\bf v'} ) {\Delta {\rm f}^{(2)}({\bf r}, {\bf r'}; \omega) } \rangle\!\rangle}_{\rm c}', \label{Svv}$$ measures the local effect of fluctuations that are spread throughout the system. Formally it is the auto-correlation function of the power transferred from field to carriers, an inherently volume-distributed property that is represented here in terms of a locally defined spectral density. $S_f$ is closely related to the thermally induced current noise, integrated over the entire structure. In the weak-field limit it satisfies the FDT. The two-point velocity correlator $${ \langle\!\langle {\bf v} {\bf v'} {\Delta {\rm f}^{(2)} } ({\bf r}, {\bf r'}; \omega) \rangle\!\rangle}_{\rm c}' /\Delta N,$$ which is the response to a unit change of total particle number (and which does not scale with $T$), should provide the direct basis for shot-noise calculations across distances $\|{\bf r} - {\bf r'}\|$ comparable to the mean free path. It is natural to ask how shot noise fits into the framework of equation (\[Svv\]). Within semi-classical kinetics, the short answer is that shot noise [cannot]{} be encompassed by the generic spectrum for thermal noise. For, as we have rigorously shown, all thermal fluctuations are required to scale with $T$ in the strongly degenerate (metallic) regime. Shot noise, on the other hand, has no such scaling. Therefore, whatever the kinetic description of shot noise may be, it is impossible for it to exhibit the smooth physical “cross-over” into thermal noise that is the primary feature of every diffusive model [@kogancpu]. Our approach to the kinetics of mesoscopic shot noise is explored in reference . In reference we propose a quite specific experimental test of our theory. The new predictions made there are in stark contradistinction to the diffusive ones. Fluctuation and Dissipation --------------------------- The fluctuation-dissipation relation near equilibrium ties the spectral density of the thermal current fluctuations to the dissipative effects of the steady current in the system. However, dissipation by itself does not exhaust the physics of this sum rule. There are non-linear terms, negligible in linear response, that dominate the high-field behaviour of the noise [@sw2; @gc]. In view of this, it is imperative to reveal the precise nature and action of these terms. We do so. The resolvent property of ${\rm R}(\omega)$ provides a formal link between the steady-state (one-body) solution $g$ and the dynamical (two-body) fluctuation $\Delta {\rm f}^{(2)}$ at the semi-classical level. Taken to its equilibrium limit this becomes the familiar theorem. The connection is made in two steps. Consider the kinematic identity $${ {\partial f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha}}\over {\partial {\bf k}} } = -{ \hbar \over {k_{\rm B}T} } {\bf v}_{{\bf k} s} \Delta f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha} \label{AX14}$$ and apply it to the leading term on the right-hand side of equation (\[cvlv2\]). The result is $$g_{\alpha} = -{ {e}\over {k_{\rm B} T} } \sum_{\alpha'} {\rm C}_{\alpha \alpha'}(0) ( {\bf {\widetilde E}} {\bbox \cdot} {\bf v} )_{\alpha'} \Delta f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha'} + h_{\alpha}, \label{AX15}$$ in which $h_{\alpha} = {\sum}_{\alpha' \beta} {\rm C}_{\alpha \alpha'}(0) g_{\alpha'} W^A_{\alpha' \beta} g_{\beta}$. Evaluation of the current density according to ${\bf J}({\bf r}) = -e\langle {\bf v} g \rangle$, means that the power density $P({\bf r}) = {\bf {\widetilde E}} ({\bf r}) {\bbox \cdot} {\bf J}({\bf r})$ for Joule heating can be written as $$P({\bf r}) = { {e^2}\over {k_{\rm B} T} } {1\over \Omega({\bf r})} \sum_{{\bf k},s} \sum_{\alpha'} ( {\bf {\widetilde E}} {\bbox \cdot} {\bf v} )_{\alpha} {\rm C}_{\alpha \alpha'}(0) ( {\bf {\widetilde E}} {\bbox \cdot} {\bf v} )_{\alpha'} \Delta f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha'} - e{\langle {\bf {\widetilde E}} {\bbox \cdot} {\bf v} h \rangle}. \label{AY16}$$ In the second step we take the one-point spectral function $S_f$ in the static limit, substituting for $\Delta f$ from equation (\[AX7\]) in the right-hand side of equation (\[Svv\]) to give $$S_f ({\bf r}, 0) = {e^2\over \Omega({\bf r})} \sum_{{\bf k},s} \sum_{\bf r'} \sum_{{\bf k'},s'} ( {\bf {\widetilde E}} {\bbox \cdot} {\bf v} )_{\alpha} {\rm C}_{\alpha \alpha'}(0) ( {\bf {\widetilde E}} {\bbox \cdot} {\bf v} )_{\alpha'} \Delta f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha'} + S_g ({\bf r}, 0), \label{eq17}$$ where $S_g({\bf r}, 0)$ is generated by replacing $\Delta f$ with $\Delta g \equiv \Delta f - \Delta f^{\rm eq}$ in equation (\[AXY\]), and subsequently in equation (\[Svv\]). Direct comparison of equations (\[AY16\]) and (\[eq17\]) leads to $${ {S_f ({\bf r}, 0)}\over {k_{\rm B} T} } = P({\bf r}) + e{\langle {\bf {\widetilde E}} {\bbox \cdot} {\bf v} h \rangle} + { {S_g ({\bf r}, 0)}\over {k_{\rm B} T} }. \label{eq18}$$ This is the precise connection between the non-equilibrium thermal current fluctuations and resistive dissipation in the system. The limiting weak-field form of equation (\[eq18\]) is easily obtained. We prove that it is the linear fluctuation-dissipation theorem. Observe that the term in $h$ on the right-hand side varies as ${\widetilde E} g^2$, while the final term varies as ${\widetilde E}^2 \Delta g$; both of these contributions are therefore of order ${\widetilde E}^3$. Suppose that the system is uniform. Then ${\bf {\widetilde E}} = {\bf E}_{\rm ext} = {\bf E}$ acts along the [x]{}-axis. Division by $E^2$ on both sides of equation (\[eq18\]) gives $${1\over E^2} { {S_f ({\bf r}, 0)}\over k_{\rm B}T} {~\rightarrow~} {\|J_x\|\over E} = \sigma, \label{eq19}$$ where $\sigma$ is the low-field conductivity. Equation (\[eq19\]) is the canonical FDT. The non-dissipative and purely non-equilibrium structures beyond $P({\bf r})$ can be expanded similarly to it. We discuss the symmetric-scattering case, for which there is no contribution $e\langle {\bf {\widetilde E}} {\bbox \cdot} {\bf v} h \rangle$. Within $S_g$ we apply the formula for the adiabatic propagator, equation (\[AXG2\]), to express $\Delta g = \sum G \Delta f^{\rm eq}$ in terms of the correlated dynamic response function ${\rm C}(\omega)$. This produces the closed form $$\begin{aligned} %IOP+ \fl S_g ({\bf r}, 0) %IOP+ &= =&& {e^2\over \Omega({\bf r})} \sum_{{\bf k}, s} \sum_{\beta} ( {\bf {\widetilde E}} {\bbox \cdot} {\bf v} )_{\alpha} {\rm C}_{\alpha \beta}(0) ( {\bf {\widetilde E}} {\bbox \cdot} {\bf v} )_{\beta} {\left( \sum_{\alpha'} {\rm C}_{\beta \alpha'}(0) { {e {\bf {\widetilde E}}} ({\bf r'}) \over \hbar} {\bbox \cdot} { {\partial \Delta f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha'}}\over {\partial {\bf k'}} } \right)} \cr {\left. \right.} \cr %IOP+ &= =&& -{e^3\over {k_{\rm B}T}} {1\over \Omega({\bf r})} \sum_{{\bf k}, s} \sum_{\alpha'} ( {\bf {\widetilde E}} {\bbox \cdot} {\bf v} )_{\alpha} { ( {\rm C}(0) {\bf {\widetilde E}} {\bbox \cdot} {\bf v} ) }^2_{\alpha \alpha'} (1 - 2f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha'}) \Delta f^{\rm eq}_{\alpha'}. \label{eq22b}\end{aligned}$$ The second line follows from the first after using equation (\[AX14\]) to express ${\partial \Delta f^{\rm eq}}/{\partial {\bf k}}$ in terms of $f^{\rm eq}$ and $\Delta f^{\rm eq}$, and taking an inner sum into $( {\rm C}(0) {\bf {\widetilde E}} {\bbox \cdot} {\bf v} )^2$. The expression above differs markedly from the rate of energy loss $P({\bf r})$ by Joule heating. In contrast, $S_g ({\bf r}, 0)$ relates directly to non-equilibrium broadening of the fluctuations, due to the excess energy gained from the field during intervals of ballistic flight [@sw0]. The [extent]{} of the broadening is limited by dynamical dissipation of the excess energy, locally (by prompt inelastic scattering) or remotely (by carrier relaxation in the ideally absorbing terminals). The impact of this term on current noise is felt only for substantial departures from the weak-field regime. There exist several alternative generalizations of the FDT for extended bulk systems [@vvt; @nougier; @nerlul]. We mention the best known, which defines the non-equilibrium noise temperature $T_{\rm n}$ pivotal to the interpretation of device-noise data [@nougier]. Phenomenologically $T_{\rm n}$ is obtained, for a non-linear operating point, by normalizing $S_f$ with the differential conductivity $\sigma_x({\widetilde E}) = \partial J_x / \partial {\widetilde E}_x$ such that $k_{\rm B} T_{\rm n}({\widetilde E}) \equiv S_f/\sigma_x({\widetilde E}) {\widetilde E}_x^2$, corresponding to the output of a small-signal noise measurement. (In general $T_{\rm n}$ is not isotropic.) Our equations (\[AY16\]) – (\[eq22b\]) provide a microscopic framework for computing the noise spectral density in a wide class of degenerate systems. Since $\sigma_x({\widetilde E})$ is also calculable within the same framework, this yields $T_{\rm n}$. Application to High-Field Noise =============================== We can now explore one of the most significant properties of the excess spectrum $S_g$: its strong inhibition by degeneracy. That there exists an additional, purely quantum-statistical, constraint on field-driven broadening is seen directly in the factor $(1 - 2f^{\rm eq})$ of equation (\[eq22b\]). This suppresses the contribution of $S_g$ relative to the corresponding classical result, in which the factor is unity. Suppression of electron heating by Pauli exclusion reflects the large energy cost of displacing electrons deep inside the Fermi sea. To highlight the difference between dissipative and hot-electron terms, we revisit a simple example [@gc; @mbix], the uniform electron gas in the constant-collision-time (Drude) approximation subject to a field ${\bf E} = -E{\bf {\hat x}}$. Expressions for the power density $P$ and hot-electron component $S_g$ are derived in the Appendix. The thermally driven current-current spectral density, taken over a uniform sample of length $L_x$ and total volume $\Omega$, is given by [@nougier] $$\begin{aligned} {\cal S}(E, \omega) %IOP+ \buildrel \rm def \over &= \buildrel \rm def \over =&& 4 \sum_{\bf r}\Omega({\bf r}) \sum_{\bf r'}\Omega({\bf r'}) {\left\langle\!\!\left\langle \left( -{ev_x\over L_x} \right) \left( -{ev'_x\over L_x} \right) {\Delta {\rm f}^{(2)} } (\omega) \right\rangle\!\!\right\rangle}_{\rm c}' \cr {\left. \right.} \cr %IOP+ &= =&& 4 { {\Omega S_f(\omega)}\over {L_x^2 E^2} }. \label{drude0}\end{aligned}$$ Writing the sample conductance as ${\cal G} = \Omega P/L_x^2 E^2$, the static limit of the spectrum is determined by equation (\[eq18\]): $${\cal S}(E,0) = 4{\cal G}k_{\rm B}T {\left[ 1 + { {S_g(0)}\over{Pk_{\rm B}T} } \right]} = 4{\cal G}k_{\rm B}T {\left[ 1 + {{\Delta {n}}\over {n}} {\left( { {m^* \mu_{\rm e}^2 E^2}\over k_{\rm B}T } \right)} \right]}. \label{drude1}$$ We have substituted for $P$ and $S_g$ respectively from equations (\[apxT8\]) and (\[apxT10\]). The electronic density is ${n}$ while $\Delta {n} = \Delta N/\Omega$ is the number-fluctuation density. The effective electron mass is $m^$ and $\mu_{\rm e}$ is the mobility. The term $S_g/Pk_{\rm B}T$ is a relative measure of the hot-electron contribution to the noise. The inhibiting effect of degeneracy, through ${\Delta {n}}/{n}$, is greatest at low temperature and least in the classical regime. When the Fermi energy $\varepsilon_{\rm F}$ satisfies $\varepsilon_{\rm F} \ll k_{\rm B}T$, the ratio $\Delta n/n$ goes to unity and the hot-electron term is that of a classical electron gas (low density, high temperature). Its form in the high-field limit $E \gg \sqrt{k_{\rm B}T/m^ \mu_{\rm e}^2}$ is ${\cal S} \sim 4{\cal G}m^\mu_{\rm e}^2E^2$, asymptotically independent of $T$. On the other hand, when $k_{\rm B}T \ll \varepsilon_{\rm F}$ the system is strongly degenerate. In a $\nu$-dimensional system we have $\varepsilon_{\rm F} \propto n^{2/\nu}$. Then $${{\Delta {n}}\over {n}} = {k_{\rm B}T\over {n}} {{\partial {n}}\over {\partial \varepsilon_{\rm F}}} \to {{\nu k_{\rm B}T}\over {2 \varepsilon_{\rm F}}};$$ with equation (\[drude1\]) this leads to $${ {{\cal S}(E,0)}\over {{\cal S}(0,0)}} \to 1 + {\nu\over 2} {\left( { {m^ \mu_{\rm e}^2 E^2}\over \varepsilon_{\rm F} } \right)}. \label{drude5}$$ Note that the thermal fluctuation spectrum ${\cal S}(E,0)$ [necessarily]{} vanishes with temperature, while its ratio with the Johnson-Nyquist spectral density ${\cal S}(0,0) = 4{\cal G}k_{\rm B}T$ continues to exhibit a hot-electron excess which is now scaled by the Fermi energy. Figure 1 displays the excess-noise spectral ratio in a two-dimensional electron gas, as a function of the applied field, when $T$ ranges from the degenerate limit to well above the Fermi temperature $T_{\rm F} = \varepsilon_{\rm F}/k_{\rm B}$. For $T$ much greater than both $T_{\rm F}$ and $m^\mu_{\rm e}^2E^2/k_{\rm B}$ the excess contribution becomes classical, independent of temperature, and thus small compared with the now-dominant base value ${\cal S}(0,0)$. This is evident in figure 1 through the gradual downward shift of the plots, with increasing $T$. Equation (\[drude5\]) may be compared with a perturbative estimate by Landauer [@landauer] in the degenerate limit, for which the analogous excess term is $(\delta U/ k_{\rm B}T)^2$, where $\delta U \sim m^ \mu_{\rm e} E v_{\rm F}$ is a characteristic energy gain. Taken at face value, this would suggest that hot-electron effects in the low-$T$ regime can be enhanced even more by further cooling of the system. This counter-intuitive result comes from inappropriate use of perturbation analysis. Series expansion of the thermal current noise, in powers of $E$, fails to account for non-analyticity of the full non-perturbative solution in its approach to equilibrium [@bakshi]. Non-analyticity of the distribution function $f_{\bf k}$ precludes the reliable calculation of moment averages by expanding about equilibrium, as in reference [@landauer]. (It is reassuring – and only seemingly fortuitous – that the actual linear current response is reproduced exactly by solving the transport equation, as usual, to first order in the field [@sw0].) The relevance of non-analyticity to transport physics has been questioned by Kubo, Toda, and Hashitsume [@kubo]. They regard its appearance as spurious, a specific artefact of the crude way in which the Drude approximation treats real collisions. That is to overlook the appreciably broader evidence for non-analyticity in the variety of collision models assembled by Bakshi and Gross [@bakshi]. Even within the Drude model of a degenerate conductor (over-simplified though it is), it is clear that its exact non-perturbative solution does produce physically consistent scaling of the excess noise with $T$. Equally clearly, finite-order response theory does not. Kubo linear response recovers only ${\cal S}(0,0)$ and misses the non-linear excess noise altogether. Such sharp differences between perturbative and non-perturbative predictions should be experimentally measurable in the hot-electron spectrum. In our view, issues of non-analyticity and its physical manifestation remain open. We make some final comments on shot noise and the impossibility [@upon99; @ithaca; @gdcond] of a [theoretical]{} cross-over, unifying thermal and shot noise for mesoscopic metallic wires. The diffusive cross-over formula, ostensibly identical in form to equation (\[drude0\]), [always]{} generates a $T$-independent term [@but; @beebut; @thmldr; @nagaev1; @djb2]. One might have expected that a computation of the spectral density of equation (\[drude0\]), taken in the semi-classical quasi-ballistic limit $L_x \ll m^v_{\rm F}\mu_{\rm e}/e$, would yield an expression for ${\cal S}(E,0)$ that is independent of $T$ and proportional to the current $I = {\cal G}V$; in other words, shot noise [@sw0]. We have carried out this quasi-ballistic exercise for a degenerate system, in simplified form [@mbix]. At high fields it gives ${\cal S}(E,0) \sim 2eI(k_{\rm B}T/\varepsilon_{\rm F})$. This is indeed linear in $I$ but thermal nevertheless, since its immediate source is the generic spectral relation, equation (\[eq22b\]). Thermal fluctuations are induced by spontaneous and quasi-continuous changes in the total internal energy of carriers, throughout the whole active volume of a device. Shot-noise fluctuations are induced by spontaneous and [discrete]{} changes in total carrier number, through the device’s [interfaces]{} with the outer circuit. Such qualitative and topological distinctions may be of little practical importance in the classical macroscopic world. However, it is not at all clear that they are immaterial to the metallic mesoscopic regime. The issue is under active examination [@gdcond]. A leading task is to identify the kinetic origin of the [empirical]{} cross-over between thermal and shot noise, apparent in real mesoscopic conductors [@liefr; @rez; @ksgje; @smd; @sbkpr]. Once again we stress that, regardless of how shot noise is to be described microscopically, the logical and conceptual gaps between diffusive explanations of the cross-over (quantum as well as semi-classical) [@theor; @blbu; @kogancpu] and strictly conventional kinetic theory have already been uncovered, characterized and analyzed [@upon99; @ithaca]. We will present a fully detailed semi-classical kinetic model of shot noise in due course. Summary ======= We have described, and applied, a genuinely non-equilibrium kinetic formalism for current fluctuations. It holds for metallic systems down to mesoscopic scales, within the ambit of semi-classical theory. Our strategy for incorporating microscopic Fermi-liquid correlations within the Boltzmann picture safeguards the conservation laws at the two-body level. Conservation continues to underpin the nature of current noise at high fields. Our theory leads to a precise quantitative link between non-equilibrium thermal current fluctuations and energy dissipation. In its low-field form, this is the standard fluctuation-dissipation theorem of linear-response analysis. At high fields, it highlights the pervasiveness of strong degeneracy even in hot-electron noise. In a completely standard description, such as ours, correctness and calculability do not issue from the [ad hoc]{} assumption of fictive Langevin noise sources; even less do they rely on diffusive analogies that fail manifestly to respect the canonical sum rules in electronic Fermi systems. Rather, the model’s integrity will stem from the microscopic structure of its underlying Green functions. They describe how the fundamental electron-hole pair excitations evolve within a metallic conductor, in the semi-classical limit. We have discussed how to map these native polarized correlations non-perturbatively, from their equilibrium distribution to its analogue in the externally driven conductor. The resulting high-field noise spectrum yields a faithful signature of its source: the elementary non-equilibrium electron-hole polarization processes. The main, and physically inevitable, consequence of this [rigidly orthodox]{} kinetic investigation is the intrinsic scaling of degenerate-electron fluctuations with thermodynamic temperature. For diffusive phenomenologies, this is one phenomenon too many. To sustain their predictions for the shot noise of metallic wires, they have no choice but to deny outright all possibility of $T$-scaling for hot-electron noise [@ithaca]. This must be so for any theory that predicts a seamless cross-over between thermal and shot noise. There is an undeniable connection between $T$-scaling and the dominance of long-range screening, as of degeneracy, in the polarizable electron gas. Logical examination shows that this nexus can be broken only by contradicting the standard picture of charge fluctuations in metals. Diffusively inspired models would seem to do exactly that [@csr; @upon99; @ithaca]. So far, no such model has rationalized the heroic departure from principles that have been understood, widely and thoroughly, for some time [@pinoz]. We envisage two extensions to this work: the systematic inclusion of [Coulomb screening]{} within the microscopic structure of the fluctuations [@gdii], and the analysis of shot noise as a [kinetic process]{} quite separate from thermally driven noise [@gdcond]. Coulomb effects are particularly evident in strongly confined electron systems, such as the two-dimensional electron gas in a III-V heterojunction quantum well [@ferry]. Self-consistent Coulomb screening in a confined channel should markedly reduce the scale of thermal fluctuations in the current. Shot noise and thermal noise have disparate properties, which no-one disputes. Shot noise never scales with ambient temperature, while excess thermal current noise must do so if there is strong degeneracy. Coulomb effects too may differentiate between the two kinds of fluctuations. If so, then selective action of the Coulomb correlations could serve as an experimental tool to distinguish between excess thermal current noise and shot noise. This would help to pin-point both the distinct sources of non-equilibrium mesoscopic fluctuations and the disposition of Coulomb forces at small scales. We take up these themes in the forthcoming papers. Every formalism for mesoscopic noise stands or falls by its new predictions. Ours is no exception [@upon99; @gdii]. Boltzmannian kinetics are obviously not equipped to give the final word on quantum fluctuation effects; be that as it may, it hardly needs saying that [any]{} mesoscopic model, whatever its origin, should be totally consistent with the established physical facts. In the context of the metallic electron gas, noise descriptions which claim to be truly microscopic must address full sum-rule consistency as a matter of course. This transcends semi-classical analysis and is by far our most important message. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== We are indebted to the late R Landauer for his generous encouragement in the preliminary stages of this work. We thank Erika Davies for help with calculations and figures and N W Ashcroft, R J-M Grognard, K I Golden and D Neilson for fruitful discussions. Uniform Drude model =================== We derive the dynamical fluctuation structure for a single parabolic conduction band with uniform electron density ${n}$ and constant mobility $\mu_{\rm e} = e \tau / m^$, where $\tau$ is the spin-independent collision time and $m^$ the effective mass. The system is driven by a uniform field ${\bf {\widetilde E}} = {\bf E} = -E {\bf {\hat x}}$ acting in the negative (drain to source) direction. We take variations which are homogeneous over the sample region, so that the fluctuations of interest have no spatial dependence. The Boltzmann equation in the model is $$\left[ { {\partial }\over {\partial t} } + { { { eE}\over {\hbar} } } { {\partial }\over {\partial k_x} } + { 1\over \tau} \right] f_{\bf k}(t) = { {\langle f(t) \rangle} \over {\langle f^{\rm eq} \rangle} } { f_k^{\rm eq}\over \tau}. \label{apxT1}$$ Since the Boltzmann operator is linear, the fluctuation structure is qualitatively similar to that for elastic scattering \[differences arise from the inhomogeneous term in $f^{\rm eq}$, notably in the behaviours of $R(t)$ and $\Delta f(t)$\]. We solve equation (\[apxT1\]) by Fourier transforms in reciprocal space, so that the transform $F_{\bbox{\rho}} \equiv \Omega^{-1}{\sum}_{\bf k} f_{\bf k} \exp (i{\bf k}{\cdot}{\bbox{\rho}})$ of the steady-state distribution takes the form $$F_{\bbox{\rho}} = { { F_{\bf 0} }\over { F^{\rm eq}_0 } } { { F^{\rm eq}_{\rho} } \over { 1 - ik_d \rho_x } }, \label{apxT2}$$ where $k_d = e E\tau/\hbar $ and $F_{\bf 0} = {1\over 2} \langle f \rangle$ per spin state. While a formal distinction is made between $F_{\bf 0}$ and $F^{\rm eq}_0$, the physical normalization is always $F_{\bf 0} = F^{\rm eq}_0 = {1\over 2}{n}$. Note also that $F_{\bbox{\rho}}$ is singular for $\rho_x = -ik_d^{-1}$. In wave-vector space this means that $f_{\bf k}$ is non-analytic at $E = 0$. The same can be said for $\Delta f_{\bf k}$. The transform of the dynamic response function, $${\sf {\cal R}}_{\bbox{\rho} \bbox{\rho}' }(\omega) \equiv {1\over \Omega^2} {\sum}_{\bf k} {\sum}_{\bf k'} {\rm R}_{{\bf k} {\bf k'}}(\omega) \exp [i({\bf k}{\cdot}{\bbox{\rho}} - {\bf k'}{\cdot}{\bbox{\rho}'})],$$ has the equation $$\left[ -i\omega\tau - ik_d\rho_x + 1 \right] {\sf {\cal R}}_{{\bbox{\rho}} {\bbox{\rho}'}}(\omega) = \tau \delta({\bbox{\rho}} - {\bbox{\rho}'}) + { { {\sf {\cal R}}_{{\bf 0} {\bbox{\rho}'}} (\omega) } \over { F^{\rm eq}_0 } } F^{\rm eq}_{\rho}. \label{apxT3}$$ For ${\bbox{\rho}} = {\bf 0}$ this leads to $${\sf {\cal R}}_{{\bf 0} {\bbox{\rho}'}}(\omega) = -{ {\delta({\bbox{\rho}'}) } \over { i(\omega + i\eta)} }. \label{apxT4}$$ On the other hand, the low-frequency adiabatic part of ${\sf {\cal R}}_{{\bbox{\rho}} {\bbox{\rho}'}}$ scales with the steady-state solution $F_{\bbox{\rho}}$ \[in a collision-time model the asymptotic form $F_{\bbox \rho}/{1\over 2}{n}$ replaces ${\Delta F}_{\bbox \rho}/{1\over2}{\Delta {n}}$\]. On denoting the correlated part by ${\sf {\cal C}}_{{\bbox{\rho}} {\bbox{\rho}'}}$ and recalling that the adiabatic part exhausts the normalization of ${\sf {\cal R}}_{{\bf 0} {\bbox{\rho}'}}$, we obtain $${\sf {\cal R}}_{{\bbox{\rho}} {\bbox{\rho}'}}(\omega) = {\sf {\cal C}}_{{\bbox{\rho}} {\bbox{\rho}'}}(\omega) - { {\delta({\bbox{\rho}'})}\over {i(\omega + i\eta)} } { {F_{\bbox{\rho}}}\over {F_{\bf 0}} }. \label{apxT5}$$ When the above is put together with equations (\[apxT2\])–(\[apxT4\]) we arrive, after some algebra, at the explicit formula for the correlated propagator: $${\sf {\cal C}}_{{\bbox{\rho}} {\bbox{\rho}'}}(\omega) = \tau { { \delta({\bbox{\rho}} - {\bbox{\rho}'}) - {\displaystyle { {F_{\bbox{\rho}}}\over {F_{\bf 0}} } } \delta({\bbox{\rho}'}) } \over { 1 - i k_d \rho_x - i \omega \tau } }. \label{apxT6}$$ We can use equation (\[apxT6\]) directly to evaluate both dissipative and non-dissipative contributions to the noise. Using the reciprocal-space representation ${\bf v} \leftrightarrow -i(\hbar/m^)\partial/\partial {\bbox \rho}$, the power density $P$ of equation (\[AY16\]) is $$\begin{aligned} P %IOP+ &= =&& 2 { {e^2 E^2}\over {k_{\rm B} T} } {\left( -{i\hbar\over m^} \right)}^2 { \left\{ { {\partial}\over {\partial \rho_x} } \int {d^{\nu} \rho'} {\sf {\cal C}}_{{\bbox \rho} {\bbox \rho'}}(0) { {\partial}\over {\partial \rho'_x} } \Delta F^{\rm eq}_{\rho'} \right\} }_{\rho \to 0} \cr {\left. \right.} \cr %IOP+ &= =&& 2 { {e^2 E^2 \tau}\over {k_{\rm B} T} } {\left( {\hbar\over m^} \right)}^2 { \left\{ -{ {\partial}^2\over {\partial \rho_x^2} } \Delta F^{\rm eq}_{\rho} \right\} }_{\rho \to 0} \cr {\left. \right.} \cr %IOP+ &= =&& \sigma E^2. \label{apxT8}\end{aligned}$$ The Drude conductivity $\sigma = {n} e \mu_{\rm e}$ appears when we apply the relation $${\left\{ -{ {\partial^2}\over {\partial \rho_x^2}} \Delta F^{\rm eq}_{\rho} \right\}}_{\rho \to 0} = {\langle k^2_x \Delta f^{\rm eq} \rangle} = {{m^k_{\rm B}T}\over \hbar^2} {\left( {{n}\over 2} \right)}$$ to the middle line of the equation. A contribution containing $\langle v_x \Delta f^{\rm eq} \rangle = 0$ vanishes trivially. The hot-electron spectral density $S_g$ in the static limit \[recall equation (\[eq22b\])\] is calculated similarly: $$\begin{aligned} %IOP+ \fl S_g %IOP+ &= &&= 2{ {(e{\bf E}{\bbox \cdot}{\bf {\hat x}})^3}\over \hbar} { \left\{ \int {d^{\nu} \rho'} \int {d^{\nu} \rho''} v_x {\sf {\cal C}}_{{\bbox \rho} {\bbox \rho'}}(0) v'_x {\sf {\cal C}}_{{\bbox \rho'} {\bbox \rho''}}(0) (-i\rho''_x \Delta F^{\rm eq}_{\rho''}) \right\} }_{\rho \to 0} \cr {\left. \right.} \cr %IOP+ &= &&= 2{ {e^3 E^3 \tau^2 \hbar}\over {m^}^2 } {\Biggl\{ {\left[ { {\partial}\over {\partial \rho_x} } { 1\over {1 - ik_d \rho_x} } {\left( { {\partial}\over {\partial \rho_x} } { {-i\rho_x \Delta F^{\rm eq}_{\rho}}\over {1 - ik_d \rho_x} } \right)} \right]}_{\rho \to 0} \Biggr.} \cr %IOP+ &{~~~~} &&{~~~~} {\Biggl. - {\left[ { {\partial}\over {\partial \rho_x} } { {F_{\bbox \rho}/F_{\bf 0}}\over {1 - ik_d \rho_x} } \right]}_{\rho \to 0} {\left[ { {\partial}\over {\partial \rho'_x} } { {-i\rho'_x \Delta F^{\rm eq}_{\rho'}}\over {1 - ik_d \rho'_x} } \right]}_{\rho' \to 0} \Biggr\} }. \label{apxT9}\end{aligned}$$ We evaluate this with the help of the relations $\Delta F^{\rm eq}_0 = {1\over 2}\Delta {n}$ and $\{ \partial F_{\bbox \rho}/\partial \rho_x \}_{\rho \to 0} = ik_dF_{\bf 0}$, the latter following from equation (\[apxT2\]). The result is $$S_g = \sigma m^* \mu_{\rm e}^2 E^4 {\left( {{\Delta {n}}\over {n}} \right)}. \label{apxT10}$$ Liefrink F, Dijkhuis J I, de Jong M J M, Molenkamp L W and van Houten H 1994 [Phys. Rev.]{} B [49]{} 14066 Reznikov M, Heiblum M, Shtrikman H and Mahalu D 1995 [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [75]{} 3340 Kumar A, Saminadayar L, Glattli D C, Jin Y and Etienne B 1996 [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [76]{} 2778 Steinbach A H, Martinis J M and Devoret M H 1996 [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [76]{} 3806 Schoelkopf R J, Burke P J, Kozhevnikov A A, Prober D E and Rooks M J 1997 [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [78]{} 3370 Pothier H, Guéron S, Birge N O, Esteve D and Devoret M H 1997 [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [79]{} 3490 de Picciotto R, Reznikov M, Heiblum M, Umansky V, Bunin G and Mahalu D 1997 [Nature]{} [389]{} 162 Saminadayar L, Glattli D C, Jin Y and Etienne B 1997 [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [79]{} 2526 de Jong M J M and Beenakker C W J 1997 [Mesoscopic Electron Transport (NATO ASI Series E)]{} ed L P Kouwenhoven, G Schön and L L Sohn (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht) Khlus V A 1987 [Sov. Phys. JETP]{} [66]{} 1243 Lesovik G B 1989 [JETP Lett.]{} [49]{} 592 Büttiker M 1992 [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [65]{} 2901; 1992 [Phys. Rev.]{} B [46]{} 12485 Beenakker C W J and Büttiker M 1992 [Phys. Rev.]{} B [46]{} 189 Martin Th and Landauer R 1992 [Phys. Rev.]{} B [45]{} 1742 Nagaev K E 1992 [Phys. Lett.]{} A [169]{} 103; 1995 [Phys. Rev.]{} B [52]{} 4740 de Jong M J M and Beenakker C W J 1995 [Phys. Rev.]{} B [51]{} 16867 Blanter Ya and Büttiker M 1999 cond-mat/9910158. Datta S 1995 [Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) For example: the compressibility sum rule (see reference below) links the magnitude of electron-hole correlations to the total density of a degenerate system. In the diffusive approaches, the correlations are perforce keyed to the notional density of mobile diffusers [only]{}, because the carriers deep in the Fermi sea are excluded from the calculation of diffusive transport [@datta] (moreover, this notional density is defined [ad hoc]{}). This leads directly to an unphysical screening response and violation of quasi-neutrality (perfect screening sum rule) over the size of the sample. Green F and Das M P 2000 [Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Unsolved Problems of Noise and Fluctuations (UPoN’99)]{} ed D Abbott and L B Kish AIP [511]{} (American Institute of Physics, New York) pp 422-33. For a similar discussion see cond-mat/9905086. Das M P and Green F 1999 in [Proceedings of the 23rd International Workshop on Condensed Matter Theories]{} ed G S Anagnostatos (Nova Science, in preparation); see also cond-mat/9910183 Reggiani L, Reklaitis A, González T, Mateos J, Pardo D and Bulashenko O M 2000 [Aust. J. Phys.]{} [53]{} 3 Tadyszak P, Danneville F, Cappy A, Reggiani L, Varani L and Rota L 1996 [Appl. Phys. Lett.]{} [69]{} 1450 González T, Mateos J, Pardo D, Varani L and Reggiani L 1999 cond-mat/9910125 Korman C E and Mayergoyz I D 1996 [Phys. Rev.]{} B [54]{} 17620 Stanton C J and Wilkins J W 1987 [Phys. Rev.]{} B [35]{} 9722; 1987 [Phys. Rev.]{} B [36]{} 1686 Stanton C J 1986 Ph.D. thesis (Cornell University, unpublished) Ferry D K and Goodnick S M 1997 [Transport in Nanostructures]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Green F and Das M P 2000 submitted to [J. Phys. Condensed Matter]{}. See also cond-mat/9911251 For a preliminary account see Green F and Das M P 1998 cond-mat/9809339 (CSIRO-RPP3911, unpublished). Kogan Sh M 1996 [Electronic Noise and Fluctuations in Solids]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Pines D and Nozières P 1966 [The Theory of Quantum Liquids]{} (Benjamin, New York) Kogan Sh M and Shul’man A Ya 1969 [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.]{} [56]{} 862 \[1969 [Sov. Phys. JETP]{} [29]{} 467\] Gantsevich S V, Gurevich V L and Katilius R 1979 [Nuovo Cimento]{} [2]{} 1 Green F and Chivers M J 1996 [Phys. Rev.]{} B [54]{} 5791 van Kampen N G 1981 [Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry]{} (North-Holland, Amsterdam) pp 246-52 The Poisson equation is always defined in three dimensions. To interpret equation (\[AX1.2a\]) appropriately when $\nu < 3$, the electron density ${\langle f \rangle}$ must be understood to carry a (separable) factor in the $3 - \nu$ transverse space co-ordinates. Thus, for a transport problem confined strictly to two dimensions, the Poisson source term contains ${\langle f({\bf r}) \rangle} \equiv \delta(z) {\langle f({\bf r}_{\perp}) \rangle}$, where $z$ is orthogonal to the plane $({\bf r}_{\perp}; z = 0)$. On the other hand, the stabilizing background distribution $n^+({\bf r})$ can be fully three-dimensional, as in a modulation-doped heterostructure [@ferry]. The subtraction of left- and right-hand sides of equation (\[AX1.1\]) from (\[AX1\]) is formally necessary, despite the fact that both are identically zero. This is because we will later require their functional derivatives with respect to $f^{\rm eq}$. Those variations do [not]{} vanish identically, as a quick test on equation (\[AX1.1\]) shows. We follow convention in taking the external field as primitive. It induces the system response to be described by transport theory, but is not itself describable at that level. A more complete way of incorporating electromotive forces into the physics of transport is given in Magnus W and Schoenmaker W 1998 [J. Math. Phys.]{} [39]{} 6715. Green F 1996 [Phys. Rev.]{} B [54]{} 4394 Kadanoff L P and Baym G 1962 [Quantum Statistical Mechanics]{} (W A Benjamin, Reading, Massachusetts) Note: a remark in reference [@fg1], that $\Delta f(t)$ is inherently time-dependent, holds only for collision-time approximations. Van Vliet C M 1994 [IEEE Trans. Electron Devices]{} [41]{} 1902 Nougier J P 1980 [Physics of Nonlinear Transport in Semiconductors]{} ed D K Ferry, J R Barker, and C Jacoboni (Plenum, New York) p 415 ff Reggiani L, Lugli P and Mitin V 1988 [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [60]{} 736 Green F and Das M P 1998 [Recent Progress in Many-Body Theories]{} ed D Neilson and R F Bishop (World Scientific, Singapore) p. 102. See also cond-mat/9709142 Landauer R 1993 [Phys. Rev.]{} B [47]{} 16427 Bakshi P M and Gross E P 1968 [Ann. Phys.]{} [24]{} 419 Kubo R, Toda M and Hashitsume N 1991 [Statistical Physics II: Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics]{} (2nd ed., Springer, Berlin) pp 199 and 200	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| Low-dimensional embeddings of knowledge graphs and behavior graphs have proved remarkably powerful in varieties of tasks, from predicting unobserved edges between entities to content recommendation. The two types of graphs can contain distinct and complementary information for the same entities/nodes. However, previous works focus either on knowledge graph embedding or behavior graph embedding while few works consider both in a unified way. Here we present [[BEM]{}]{}, a Bayesian framework that incorporates the information from knowledge graphs and behavior graphs. To be more specific, [[BEM]{}]{} takes as prior the pre-trained embeddings from the knowledge graph, and integrates them with the pre-trained embeddings from the behavior graphs via a Bayesian generative model. [[BEM]{}]{} is able to mutually refine the embeddings from both sides while preserving their own topological structures. To show the superiority of our method, we conduct a range of experiments on three benchmark datasets: node classification, link prediction, triplet classification on two small datasets related to Freebase, and item recommendation on a large-scale e-commerce dataset. author: - 'Yuting Ye[^1]' - 'Xuwu Wang[^2]' - 'Jiangchao Yao[^3]' - 'Kunyang Jia[^4]' - 'Jingren Zhou[^5]' - 'Yanghua Xiao[^6]' - 'Hongxia Yang[^7]' bibliography: - 'Bayes\_Emb.bib' title: 'Bayes EMbedding (BEM): Refining Representation by Integrating Knowledge Graphs and Behavior-specific Networks' --- Keywords: Knowledge Graph, Bayesian Model, Graph Embedding. Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ Graphs widely exist in the real world, including social networks [@GraphSage:HamiltonYL17; @kipf2017semi], physical systems [@Battaglia:2016; @Sanche:2018], protein-protein interaction networks [@Fout:2017], knowledge graphs [@Hamaguchi:2017] and many other areas [@Elias:2017]. There may be different views of the same set of nodes, and thus graphs of different architectures are built. For example, in the e-commerce industry, item-item networks can be constructed based on the user behaviors of clicks, purchases, add-to-preferences and add-to-carts respectively — two items are linked if they are clicked (or via other operations) by the same user. A corresponding knowledge graph can be crafted to represent a collection of interlinked descriptions of the items, e.g., color, materials, functions. Throughout this article, we refer to the graph with respect to a certain behavior/context as the behavior graph (BG)[^8], in order to distinguish it from the knowledge graph (KG) that consists of structured symbolic knowledge (triplets). KG and BG both reflect the interactions between entities/nodes in reality, but they differ in two aspects: 1) the graph structures; 2) the contained information; see Section \[sec:discussion\_KG\_BG\] for a detailed discussion. The connection and the distinction between KG and BG imply that they can be complementary to each other. It is of great interest to integrate these two types of graphs in a unified way. Benefits of the integration of KG and BG. In the sequel, we give three perspectives with examples in the e-commerce industry to illustrate the benefits of incorporating KG and BG. First, KG-aided BG can achieve accurate recommendations. For instance, given a formal dress and high-heel shoes, methods based on BG alone may recommend arbitrary lipsticks. With information from the KG, it can make a better recommendation of formal lipsticks instead of sweet lipsticks, as KG has the knowledge that the dress and the shoes are associated with formal occasions. Second, KG-aided BG can do more than BG alone. Suppose a user buys a ticket to Alaska in January, the knowledge “enjoying aurora in Alaska in winter” is triggered in KG. So it can recommend down jacket, outdoor shoes and tripods for the aurora viewing in a freezing environment. But methods using BG-only embeddings can hardly connect the flight ticket to such outfits. Third, novel knowledge can be discovered from BG on top of the known. For example, recent clothing fashions can be inferred by the frequently co-clicked or co-purchased clothes. Then humans’ common sense or other experts’ knowledge can be used to identify the most likely choice of the fashion of this year. Motivation. To deal with multiple graphs, a standard practice is to embed the nodes as vectors while simultaneously integrating the information from all the sources [@yu2011bayesian; @kloft2011local; @zhai2012multiview]. To the best of our knowledge, however, there is no existing method that jointly learns the BG embedding and the KG embedding. As an alternative solution, it is common to take the pre-trained KG/BG embeddings as the input to learn the representation of BG/KG [@wu2016knowledge; @xie2016representation; @GraphSage:HamiltonYL17]. Or one can simply learn the embeddings of KG and BG separately, then incorporate them via an aggregation method, e.g., concatenation, linear combination. For the first strategy, the interaction information contained in the KG/BG embedding can be distorted if it does not agree with that of BG/KG. For the second strategy, the topological structure from either side is either disguised (e.g., concatenating a short embedding with a long embedding) or destroyed (e.g., taking the average of two embeddings of the same length). In this article, we work with the pre-trained BG and KG embeddings as this strategy is widely applicable. Our goal is to integrate BG and KG without losing the topological information from both sides. Contribution. Throughout this paper, we consider only one KG and one BG. We develop a Bayesian framework called [[BEM]{}]{} (Bayes EMbedding) that refines the KG and BG embeddings in an integrated fashion while preserving and revealing the topological information from the two sources. The key idea behind [[BEM]{}]{} is that the KG embedding, plus a behavior-specific bias correction term, acts as the prior information for the generation of the BG embedding; see Figure \[fig:BEM\_illustration\] (c). [[BEM]{}]{} aims to maximize the likelihood under this Bayesian generative model. Our contribution is twofold. From the perspective of modelling, [[BEM]{}]{} is proposed to bridge KG and BG seamlessly, with the consideration of their respective topological structures. As a framework, [[BEM]{}]{} is general and flexible in that it can take any pre-trained KG embeddings and any BG embeddings to mutually refine themselves. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:discussion\_KG\_BG\], we discuss the difference and connection between KG and BG. In Section \[sec:related\], we review works that are related to our method. In Section \[sec:methods\], we present our method [[BEM]{}]{}. In the sequel, we demonstrate the utility of [[BEM]{}]{} in three application studies involving two small datasets related to Freebase and a large dataset in e-commerce (Section \[sec:experiments\]). We test the [[BEM]{}]{}-refined embeddings in varieties of downstream tasks. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the [[BEM]{}]{} framework and highlight promising directions for future work in Section \[sec:conclusion\]. Most importantly, from the results of Section \[sec:experiments\], we notice that [[BEM]{}]{} can improve not only the BG embeddings on the majority of tasks, but also boost the performance of the concatenated embeddings. It implies that, the incorporation of KG is able to expose more useful information than the original ones. ![(i) Examples of KG and BG; (ii) The workflow of [[BEM]{}]{}: 1) Embed KG/BG; 2) Train BEM with the parameters of the generative model in (iii); 3) Feed the original embeddings and trained parameters into BEM for refining; 4) Refined (corrected) KG/BG embeddings. (iii) A top-down generative model (Equation ) that connects one KG and three BGs with different behaviors a, b, c. First, for each behavior, there exists a behavior-specific correction term ${\pmb{\delta}}$ that accounts for the associative bias. Then the refined KG embedding is projected into the BG space via a non-linear transformation function ${{\mathbf f}}_{\phi}$. Finally, the BG embeddings are sampled from a distribution $p_{\theta}$ given the projected KG embedding. The model is trained to find the optimal $({\pmb{\delta}}^, {{\mathbf f}}_{\phi^}, \theta^)$ that maximizes the likelihood of observing the BG embeddings ${{\mathbf z}}$’s given the KG embeddings ${{\mathbf w}}$’s.[]{data-label="fig:BEM_illustration"}](./BEM_illustration2.pdf){width="\textwidth"} With both the KG embeddings and the BG embeddings pre-trained, we consider a generative model using the former as the prior information while regarding the latter as the observed, as shown in Figure \[fig:BEM\_illustration\](c). For the sake of efficiency, we convert this MAP (maximum a posterior probability) problem into a variational inference problem [@paisley2012variational], and we turn to maximize the evidence lower bound (ELBO) [@hoffman2016elbo] of the likelihood. Our method is able to scale up to millions of nodes. Extensive experiments are executed on both small datasets and a large-scale dataset to demonstrate the efficacy of [[BEM]{}]{}. In distinction to common behavior graphs, the knowledge graph consists of structured symbolic knowledge (triplets), which comes with a totally different system of embedding methods. Thus, directly combining the knowledge graph with behavior graphs from other views is not straightforward and can give rise to technical difficulties. Still, there exist attempts that use a particular type of feature as additional entity attributes to aid learning the knowledge graph embedding [@xie2016representation; @lv2018differentiating]. In these works, only separate node attributes are used rather than an entire behavior graph. On the contrary, we do not find any work that utilizes KG information to guide the associated embedding learning of BG. Discussion of KG and BG {#sec:discussion_KG_BG} ======================= Here we discuss the difference and the connection between KG and BG to illustrate three points: 1) KG and BG are different and hard to jointly learn; 2) KG and BG contain complementary (distinct but related) information, and therefore it is promising to get better embeddings by integrating the two types of graphs; 3) KG and BG can be unified from two reasonable perspectives. Difference between KG and BG.* There are mainly two differences between KG and BG. First, KG encodes entities and their relations in the form of the triplet as $\langle h, r, t \rangle$, where $h$, $t$ and $r$ are the head entity, the tail entity and their relation. It corresponds to a directed and highly heterogeneous network. In comparison, BG is constructed based on the interplay between the nodes under certain task/behavior-specific contexts. It corresponds to an undirected network with limited number of edge types (homogeneous or less heterogeneous than KG). Figure \[fig:BEM\_illustration\] (a) shows the difference between KG and BG in terms of the network structure. The distinction in structure makes it difficult to put the two graphs in a single framework for embedding learning. Second, the triplets in KG are extracted from authentic knowledge and experience. Thus, KG is a semantic network reflecting relatively objective facts that can stand the test of time. As for BG, it embodies a time-varying and behavior-biased link between nodes, which we illustrate with two examples: 1) People may buy sunglasses and swimwear at the same time in summer, but they will barely purchase these two items in winter; 2) Two sorts of sunglasses can be viewed (the click behavior) for comparison but they are rarely bought (the purchase behavior) together. The difference in information between KG and BG indicates that they can complement each other. Connection between KG and BG. Despite the distinction, KG and BG are also closely related, resembling the connection between humans’ knowledge and experience. KG can be regarded as an abstracted graph that reflects the shared properties among multiple BGs. This bottom-up idea (from BGs to KG) implies that it is possible to acquire novel knowledge from all kinds of BGs. On the contrary, we can heuristically interpret the connection from top down, as shown in Figure \[fig:BEM\_illustration\] (c). KG contains the general information of items, e.g., the item properties (color, materials etc.), the category of the item, the concepts/scenariosof the category. Then, the node of BG can be thought of as being generated by adjusting the associative entity in KG with a behavior-specific correction term. For instance, the cell-phone is conceptually a portable electronics (KG). It exhibits varieties of properties under different scenarios (BG), e.g., a communication tool when connecting to others, an entertainment platform when playing games, a working/studying tool when looking up information online. The top-down idea indicates that we can use KG information to help the learning of BG. Related Work {#sec:related} ============ In this section, we review related work to our method. As to the best of our knowledge, there is no existing method that learns the BG embeddings and the KG embeddings jointly. We first introduce multi-view learning that is closest to this goal. Then we review alternative methods, followed by classic representation learning methods for conventional graphs and knowledge graphs. Multi-view Embedding Learning ----------------------------- In real life, entities may have different feature subsets which is called multi-view data. For instance, in e-commerce, an item may be associated with different behavior data in different scenarios, such as the data of purchases, clicks, add-to-preferences and add-to-carts. These multi-view data can be learned to get a uniform representation for one item. For this purpose, varieties of approaches have been proposed, including co-training, multiple kernel learning, and subspace learning [@yu2011bayesian; @kloft2011local; @zhai2012multiview]. In particular, many efforts have been made in multi-view network representation learning. Qu et al. [@qu2017attention] combines the embeddings of different network views linearly. Shi et al. [@shi2018mvn2vec] proposes two characteristics (preservation and collaboration), and gets node vectors by simultaneously modeling them. It is closely related to our work in the sense that it emphasizes the integration of different sources while preserving their own specialties. However, it only deals with homogeneous networks as other multi-view embedding learning methods. In contrast, our method is designed to combine BG with KG, which differ in the data structures and the contained information. Alternative Ways to Integrate KG and BG --------------------------------------- There are alternative approaches to integrate KG and BG. First, the standard practice is to embed one graph into vectors, then take the embeddings as the input of the learning for the other graph. For example, Wu et al. [@wu2016knowledge] embeds sequential texts, then takes them as node/entity attributes for knowledge graph learning. Xie et al. [@xie2016representation] learns knowledge graph embedding by using the embeddings of entity descriptions. Hamilton et al. [@GraphSage:HamiltonYL17] can take as input the pre-trained KG embeddings to learn BG embeddings as well. However, this line of works tends to focus on the targeted graph (the graph that uses the pre-trained embedding for learning), but the topological structures from the other graph (the graph that generates the pre-trained embedding) may be missing. Even though interaction information between nodes is contained in the pre-trained embeddings, it can be weakened or ignored if not agreeing with the topology from the targeted graph. Second, there is a even simpler strategy to integrate KG and BG, i.e., learning the embeddings of KG and BG separately, then incorporating them via an aggregation method, e.g, concatenation, linear combination [@GraphSage:HamiltonYL17]. Nonetheless, the topological structures from both sides are disguised or destroyed by these aggregation methods. Our work falls in the second category, and is designed to solve the above issue: it preserves and reveals the topological information when integrating BG and KG. Representation Learning for BG and KG ------------------------------------- Here we review methods used to pre-train BG and KG embeddings. A line of works perform graph embedding based on graph spectrum [@belkin2002laplacian; @tang2009relational]. Some works use matrix factorization to get node embeddings [@yang2015network; @cao2015grarep; @yang2017fast]. Additionally, simple neural networks are used to generate embeddings by making the distribution of the node embeddings close to that obtained by the topological structure [@perozzi2014deepwalk; @tang2015line]. Recently, some graph neural network based techniques are also proposed and widely applied [@kipf2017semi; @Ou-etal16asymmetric; @GraphSage:HamiltonYL17; @velickovic2017graph]. Since KG differs from BG due to the semantic links between entities, the above embedding methods are not applicable to KG. Many efforts have been made to embed the nodes in KG. As a seminal work, TransE [@bordes2013translating] learns a low dimensional vector for every entity and relation in KGs. Later extensions include TransH [@Wang:2014trans], TransR [@Lin:2015:LER:2886521.2886624] and STransE [@DBLP:conf/naacl/NguyenSQJ16] for more flexibilities. Methods {#sec:methods} ======= Notation -------- We denote ${{\mathbf w}}$ and ${{\mathbf z}}$ as the KG embedding and the BG embedding with dimension $d_{{{\mathbf w}}}$ and $d_{{{\mathbf z}}}$ respectively. For a vector ${{\mathbf x}}$, let $d_{{{\mathbf x}}}$ be the dimension of ${{\mathbf x}}$, and let $x_k$ be its $k$-th entry. We use $\odot$ for element-wise multiplication, i.e., for two vectors ${{\mathbf x}}$ and ${{\mathbf y}}$ with length $d$, ${{\mathbf x}}\odot {{\mathbf y}}= (x_1y_1, \ldots, x_dy_d)$. Denote $D_{KL}(p\|\|q)$ as the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence between distributions $p$ and $q$ [@burnham2001kullback]. Other detailed notations used throughout this section are summarized in Table \[tbl:notation\_tbl\]. [p[2cm]{}p[8cm]{}]{} Notation & Meaning\ $e$ & Entity.\ ${{\mathbf w}}$ & KG embedding.\ ${{\mathbf z}}$ & BG embedding.\ $d_{{{\mathbf w}}}/d_{{{\mathbf z}}}$ & Dimension of ${{\mathbf w}}$/${{\mathbf z}}$.\ ${\pmb{\delta}}$ & The behavior-specific correction term.\ ${{\mathbf f}}_{\phi}(\cdot)$ & The nonlinear transformation that projects the refined (corrected) KG embedding into the BG space.\ ${\pmb{\mathbf \nu}}$ & Projection of the KG embedding onto the behavior space by ${{\mathbf f}}_{\phi}$.\ ${{\mathbf g}}(\cdot, \cdot)$ & The edge function that characterizes the interaction between entities in the behavior space.\ $p_{\eta}$ & The distribution of ${\pmb{\delta}}$.\ $p_{\theta}$ & The distribution of ${{\mathbf g}}({{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_j)$.\ ${{\mathbf h}}_{\Psi}(\cdot, \cdot)$ & The inference network.\ ${\pmb{\tau}}_i$/${\pmb{\tau}}_{i,j}$ & all the latent variables for $e_i$/$(e_i, e_j)$.\ The Generative Model {#sec:generative_model} -------------------- Section \[sec:discussion\_KG\_BG\] sheds light on the bottom-up and top-down relations between KG and BG. KG is thought of as the abstract representation of an entity, and BG is its realization under certain context. We can view BG as a mix of KG and a context-specific factor (an adjustment term), but usually it only reflects some aspect of KG (i.e., a projection of the mix). Such insights motivate us to connect KG and BG in a generative model as follows. Throughout this paper, we focus on the case where each entity has one KG embedding and one BG embedding. Mathematically, suppose there are $N$ entities and each entity $e_i$ has a KG embedding ${{\mathbf w}}_i$ and a BG embedding ${{\mathbf z}}_i$. As depicted in Figure \[fig:BEM\_illustration\], ${{\mathbf w}}_i$ and ${{\mathbf z}}_i$ act as priors and observations respectively. We use ${\pmb{\delta}}_i$ to model the adjustment effects between ${{\mathbf w}}_i$ and ${{\mathbf z}}_i$. In other words, ${\pmb{\delta}}_i$ acts as an residual to ${{\mathbf z}}_i$ so that ${\pmb{\delta}}_i + {{\mathbf w}}_i$ is sufficient to determine the marginal distribution of ${{\mathbf z}}_i$ via a projection function ${{\mathbf f}}_{\phi}$. The projection not only reflects the fact that BG characterizes KG partially, but is also technically required to map ${\pmb{\delta}}_i + {{\mathbf w}}_i$ into the BG space. To be more specific, we assume the joint distribution of $(z_1, \ldots, z_{N})$ hinges on the following three components: - “Refined” KG embeddings $({{\mathbf w}}_1 + {\pmb{\delta}}_1, \ldots, {{\mathbf w}}_{N} + {\pmb{\delta}}_{N})$, where $({\pmb{\delta}}_1, \ldots, {\pmb{\delta}}_{N})$ are sampled from the behavior-specific distribution $p_{\eta}$; - The nonlinear transformation ${{\mathbf f}}_{\phi}$ that projects the refined KG embedding into the BG space; - The distribution of BG embedding $p_{\theta}$. Then, write the generative model as $$\begin{array}{l} ({\pmb{\delta}}_1, \ldots, {\pmb{\delta}}_{N}) \sim p_{\eta}(\cdot)\\ {\pmb{\mathbf \nu}}_i = {{\mathbf f}}_{\phi}({{\mathbf w}}_i + {\pmb{\delta}}_i)\\ ({{\mathbf z}}_1, \ldots, {{\mathbf z}}_{N}) \sim p_{\theta}(\cdot \| {\pmb{\mathbf \nu}}_1, \ldots, {\pmb{\mathbf \nu}}_{N}). \end{array} \label{eq:connection-w-z-general}$$ Our target is to optimize the following objective function: Then the goal of cracking System II boils down to finding the optimal $(p_{\eta^}, {{\mathbf f}}_{\phi^}, p_{\theta^})$ that bridges $({{\mathbf w}}_1, \ldots, {{\mathbf w}}_{N})$ and $({{\mathbf z}}_1, \ldots, {{\mathbf z}}_{N})$ best. Formally speaking, our target is to find the optimal parameters to solve $$\begin{aligned} && \max_{\eta, f_\phi, \theta} \log {\mathbb{P}}({{\mathbf z}}_1, \ldots, {{\mathbf z}}_N \| {{\mathbf w}}_1, \ldots, {{\mathbf w}}_N)\nonumber\\ &=& \max_{\eta, f_\phi, \theta} \log \int p_{\theta}({{\mathbf z}}_1, \ldots, {{\mathbf z}}_N\| {{\mathbf f}}_{\phi}({{\mathbf w}}_1 + {\pmb{\delta}}_1), \ldots, {{\mathbf f}}_{\phi}({{\mathbf w}}_N + {\pmb{\delta}}_N)) \cdot\nonumber\\ && {\color{white}............} p_{\eta}({\pmb{\delta}}_1, \ldots, {\pmb{\delta}}_N)d{\pmb{\delta}}_1\ldots{\pmb{\delta}}_N. \label{obj:general}\end{aligned}$$ However, the objective function Equation under Model is generally intractable. For the sake of computational feasibility, assumptions are needed to simplify the model: - To reduce the model complexity, we assume ${\pmb{\delta}}_i$’s are identically independently distributed, i.e., ${\pmb{\delta}}_i \overset{i.i.d}{\sim} p_{\eta}(\cdot)$, where $\eta$ is shared by all the entities. - To retain the interaction information between entities, we come up with an edge function ${{\mathbf g}}(\cdot, \cdot)$ that characterizes the interplay between $e_i$ and $e_j$. For example, ${{\mathbf g}}({{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_j)$ can be the similarity or the vector difference between ${{\mathbf z}}_i$ and ${{\mathbf z}}_j$. Then, $p_{\theta}$ is assumed to be a generative distribution for ${{\mathbf g}}({{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_j)$. - To further reduce the model complexity, we assume ${{\mathbf g}}({{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_j)$’s are i.i.d sampled from $p_{\theta}(\cdot \| {{\mathbf g}}({\pmb{\mathbf \nu}}_i, {\pmb{\mathbf \nu}}_j))$, where $\theta$ is shared for all pairs of $(e_i, e_j)$. Then, Model is reduced to $$\hspace{-0.08cm} \begin{array}{l} {\pmb{\delta}}_i \sim p_{\eta}(\cdot), {\pmb{\delta}}_j \sim p_{\eta}(\cdot)\\ {\pmb{\mathbf \nu}}_i = {{\mathbf f}}_{\phi}({{\mathbf w}}_i + {\pmb{\delta}}_i), {\pmb{\mathbf \nu}}_j = {{\mathbf f}}_{\phi}({{\mathbf w}}_j + {\pmb{\delta}}_j)\\ g({{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_j) \sim p_{\theta}(\cdot \| g({\pmb{\mathbf \nu}}_i, {\pmb{\mathbf \nu}}_j)), \end{array} \label{eq:connection-w-z-indpt-pair}$$ which is visualized as Figure \[fig:BEM-Gaussian-trans\] (a). Compared to Model , the reduced model has a much smaller model complexity while retaining the interaction information between entities, i.e., preserving the topological structure, which is crucial for all the BG and KG embedding methods [@cui2018survey; @cai2018comprehensive]. We call this model [[BEM]{}]{}-P* (“P” denotes pairwise interactions). In comparison, we can ignore the interactions for further complexity reduction: $$\begin{array}{l} {\pmb{\delta}}_i \sim p_{\eta}(\cdot)\\ {\pmb{\mathbf \nu}}_i = {{\mathbf f}}_{\phi}({{\mathbf w}}_i + {\pmb{\delta}}_i)\\ {{\mathbf z}}_i \sim p_{\theta} \left (\cdot \| {\pmb{\mathbf \nu}}_i \right ). \end{array} \label{eq:connection-w-z-indpt}$$ In fact, Model is a special case of Model by letting ${{\mathbf g}}({{\mathbf x}}, {{\mathbf y}}) = ({{\mathbf x}}, {{\mathbf y}})$ and assuming $p_{\theta}(\cdot\| {{\mathbf x}}, {{\mathbf y}}) = p_{\theta}(\cdot\| {{\mathbf x}})p_{\theta}(\cdot\| {{\mathbf y}})$. Then it becomes a model with full independence. We call this model *[[BEM]{}]{}-I* (“I” denotes vertex independence). Finally, for the sake of simplicity, we denote *[[BEM]{}]{}-O* (“O” denotes NULL) as using the original embeddings directly without applying [[BEM]{}]{}. All these models are summarized in Table \[tbl:model\_name\]. In the sequel, we will omit the subscript $\eta$, $\phi$ and $\theta$ for simplicity if it does not brings about ambiguity. [l\|l]{} Abbreviation & Meaning\ & ----------------------------------------- [BEM with node interactions; Model .]{} ----------------------------------------- : Abbreviations of models and embeddings[]{data-label="tbl:model_name"} \ & ----------------------------------------- [BEM with full independence; Model .]{} ----------------------------------------- : Abbreviations of models and embeddings[]{data-label="tbl:model_name"} \ & [Without applying BEM.]{}\ & ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [The $\mathcal{G}$ embedding by [[BEM]{}]{}-P, [[BEM]{}]{}-I.]{} ---------------------------------------------------------------------- : Abbreviations of models and embeddings[]{data-label="tbl:model_name"} \ & ---------------------------------------------------------------- [The original $\mathcal{G}$ embedding (by [[BEM]{}]{}-O).]{} ---------------------------------------------------------------- : Abbreviations of models and embeddings[]{data-label="tbl:model_name"} \ & ----------------------------------------- [The concatenation of KG-X and BG-X.]{} ----------------------------------------- : Abbreviations of models and embeddings[]{data-label="tbl:model_name"} \ The Inference Model {#sec:influence_model} ------------------- Given Equation , the objective function can be rewritten as $$\max \sum_{(i,j): i \neq j} \log {\mathbb{P}}(g({{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_j)\| ({{\mathbf w}}_i,{{\mathbf w}}_j)). \label{obj:w-z-indpt-pair}$$ There are varieties of off-the-shelf methods to optimize Equation , such as the EM [@neal1998view] or MCMC [@gilks1995markov] algorithm. But these methods usually fail due to intractability of scalability. To this end, we resort to variational inference [@blei2017variational], which is very popular for large-scale scenarios or distributions with intractable integrals. Let ${\pmb{\tau}}_{i}$ be a set of all the latent variables for node $i$, and ${\pmb{\tau}}_{ij} = {\pmb{\tau}}_{i} \cup {\pmb{\tau}}_{j}$. For example, in the generative model Equation , ${\pmb{\tau}}_{i} = \{{\pmb{\delta}}_i\}$, ${\pmb{\tau}}_{j} = \{{\pmb{\delta}}_j\}$ and ${\pmb{\tau}}_{ij} = \{{\pmb{\delta}}_i, {\pmb{\delta}}_j\}$. It is easy to derive that $$\begin{aligned} &&\log {\mathbb{P}}({{\mathbf g}}({{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_j) \| ({{\mathbf w}}_i, {{\mathbf w}}_j)) \nonumber\\ &\geq& \mathbb{E}_{q({\pmb{\tau}}_{i,j} \| {{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_j, {{\mathbf w}}_i, {{\mathbf w}}_j)} \log \mathbb{P}({{\mathbf g}}({{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_j) \| {\pmb{\tau}}_{i,j}, {{\mathbf w}}_i, {{\mathbf w}}_j) \nonumber\\ &&~~~ -D_{KL}(q({\pmb{\tau}}_{i,j} \| {{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_j, {{\mathbf w}}_i, {{\mathbf w}}_j) \|\| p({\pmb{\tau}}_{i,j}\| {{\mathbf w}}_i, {{\mathbf w}}_j)), \label{eq:elbo-w-z-indpt-pair}\end{aligned}$$ where $q({\pmb{\tau}}_{i,j} \| {{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_j, {{\mathbf w}}_i, {{\mathbf w}}_j)$ is called the inference model [@kingma2013auto], i.e., an approximated density function to the posterior density of ${\pmb{\tau}}_{i,j}$ given $({{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_j)$. $p({\pmb{\tau}}_{i,j}\| {{\mathbf w}}_i, {{\mathbf w}}_j)$ is the associated prior density. Formula is also called the variational lower bound or evidence lower bound (ELBO) [@hoffman2016elbo] for $\log {\mathbb{P}}({{\mathbf g}}({{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_j) \| {{\mathbf w}}_i, {{\mathbf w}}_j)$. The first term in the ELBO is termed as the reconstruction term that measures the goodness of the fit, while the second one is a penalty term that measures the distance between the approximated density to the prior density. Then, our goal of maximizing $\log {\mathbb{P}}({{\mathbf g}}({{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_j) \| {{\mathbf w}}_i, {{\mathbf w}}_j)$ can be relaxed to maximizing the ELBO. It is well-known that the naive Monte-Carlo gradient estimator exhibits very high variance and is impractical when $N$ is large [@paisley2012variational]. Thus we will utilize particular distributions and introduce additional assumptions to further simplify the ELBO. We assume $p_{\eta}(\cdot)$ to be a multivariate normal density. Assume $p_{\theta}(\cdot \| {{\mathbf g}}({\pmb{\mathbf \nu}}_i, {\pmb{\mathbf \nu}}_j)) = p_{\theta_{ij}}(\cdot \| {{\mathbf g}}({\pmb{\mathbf \nu}}_i, {\pmb{\mathbf \nu}}_j))$ to be a multivariate normal density with mean ${{\mathbf g}}({\pmb{\mathbf \nu}}_i, {\pmb{\mathbf \nu}}_j)$ and variance matrix $\text{diag}(\theta_{ij})$, where $\theta_{ij} = {{\mathbf s}}_i + {{\mathbf s}}_j$ is the sample-specific variance (see Figure \[fig:BEM-Gaussian-trans\] (a)). Here, ${{\mathbf s}}_i$ and ${{\mathbf s}}_j$ are assumed to be sampled from a multivariate log-normal distribution. We introduce the latent variable ${{\mathbf s}}_i$ and ${{\mathbf s}}_j$ to account for the nuisance variation induced by sampling (see Section \[sec:detailed\_algo\]). Here we choose the multivariate normal/log-normal distribution because it enjoys appealing statistical and computational properties: 1) normal/log-normal random variables are easy to sample; 2) normal/log-normal distributions can be easily reparametrized with only two parameters [@kingma2013auto]; 3) There is a closed-form expression for the KL divergence between two normal/log-normal distributions. ![The [[BEM]{}]{}-P method with the normal/log-normal distributions with the sample-specific variance $\theta_{ij} = {{\mathbf s}}_i + {{\mathbf s}}_j$ for ${{\mathbf g}}({{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_j)$. (a) The generative model . The shaded circles represent observed/estimated variables. The empty circles represent latent variables. Edges signify conditional dependency (including deterministic mapping). The solid rectangles (“plates”) indicate independent replication while the dashed rectangles indicate replication only. (b) The inference network indexed by $\psi$. It takes in KG-O and BG-O and outputs the posterior means/variances of the latent variables in (a). (c) The computational pipeline that concatenates the inference model (b) and the generative model (a) to produce refined (corrected) KG/BG embeddings. (d) The illustration graph that explains the translation edge function is equivalent to the similarity function using inner product or cosine similarity on the sphere.[]{data-label="fig:BEM-Gaussian-trans"}](./Bayes_Embedding_illustration_instance_four.pdf){width="4.1in"} By introducing the latent variable ${{\mathbf s}}_i$, the set of latent variables for node $j$ becomes ${\pmb{\tau}}_{i} = \{{\pmb{\delta}}_i, {{\mathbf s}}_i\}$ and ${\pmb{\tau}}_{ij} = \{{\pmb{\delta}}_i, {\pmb{\delta}}_j, {{\mathbf s}}_i, {{\mathbf s}}_j\}$. We then impose two common conditions in the mean-field variational inference [@kingma2013auto]: - Both $q({\pmb{\tau}}_{ij}\|{{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_j, {{\mathbf w}}_i, {{\mathbf w}}_j)$ and $p({\pmb{\tau}}_{ij} \| {{\mathbf w}}_i, {{\mathbf w}}_j)$ are from mean-filed family. That is $$\begin{array}{l} q({\pmb{\tau}}_{ij}\|{{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_j, {{\mathbf w}}_i, {{\mathbf w}}_j) = q({\pmb{\delta}}_i\| {{\mathbf w}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_i) q({\pmb{\delta}}_j\| {{\mathbf w}}_j, {{\mathbf z}}_j)q({{\mathbf s}}_i\| {{\mathbf w}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_i)q({{\mathbf s}}_j\| {{\mathbf w}}_j, {{\mathbf z}}_j)\\ p({\pmb{\tau}}_{ij} \| {{\mathbf w}}_i, {{\mathbf w}}_j) = p({\pmb{\delta}}_i\| {{\mathbf w}}_i) p({\pmb{\delta}}_j\| {{\mathbf w}}_j)p({{\mathbf s}}_i\| {{\mathbf w}}_i)p({{\mathbf s}}_j\| {{\mathbf w}}_j). \end{array}$$ - $q({\pmb{\delta}}_i \| {{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf w}}_i)$ and $q({{\mathbf s}}_i \| {{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf w}}_i)$ are normal and log-normal densities with a diagonal covariance matrix, respectively. Thus, the approximated posterior means and variances of each element in ${\pmb{\tau}}_i$ can be represented by a function of ${{\mathbf z}}_i$ and ${{\mathbf w}}_i$, denoted as ${{\mathbf h}}_{\Psi}$, which is called the inference network. In detail, $${{\mathbf h}}_{\Psi}({{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf w}}_i) = ({\hat{\pmb{\mu}}}_{{\pmb{\delta}}_i}, {\hat{\pmb{\sigma}}}_{{\pmb{\delta}}_i}, {\hat{\pmb{\mu}}}_{s_i}, {\hat{\pmb{\sigma}}}_{s_i}), \label{eq:posterior-est}$$ where ${\hat{\pmb{\mu}}}_{{\pmb{\delta}}_i}$, ${\hat{\pmb{\sigma}}}_{{\pmb{\delta}}_i}^2$, ${\hat{\pmb{\mu}}}_{s_i}$, ${\hat{\pmb{\sigma}}}_{s_i}^2$ are the approximated posterior means and variances (a vector consisting of the diagonal elements of the covariance matrix) of ${\pmb{\delta}}_i$ and ${{\mathbf s}}_i$ respectively. With the reparametrization trick, we can express ${{\mathbf x}}= \hat{{\pmb{\mathbf \mu}}}_x + \hat{{\pmb{\sigma}}}_x \odot {\pmb{\epsilon}}$, ${{\mathbf x}}\in {\pmb{\tau}}_i$ and ${\pmb{\epsilon}}\sim N(\mathbf{0}, \mathbf{I}_{d_{{{\mathbf x}}}})$. Correspondingly, we express their prior means and variances as ${\pmb{\mathbf \mu}}_{{\pmb{\delta}}_i}$, $\lambda_{{\pmb{\delta}}_i}\cdot {\pmb{\sigma}}_{{\pmb{\delta}}_i}^2$, ${\pmb{\mathbf \mu}}_{{{\mathbf s}}_i}$, $\lambda_{{{\mathbf s}}_i}\cdot{\pmb{\sigma}}_{{{\mathbf s}}_i}^2$, where $\lambda_{{\pmb{\delta}}_i}$ and $\lambda_{{{\mathbf s}}_i}$ are two tuning parameters. Then the ELBO in Equation can be explicitly expressed. The reconstruction term is $$\begin{aligned} &&{{\mathbb E}}_{q({\pmb{\tau}}_{i,j} \| {{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_j, {{\mathbf w}}_i, {{\mathbf w}}_j)} \log \mathbb{P}({{\mathbf g}}({{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_j) \| {\pmb{\tau}}_{i,j}, {{\mathbf w}}_i, {{\mathbf w}}_j) \nonumber\\ &=& -{{\mathbb E}}_{{\pmb{\epsilon}}_{{\pmb{\delta}}_i}, {\pmb{\epsilon}}_{{\pmb{\delta}}_j}, {\pmb{\epsilon}}_{{{\mathbf s}}_i}, {\pmb{\epsilon}}_{{{\mathbf s}}_j}} \sum_{k = 1}^{d_{{{\mathbf z}}}} \bigg\{ \frac{1}{2}\log(s_{i, k} + s_{j, k}) \nonumber \\ &&+ \frac{[{{\mathbf g}}({{\mathbf z}}_{i}, {{\mathbf z}}_{i})_k - {{\mathbf g}}({{\mathbf f}}_{\phi}({{\mathbf w}}_i + {\pmb{\delta}}_i), {{\mathbf f}}_{\phi}({{\mathbf w}}_j + {\pmb{\delta}}_j))_k]^2}{2(s_{i, k} + s_{j, k})} \bigg \} + C_0,\label{eq:recons-indpt-pair} \end{aligned}$$ where $C_0$ is a constant and $$\begin{array}{l} {\pmb{\delta}}_i = {\hat{\pmb{\mu}}}_{{\pmb{\delta}}_i} + {\hat{\pmb{\sigma}}}_{{\pmb{\delta}}_i} \odot {\pmb{\epsilon}}_{{\pmb{\delta}}_i},~~{\pmb{\delta}}_j = {\hat{\pmb{\mu}}}_{{\pmb{\delta}}_j} + {\hat{\pmb{\sigma}}}_{{\pmb{\delta}}_j} \odot {\pmb{\epsilon}}_{{\pmb{\delta}}_j},\\ {{\mathbf s}}_i = {\hat{\pmb{\mu}}}_{{{\mathbf s}}_i} + {\hat{\pmb{\sigma}}}_{{{\mathbf s}}_i} \odot {\pmb{\epsilon}}_{{{\mathbf s}}_i},~~{{\mathbf s}}_j = {\hat{\pmb{\mu}}}_{{{\mathbf s}}_j} + {\hat{\pmb{\sigma}}}_{{{\mathbf s}}_j} \odot {\pmb{\epsilon}}_{s_j}.\label{eq:reparametrization} \end{array}$$ The penalty term is $$\begin{aligned} && D_{KL}(q({\pmb{\tau}}_{i,j} \| {{\mathbf z}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_j, {{\mathbf w}}_i, {{\mathbf w}}_j) \|\| p({\pmb{\tau}}_{i,j}\| {{\mathbf w}}_i, {{\mathbf w}}_j)) \nonumber\\ &=&\sum_{{{\mathbf x}}\in {\pmb{\tau}}_{ij}}\sum_{k = 1}^{d_{{{\mathbf x}}}} \{-\log \frac{\hat{\sigma}_{{{\mathbf x}}, k}^2}{\lambda_{{{\mathbf x}}} \cdot \sigma_{{{\mathbf x}}, k}^2} + \frac{\hat{\sigma}_{{{\mathbf x}}, k}^2}{\lambda_{{{\mathbf x}}} \cdot \sigma_{{{\mathbf x}}, k}^2} + \frac{(\hat{\mu}_{{{\mathbf x}}, k} - \mu_{{{\mathbf x}}, k})^2}{\lambda_{{{\mathbf x}}} \cdot \sigma_{{{\mathbf x}},k}^2}\} + C_1,\nonumber\\\label{eq:penalty-indpt-pair}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_1$ is a constant. We can draw several implications from the closed-form expression of the ELBO. Maximizing the ELBO in Equation is equivalent to minimizing the sum of Equation and Equation, which are balanced by $\lambda_{{\pmb{\delta}}_i}$ and $\lambda_{{{\mathbf s}}_i}$. Minimizing the reconstruction term forces the corrected KG/BG embeddings to behave similarly to the observed BG embeddings as per the selected edge function ${{\mathbf g}}$. It suggests that the reconstruction term preserves the topological structure of BG. Accordingly, minimizing Equation enforces the approximated posterior mean/variance to be close to the prior mean/variance. If the prior mean of ${\pmb{\delta}}_i$ is set to be $\mathbf{0}$, such minimization forces the corrected KG/BG embeddings to be close to the observed KG embeddings. It indicates the penalty term preserves the topological structure of KG. Thus, the refined KG/BG embeddings can be regarded as a mixture of information. The two parameters $\lambda_{{\pmb{\delta}}_i}$ and $\lambda_{{{\mathbf s}}_i}$ act as controllers of such mixing. For example, a small $\lambda_{{\pmb{\delta}}_i}$ indicates the corrected embeddings squint towards the observed KG embeddings other than the observed BG embeddings, vice versa. Algorithm {#sec:detailed_algo} --------- Given all the components discussed above, we can write down the detailed algorithm of [[BEM]{}]{}. First, we sample two batches of samples of batch size $n_B$, denoted as batch $B_a$ and $B_b$; then pair them up randomly, denoted as $B_{pair} = \{(a_m, b_m)\}_{m=1}^{n_B}$. For each batch, we impose the same prior information for all the samples in this batch, and estimate $$\begin{array}{l} {\pmb{\mathbf \mu}}_{\delta}^{(l)} = \mathbf{0}, l = a, b\\ \sigma_{{\pmb{\delta}}, k}^{(l)} = \frac{1}{n_B - 1}\sum_{m = 1}^{n_B}({{\mathbf w}}_{l_m,k} - \sum_{m' = 1}^{n_B} \frac{{{\mathbf w}}_{l_{m'}, k}}{n_B})^2,~ k = 1, \ldots, d_{{{\mathbf w}}}, l = a, b\\ \mu_{{{\mathbf s}}, k}^{(a, b)} = \frac{1}{n_B} \sum_{m = 1}^{n_B} ({{\mathbf g}}({{\mathbf z}}_{a_m}, {{\mathbf z}}_{b_m})_k - \bar{{{\mathbf g}}}^{(a, b)}_k)^2, k = 1, \ldots, d_{{{\mathbf g}}}\\ \sigma_{{{\mathbf s}}, k}^{(a, b)} = \frac{1}{R} \sum_{r =1}^R (\mu_{{{\mathbf s}}, k}^{(a, b, r)} - \bar{\mu}_{{{\mathbf s}}, k}^{(a, b)})^2, k = 1, \ldots, d_{{{\mathbf g}}} \text{ (bootstrap)} \end{array} \label{eq:prior-est}$$ where $\bar{{{\mathbf g}}}^{(a, b)} = \frac{1}{n_B} \sum_{m' = 1}^{n_B} {{\mathbf g}}({{\mathbf z}}_{a_{m'}}, {{\mathbf z}}_{b_{m'}})$, $R$ is the number of bootstrap replicates, ${\pmb{\mathbf \mu}}_{{{\mathbf s}}}^{(a, b, r)}$ is the $r$-th bootstrap estimator of ${\pmb{\mathbf \mu}}_{{{\mathbf s}}}^{(a, b)}$ from $B_{pair}$ ($r = 1, \ldots, R$), and $\bar{{\pmb{\mathbf \mu}}}_{{{\mathbf s}}}^{(a, b)} = \frac{1}{R} \sum_{r = 1}^R {\pmb{\mathbf \mu}}_{{{\mathbf s}}}^{(a, b, r)}$. Then, for each pair of sample $(a_m, b_m)$, use the inference network Equation to get the approximated posterior information ${\hat{\pmb{\mu}}}_{{\pmb{\delta}}_{l_m}}$, ${\hat{\pmb{\sigma}}}_{{\pmb{\delta}}_{l_m}}$, ${\hat{\pmb{\mu}}}_{{{\mathbf s}}_{l_m}}$, ${\hat{\pmb{\sigma}}}_{{{\mathbf s}}_{l_m}}$, $l = a, b$, $m = 1, \ldots, n_B$, as shown in Figure \[fig:BEM-Gaussian-trans\] (b). Next, we sample $2n_B \cdot (d_{{{\mathbf w}}} + d_{{{\mathbf z}}})$ standard normal variables to get ${\pmb{\delta}}_{l_m}$ and ${{\mathbf s}}_{l_m}$ by Equation , where we set $\lambda_{{\pmb{\delta}}_i} \equiv \lambda_1$ and $\lambda_{{{\mathbf s}}_i} \equiv \lambda_2$, $i = 1, \ldots, N$. We obtain the ELBO in Equation via Equations -, as shown in Figure \[fig:BEM-Gaussian-trans\] (c). Finally, We can use any optimization method, such as Adam [@kingma2014adam], to update $\phi$ and $\psi$ when maximizing the ELBO. We run the above steps for $T$ times, and we can get the refined KG/BG embedding for $e_i$ by $$\hat{{{\mathbf w}}}_i = {{\mathbf w}}_i + {\hat{\pmb{\mu}}}_{{\pmb{\delta}}_{i}}, ~~~~\hat{{{\mathbf z}}}_i = {{\mathbf f}}_{\phi}(\hat{{{\mathbf w}}}_i)\label{eq:prediction}$$ Pre-Trained KG/BG embeddings $({{\mathbf w}}_i, {{\mathbf z}}_i)$, $i = 1, \ldots, N$; tuning parameters $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$; batch size $n_B$, number of iterations $T$. Sample two batches $B_a$, $B_b$ of batch size $n_B$, and pair them up as $B_{pair} = \{(a_1, b_1), \ldots, (a_{n_B}, b_{n_B})\}$; Estimate the prior information by $({\pmb{\mathbf \mu}}_{{\pmb{\delta}}}^{(l)}, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{{\pmb{\delta}}}^{(l)}, {\pmb{\mathbf \mu}}_{{{\mathbf s}}}^{(a,b)}, {\pmb{\sigma}}_{{{\mathbf s}}}^{(a,b)})$ by Equation; Get the posterior information $({\hat{\pmb{\mu}}}_{{\pmb{\delta}}_{l_m}}, {\hat{\pmb{\sigma}}}_{{\pmb{\delta}}_{l_m}}, {\hat{\pmb{\mu}}}_{{{\mathbf s}}_{l_m}}, {\hat{\pmb{\sigma}}}_{{{\mathbf s}}_{l_m}})$ by Equation; Sample a standard normal variable from $N(\mathbf{0}, \mathbf{I}_{d_{{{\mathbf w}}}})$ and $N(\mathbf{0}, \mathbf{I}_{d_{{{\mathbf z}}}})$ respectively. Get ${\pmb{\delta}}_{l_m}$ and ${{\mathbf s}}_{l_m}$ via Equation. Obtain the ELBO in Equation via Equations -; Update $\psi$ and $\phi$ by maximizing the ELBO. Get the refined KB/BG embeddings $\hat{{{\mathbf w}}}_i$ and $\hat{{{\mathbf z}}}_i$ by Equation. Denote the $\phi$ and $\psi$ in the last round as $\hat{\phi}$ and $\hat{\phi}$. $\hat{\phi}$, $\hat{\psi}$, $(\hat{{{\mathbf w}}}_i, \hat{{{\mathbf z}}}_i), i = 1, \ldots, N$. To analyze the complexity of Algorithm \[algo:BEM-full\], we simply use two-layer MLPs (multi-layer perceptron) for ${{\mathbf f}}_{\phi}$ and ${{\mathbf h}}_{\psi}$. Let $n_h$ be the number of hidden nodes of these neural networks. Then it is easy to see that the computational complexity is $\mathcal{O}((n_z + n_w) n_h \cdot (n_{iter} + R) \cdot n_B \cdot T)$, where $n_{iter}$ is the number of iterations for the maximization step (Line $8$) in Algorithm \[algo:BEM-full\]. If we set $T \propto N/n_B$, the computational complexity is $\mathcal{O}((n_z + n_w) n_h \cdot (n_{iter} + R) \cdot N)$. Furthermore, the storage complexity is just $\mathcal{O}(n_zn_h + n_wn_h)$, since it merely needs to keep track of two sets of parameters in ${{\mathbf f}}_{\phi}$ and ${{\mathbf h}}_{\psi}$. Therefore, the algorithm is efficient in both time and storage in the sense that the size of the dataset only affects the computational time linearly. However, when the dataset is too large to be entirely loaded into the CPU, the algorithm might suffer from a non-negligible overhead caused by partitioning and loading the data during the iteration. Edge Function ------------- The edge function ${{\mathbf g}}$ in Equation characterizes the interplay between nodes. The choice of this function determines what kind of KG information is incorporated into the BG embeddings. We give four examples as below: - A natural choice is the translation function i.e., ${{\mathbf g}}(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}) = \mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}$, where $d_{{{\mathbf g}}} = d_{{{\mathbf w}}} \text{ or } d_{{{\mathbf z}}}$. TransE and its variants are based on the translation operation, and aim to minimize the $L_2$/$L_1$ loss between the translated embedding of the head entity and the corresponding embedding of the tail entity [@bordes2013translating; @Wang:2014trans; @lin2015learning]. - An arbitrary similarity function can be used that measures the similarity between ${{\mathbf z}}_i$ and ${{\mathbf z}}_j$, where $d_{{{\mathbf g}}} = 1$. Such choice coincides with the objective functions of the majority of BG/KG embedding methods [@cui2018survey; @cai2018comprehensive]. For instance, GraphSAGE [@GraphSage:HamiltonYL17], GCN [@kipf2017semi], node2vec [@grover2016node2vec] etc., maximize the inner product between positive samples while minimizing this metric between negative samples. - If the edge function only relies on the index $i$ and $j$, such as the edge attribute between node $i$ and node $j$, [[BEM]{}]{} becomes a supervised model. - If the edge function is an identity function ${{\mathbf g}}(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}) = (\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y})$, then Model is reduced to Model . Here, ${{\mathbf g}}$ simply concatenates vectors ${{\mathbf x}}$ and ${{\mathbf y}}$, thus $d_{{{\mathbf g}}} = 2d_{{{\mathbf w}}} \text{ or } 2d_{{{\mathbf z}}}$. In this article, we use the translation function ${{\mathbf g}}(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}) = \mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}$. In fact, the translation function is equivalent to the similarity function using inner product or cosine similarity if the embeddings are normalized onto the unit sphere, such as embeddings generated by GraphSAGE, TransE and its variants. As shown in Figure \[fig:BEM-Gaussian-trans\] (d), the module $\ell$ of the difference between two points on the sphere is bijectively mapped to the angle $\alpha$ between the rays from the origin to the two points. Experiments {#sec:experiments} =========== We empirically study and evaluate [[BEM]{}]{} on two small datasets and one large-scale dataset for a variety of tasks. Each dataset consists of one KG and one BG with pre-trained node embeddings. The goal of these experiments is to show that embeddings refined by [[BEM]{}]{} can outperform the original pre-trained embeddings on some tasks, while remaining the efficacy for most of the others: - The node classification task (on two small datasets) studies if [[BEM]{}]{} can help refine the KG/BG embedding using the BG/KG embedding. It also investigates whether [[BEM]{}]{} can reveals useful information in KG and BG for the classification purpose (Section \[sec:empirical\_analysis\]). - The link prediction [@bordes2013translating] and the triplet classification [@socher2013reasoning] (on two small datasets) investigate whether [[BEM]{}]{} can extract useful information from BG to refine the KG embedding. - The item recommendation task (on the large dataset) studies whether the information in KG can enhance the performance of the BG embedding. For the node classification task, we study the KG/BG and the concatenated embeddings that are refined by [[BEM]{}]{}. In contrast, we only consider the KG embedding for the link prediction task and the triplet classification task since the two tasks are designed for the KG embedding. We only consider the BG embedding for the item recommendation for the same reasoning. We implement[^9] [[BEM]{}]{} as per Algorithm \[algo:BEM-full\] based on tensorflow[^10]. Throughout this section, we use the following default parameter setting: - Functions ${{\mathbf f}}_{\phi}$ and ${{\mathbf h}}_{\psi}$ are implemented as two-layer MLPs with $500$ hidden nodes and the ReLU [@nair2010rectified] activation. - The batch size $n_B$ is $500$, the optimization algorithm is Adam [@kingma2014adam], the learning rate is $0.001$, the number of training steps $T = N/n_B \cdot 20$. - $\lambda_1 = 1.0$, $\lambda_2 = 1.0$. A discussion on the selection of the above parameters is deferred to Appendix \[appendix:algo\_parameters\]. Two Small Datasets ------------------ The two small datasets have the same KG but differ in the BGs. The shared KG is FB15K237, which is reduced from FB15K to remove the reversal relations [@dettmers2018convolutional]. There are $14,541$ entities, $237$ relations, and $272,115$ training triplets, $20,466$ validation triplets, $17,535$ testing triplets. The first dataset uses a pagelink network (denoted as pagelink) that records the linkages between the wikipedia pages of entities in FB15K237. It includes $14,071$ nodes (a subset of the entities in FB15K237) and $1,065,412$ links. The second dataset comes with a short paragraph description (denoted as desc) for each entity in FB15K237. Strictly speaking, the descriptions do not form a BG due to the lack of connection between descriptions. We regard them as an isolated graph to evaluate [[BEM]{}]{} under extreme conditions where BG does not contain any interplay information between nodes. See Appendix \[appendix:data\_detail\] for more details on the two datasets. -- ---------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- [[BEM]{}]{} KG BG concat KG BG concat O 85.59 75.12 89.39 85.59 77.57 89.44 I 85.51 82.56 85.97 86.35 85.44 87.05 P 88.89 86.32 90.29 88.21 86.27 90.01 O 86.06 75.12 89.18 86.06 77.57 89.00 I 83.73 78.86 84.16 86.58 85.10 86.69 P 88.60 85.39 89.90 88.70 85.30 89.73 [[BEM]{}]{} KG BG concat KG BG concat O 85.32 75.62 87.92 85.32 83.42 88.43 I 86.19 81.50 86.41 87.61 85.18 88.07 P 87.68 81.52 87.86 88.05 85.82 88.57 O 85.83 75.62 88.07 85.83 83.42 88.52 I 86.75 81.44 86.85 87.96 84.97 88.07 P 87.34 82.24 88.15 88.36 86.12 88.86 -- ---------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- : The node classification accuracy (%) using the refined BG/KG embeddings by [[BEM]{}]{}. Here KG, BG and concat refer to the KG embedding, BG embedding and the concatenation of the KG and BG embeddings, respectively.[]{data-label="tbl:cate-classification"} We use TransE [@bordes2013translating] and TransD [@ji2015knowledge] from OpenKE[^11] to pre-train KG’s embeddings. Both of them are trained for $500$ epochs with dimension $d_{{{\mathbf w}}} = 50$ and other parameters are taken as default. For the BGs, we use doc2vec [@le2014distributed] and sentence2vec [@pgj2017unsup] to pre-train desc BG embeddings, and node2vec [@grover2016node2vec] and LINE [@tang2015line] to pre-train pagelink BG embeddings respectively. The dimension of the BG embedding is set to be $d_{{{\mathbf z}}} = 100$. More details on the experiment and hyper-parameter setups are included in Appendix \[appendix:func\_detail\]. ### Node classification {#sec:node_classification} In the node classification task, there are $46$ class labels. The embeddings are fed into a multi-label logistic regression model for training and prediction. Table \[tbl:cate-classification\] shows the results of [[BEM]{}]{}, from which we can draw three implications. First, we observe consistent improvements of [[BEM]{}]{}-P over [[BEM]{}]{}-O (the original embedding) through almost all settings (accuracies boosted by $2\%$-$10\%$ for KG and BG). It indicates that we can benefit from integrating information of the two sources. Second, if the classifier is sufficiently expressive, concat-O is expected to perform the best since there is no loss of information from the input. However, concat-P turns out to perform slightly better than concat-O in most cases. It suggests that [[BEM]{}]{}-P not only preserves the information for node classification, but also reveals signals. Third, as we expected, [[BEM]{}]{}-P outperforms [[BEM]{}]{}-I since the former accounts for the pairwise interactions that are crucial for the embedding learning of KG/BG. Finally, we point out that the concatenated embedding and the KG/BG embedding are not comparable. The concatenated embedding is longer than the [[BEM]{}]{}-refined embedding, so the classifier for the former has more parameters, thus more expressive. For a fair comparison, we study the projection of the concatenated embedding onto the BG/KG space, and the associative results are deferred to Appendix \[appendix:results\]. ### Empirical analysis {#sec:empirical_analysis} To understand the property of the embeddings refined by [[BEM]{}]{}-P, we perform two empirical data analyses on the FB15K237-pagelink dataset. First, we compute the absolute cosine similarity for each pair of nodes using KG-O, KG-P, BG-O, BG-P respectively. From Figure \[fig:simi\_raw\_new\], we observe that the KG-P and BG-P are distributed more extremely than KG-O and BG-O — there are more highly correlated and more uncorrelated node pairs for the former. It indicates that [[BEM]{}]{}-P enforces some nodes to group tightly while some others are distracted from each other. This result can also be concluded by the visualization of the embeddings using t-SNE (Figure \[fig:reconstruction\]). Second, we use the class labels for the node classification task to compute $$r=\frac{\max_C \{\text{within-cluster-distance}(C)\}}{\min_{C, C'}\{\text{between-cluster-distance}(C, C')\}},$$ where $C$, $C'$ are two classes, and $$\begin{array}{l} \text{within-cluster-distance}(C) = \frac{1}{\|C\|}\sum_{{{\mathbf x}}\in C} \|\|{{\mathbf x}}- \bar{{{\mathbf x}}}\|\|_2, ~~~~ \bar{{{\mathbf x}}} = \frac{1}{\|C\|} \sum_{{{\mathbf x}}\in C} {{\mathbf x}},\\ \text{between-cluster-distance}(C, C') = \min_{{{\mathbf x}}\in C, {{\mathbf y}}' \in C'} \|\|{{\mathbf x}}- {{\mathbf y}}'\|\|_2. \end{array}$$ This metric reflects the degree to which the topological structure of the embeddings aligns with the labels. We have $r({\mathcal{X}}_{KG-O}) = 0.3042$, $r({\mathcal{X}}_{KG-P}) = 0.2695$, $r({\mathcal{X}}_{BG-O}) = 0.3890$ and $r({\mathcal{X}}_{BG-P}) = 0.3764$, indicating that [[BEM]{}]{}-P enforces nodes in the same classes to get closer to each other while nodes across classes are pulled away. This result suggests that [[BEM]{}]{}-P is able to preserve and further reveal the topological structure for both KG and BG. ### Link Prediction and Triplet Classification on the KG side {#sec:LP_TC} We evaluate [[BEM]{}]{} on the link prediction and the triplet classification tasks. Since [[BEM]{}]{} can only refine the entity embeddings, we retrain the relation embedding for another $500$ epochs using [[BEM]{}]{}-refined KG embeddings and the original relation embeddings as the initial values. In Table \[tbl:LP-TC\], notice that the KG embeddings can also benefit from incorporating the BG information via the [[BEM]{}]{} refining. In contrast, the concat-O embeddings are much inferior. It validates that the concatenation does not fully expose the topological structure of KG while [[BEM]{}]{} can make good use of this information. Moreover, we observe the improvement mainly occurs for the pagelink dataset. For the desc dataset, the TransD embeddings get improved slightly while the TransE embeddings get worse after applying the [[BEM]{}]{} refining. Such observation can be explained as the desc dataset does not provide supplementary interaction information to the KG graph. In addition, we have to admit that the improvements might not be significant, which is sensible as well — a single observation comes along with behavior-specific bias and distracts the abstract knowledge that should be summarized from multiple instances. It implies that there might be an even better improvement if we have BG embeddings from distinct behaviors. -- ---------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -------------- ----------- -------------- node2vec LINE node2vec LINE doc2vec sentence2vec doc2vec sentence2vec KG-O 43.14 43.14 43.86 43.86 43.14 43.14 43.86 43.86 KG-I 42.25 43.00 44.31 44.56 41.86 42.05 42.31 44.58 KG-P 43.66 43.52 44.72 44.67 41.99 42.21 44.26 44.47 concat-O 36.99 37.47 38.32 38.45 40.17 40.07 40.79 37.83 KG-O 76.56 76.56 78.29 78.29 76.56 76.56 78.29 78.29 KG-I 76.70 76.86 78.54 78.80 76.06 76.42 78.63 78.61 KG-P 77.13 77.09 78.96 79.11 76.17 76.21 78.70 78.60 concat-O 71.97 73.23 71.82 70.75 71.41 71.32 72.15 69.91 -- ---------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -------------- ----------- -------------- : Results of Link prediction (LP) and Triplet classification (TC).[]{data-label="tbl:LP-TC"} A Large-Scale Dataset {#sec:experiment_large_dataset} --------------------- \#ent. \#scenario \#category \#rel. \#train -------- ------------ ------------ --------------- ------------------ 17.37M 182K 8.96K 5.18K 60.65M \#item \#value \#user \#edge\_click \#edge\_purchase 9.14M 8.04M 482M 7,952M 144M : Specifications for the large-scale dataset.[]{data-label="tbl:dataset_large"} In this section, we apply [[BEM]{}]{} to the KG/BG embeddings generated from an Alibaba Taobao’s large-scale dataset[^12], whose statistics are summarized in Table \[tbl:dataset\_large\]. Considering the computational efficiency, TransE is used to get the KG embeddings on a knowledge database established by Alibaba Taobao. As with the BG embeddings, we run GraphSAGE on a graph constructed in terms of users’ behaviors, e.g., two items are connected if a certain number of customers bought them simultaneously over the past months. GraphSAGE is a representative work for graph neural network (GNN) and has achieved good performances for large datasets. The dimension of KG embedding and the dimension of the BG embedding are $d_{{{\mathbf w}}} = 64$, $d_{{{\mathbf z}}} = 128$ as the online setting of Alibaba Taobao. We take the recommendation task for evaluation. Specifically, each customer has a set of trigger items from his/her historical behaviors including clicks, purchases, add-to-preferences and add-to-carts. These trigger items are then used to retrieve (by FAISS [@JDH17]) more items based on the BG embeddings. We evaluate our method by counting the number of retrieved items that will be actually bought/clicked by the user in the following days. Table \[tbl:recommendation-result\] exhibits the hit recall rates of the BG-P and BG-O on the recommendation task. We check whether the retrieved items are of the same brand/category as those actually bought/clicked items in the following days. Combining these two granularities, we observe that the hit recall rates for BG-P are boosted by $1\%$-$3\%$ compared to BG-O, which is quite significant considering there are over $9$ million items. It validates that [[BEM]{}]{}-P is able to incorporate useful KG information into the BG embedding for the item recommendation purpose. Finally, for each concept/scenario, we use TransE to predict its top $50$ item categories based on KG-O and KG-P (see the detailed procedure as Section \[sec:LP\_TC\]). The result shows that KG-P can find more related items for the given concepts, as shown in Table \[tbl:retrieval\_examples\]. It indicates that by incorporating the BG information via [[BEM]{}]{}, we can acquire novel knowledge that does not exist in the original KG. -- ---- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- [[BEM]{}]{}-O [[BEM]{}]{}-P [[BEM]{}]{}-O [[BEM]{}]{}-P 10 15.97 16.14 24.87 25.10 30 16.65 17.12 25.70 26.57 50 17.26 17.90 26.39 27.33 10 27.46 27.40 27.85 27.91 30 28.43 29.99 28.50 29.45 50 29.58 32.88 29.26 31.47 -- ---- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- : Hit recall rates (%) for item recommendation based on customer-specific trigger items. The recommended items are retrieved by finding the closest items to the trigger items using KG embeddings by [[BEM]{}]{}-P and [[BEM]{}]{}-O.[]{data-label="tbl:recommendation-result"} [l\|l\|l]{} concept & predicted categories using KG-O & predicted categories using KG-P\ neuter clothing & jacket, homewear & -------------------------------------------- Quick-drying T-shirt, sports down jacket toning pants, aerobics clothes, warm pants -------------------------------------------- : Examples in which [[BEM]{}]{} acquire novel knowledge that does not exist in the KG.[]{data-label="tbl:retrieval_examples"} \ sports training & None & ------------------------------------------------- Quick-drying T-shirt, sports down jacket, Yoga T-shirt, training shoes, aerobics clothes, sports bottle ------------------------------------------------- : Examples in which [[BEM]{}]{} acquire novel knowledge that does not exist in the KG.[]{data-label="tbl:retrieval_examples"} \ household items & --------------------------------------- succulents, detergent, tissue box, kitchen knife, man’s facial cleanser, washing cup, yoga mat towel, health tea, scented candle --------------------------------------- : Examples in which [[BEM]{}]{} acquire novel knowledge that does not exist in the KG.[]{data-label="tbl:retrieval_examples"} & ------------------------------------------------ washing machine cover, spray, table, tape, fish tank cleaning equipment, pen container, digital piano, maker, wood sofa bath bucket, composite bed, mosquito patch, storage rack, storage box, pillow interior, leather sofa, needle, cotton swab, laundry ball, coffee cup, desiccant, trash bag, indoors shoes, ------------------------------------------------ : Examples in which [[BEM]{}]{} acquire novel knowledge that does not exist in the KG.[]{data-label="tbl:retrieval_examples"} \ Discussion {#sec:conclusion} ========== In this paper, we introduce [[BEM]{}]{}, a Bayesian framework that can refine graph embeddings by integrating the information from the KG and BG sources. [[BEM]{}]{} has been evaluated on a variety of experiments. It is shown to be able to improve the embeddings on multiple tasks by leveraging the information from the other side. [[BEM]{}]{} can achieve superior or comparable performance with higher efficiency to the concatenation method (the baseline) for the node classification task, and can help in other tasks where the simple aggregation methods (e.g., concatenation) are not applicable. It is designed by bridging KG and BG via a Bayesian generative model, where the former is regarded as the prior while the latter is the observation. Currently, only one BG is considered at a time in this work. In fact, [[BEM]{}]{} can be easily extended to deal with multiple BGs. The integration of more than one BGs may further refine the KG, as their behavior-specific biases can be mutually canceled out. Besides, for the time being, [[BEM]{}]{} works only for pre-trained KG/BG embeddings. It can be potentially extended so that the networks for the KG/BG embeddings are connected and jointly trained via this framework. In other words, [[BEM]{}]{} can act as an interface that connects any KG embedding method with any BG embedding method for the end-to-end training. This makes the learning of the BG embedding supervised by the KG information. In turn, the learning of the KG embedding can be supplemented with instantiated samples in BG. [Appendix]{} Dataset Details {#appendix:data_detail} =============== The data of our experiments based on public datasets mainly includes FB15K237, pagelink network, descriptions of entities and labels of entities. Their sources are discussed below. Small datasets -------------- The two small datasets share KG but differ in the BGs. Their relations are depicted in Figure \[append\_fig:diagram\_two\_small\_datasets\]. ![Illustration of KG and BG for the two small datasets.[]{data-label="append_fig:diagram_two_small_datasets"}](./diagram_two_small_datasets.pdf){width="60.00000%"} Knowledge Graph We use FB15k-237, a subset of Freebase, as the knowledge graph, which is also used in ConvE [@dettmers2018convolutional]. Different from the popular data set FB15k used in many knowledge graph representation researches, it does not include the inverse relations that may cause leakage from the training set to the validation set. FB15k-237 has 14,541 entities, 237 relations, 272,115 training triples, 20,466 test triples and 17,535 validation triples. Pagelink Network The pagelink network is a directed graph generated by ourselves. Since FB15k is a subset of Freebase, we first map the entities of FB15k to wikidata, that is a knowledge database to provide support for Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons. according to the mapping data on the freebase database [@freebase2wikidata]. Then we use the pagelinks in English wikipedia to build the pagelink network. Since we could not get all the data, entities in the pagelink network are fewer than them in the knowledge graph. The pagelink network has 14,071 vertices and 1,065,412 edges in total. Descriptions of Entities The descriptions used in our experiments are the same as DKRL [@xie2016representation]. It has 14,904 English descriptions of entities. Labels of Entities In wikidata, the property ’instance of’ is an isA relation which represents the class that the entity belongs to. Therefore, we use the property values of ’instance of’ to represent the labels of entities used in the node classification task. At the same time, we also consider the problem of information leakage. In Freebase, the relation ’type/object/type’ represents the type of an entity. To avoid that this relation may leak information to evaluation tasks, we check that the relation ’type/object/type’ is not used in the triples of training set. Large dataset ------------- Knowledge Graph of Alibaba Taobao The knowledge graph of Alibaba Taobao items shows a tree structure. It contains four types of entities: items, categories items belong to, scenes of the categories, and the attribute values of the items. Therefore, there are three types of triples: - $<scene, cateOf, category>$, - $<category, itemOf, item>$, - $<item, property, property value>$. Among the above three types of triplets, the first one is N-N mapping, the second one is 1-N mapping and the third one is N-N mapping. Behavior Graph of Alibaba Taobao The behavior graph of Alibaba Taobao is a bipartite graph that contains both user and item nodes. Interactions between users and items are CLICK or BUY which were sampled from a slicing window of 2 weeks (Dec. 27th, 2018 - Jan. 10th, 2019). The data of the first week was used for training. We used the trained model to recommend items for users with trigger items collected on Jan. 5th, 2019, and checked whether these recommended items were really clicked/bought in the following week. Each user has specific features describing their certain properties, e.g. age, gender, occupation, preference towards some category of items, the recently clicked items, and each item has features like price, category, brand, etc. Edges (interactions) have weights that decay with time. When learning the node embedding of the behavior graph, we use the edges between the user and the item as positive samples and randomly corrupted edges as negative samples. Node features are incorporated alone with edges in the training phase. Further details on functions {#appendix:func_detail} ============================ To get embeddings of different data sets, we use several functions. The details of them are shown below. TransE TransE is a typical knowledge graph representation method [@bordes2013translating]. It treats relations in knowledge graph as translating operators from head entities to tail entities, which is represented as $$\begin{aligned} E(h,r,t)=\|\|\textbf{h}+\textbf{r}-\textbf{t}\|\|_{L1/L2}\end{aligned}$$ In this work, we use the TransE API offered by [@han2018openke] to get embeddings of entities in knowledge graph. node2vec Node2vec is a network representation framework [@grover2016node2vec]. It uses a biased random walk procedure to preserve the neighborhood information of the network in node representation. We believe the neighborhood information in the pagelink network can help characterize an entity, so we use it to generate vertex embeddings of pagelink network. In our experiment, we set the parameters as follows: the length of walk is 80, the number of walks is 10, the context size is 10. LINE LINE is a network representation method [@tang2015line]. It preserves the first-order and second-order proximities in a network. In this work, we use the LINE API offered by OpenKE to get entity embeddings in the pagelink network. In our experiment, we set the negative ratio is 5, and uses both the 1st-order and the 2nd-order proximity of graphs. doc2vec Doc2vec is an unsupervised framework to get embeddings of given sentences or paragraphs [@le2014distributed]. Embeddings of documents are trained to predict the words according to its context in the documents. We use it to get entity embeddings based on entity descriptions. In our experiment, we use PV-DM (Distributed Memory Model of paragraph vectors) to get the embeddings of documents. sentence2vec Sentence2vec is an unsupervised, C-BOW-inspired framework to get embeddings of sentences or paragraphs [@pgj2017unsup]. It has been proven to have a state-of-the-art performance in sentence similarity comparison task. Therefore, we use it to generate entity embeddings based on descriptions for the purpose of reconstruct the graph based on vertex similarity. In our experiment, we set the parameters as follows: the learning rate is 0.2, the update rate of learning rate is 100, the number of epochs is 5, the minimal number of word occurrences is 5, the minimal number of label occurrences is 0, the max length of word gram is 2. GraphSAGE GraphSAGE is an inductive representation learning framework. Unlike transductive graph embedding frameworks that only generate embeddings for seen nodes, GraphSAGE leverages node attribute information to learn node embeddings in a generalized way and thus is capable of generating representations on unseen data. We use GraphSAGE to learn node embeddings on Alibaba Taobao’s Behavior Graph. The selection of parameters for Algorithm \[algo:BEM-full\] {#appendix:algo_parameters} =========================================================== To understand how the tuning parameters influences the performance of [[BEM]{}]{}-P, we apply Algorithm \[algo:BEM-full\] to pre-trained FB15K237 embeddings (KG) obtained by TransE and pre-trained pagelink embeddings obtained by node2vec. Each time we only change one parameter based on the default setup mentioned in Section \[sec:experiments\], i.e., $n_h = 500$, $n_B = 500$, $\text{learning rate} = 0.001$, $T \cdot n_B/N = 20$, $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 1.0$. The associative results of link prediction and triplet classification are displayed in Table \[appendix\_tbl:algo\_parameters\]. We can draw a few conclusions from such results: - $n_h$, $n_B$ and the number of training steps $T$ affect the [[BEM]{}]{}-P marginally. It indicates that [[BEM]{}]{}-P does not require high model complexity for expressiveness and converges quickly. - The learning rate is worth tuning as other gradient-based algorithms. - The most important parameters are $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$. As explained in the last paragraph of Section \[sec:influence\_model\], they balance the reconstruction term and the penalty term in Equation and Equation . Tuning $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ based on a validation set might give significant boost in performance. But if the user wants to skip tuning, $\lambda_1 = 1$ and $\lambda_2 = 1$ can be the good starting point. For the node classification task, we get similar results using the same dataset. ------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- $n_h$ 200 500 800 200 500 800 evaluation result 43.38 43.66 43.41 77.25 77.13 77.19 $n_B$ 100 500 1000 100 500 1000 evaluation result 43.77 43.66 42.63 77.40 77.13 77.28 learning rate 0.0001 0.001 0.005 0.01 0.0001 0.001 0.005 0.01 evaluation result 42.53 43.66 44.95 45.10 76.59 77.13 77.89 77.74 $T \cdot n_B/N$ 10 20 50 100 10 20 50 100 evaluation result 43.77 43.66 44.03 43.83 76.55 77.13 77.39 76.97 $\lambda_1$ 0.01 0.1 1 5 0.01 0.1 1 5 evaluation result 44.91 45.82 43.66 31.90 78.21 79.33 77.13 71.08 $\lambda_2$ 0.01 0.1 1 5 0.01 0.1 1 5 evaluation result 41.59 41.74 43.66 44.35 76.11 76.61 77.13 77.41 ------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- : The results of link prediction and triplet classification for the TransE method on the FB15K237 dataset and the node2vec method on the pagelink dataset, with varying tuning parameters. The default parameters are $n_h = 500$, $n_B = 500$, $\text{learning rate} = 0.001$, $T \cdot n_B/N = 20$, $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 1.0$. Each row in the table only changes one parameter while keeping the others the same as default.[]{data-label="appendix_tbl:algo_parameters"} More results of the node classification task on the FB15K237 dataset with two associative BGs {#appendix:results} ============================================================================================= It is unfair to compare the [[BEM]{}]{}-refined embedding to the concatenated embedding directly, since the latter is longer than the former. In our case, the length of the concatenated embedding is $2$ ($0.5$) times longer than that of the KG (BG) embedding. Thus, the classifier for the concatenation has $2$ ($0.5$) more parameters than that of the KG (BG) embedding. To get a fair comparison, we project the concatenated embedding into ${{\mathbb R}}^{d_{{{\mathbf w}}}}$ (${{\mathbb R}}^{d_{{{\mathbf z}}}}$) using a random Gaussian projection matrix, which can nearly preserve the distances between nodes. Table \[appendix-tbl:cate-classification-pagelink\] and \[appendix-tbl:cate-classification-desc\] illustrate the results of [[BEM]{}]{} with its variations on the node classification results. Four implications can be drawn by looking at the table in different ways. First, we observe consistent improvements of [[BEM]{}]{}-P over [[BEM]{}]{}-O through all settings. The classification accuracies on the BG (KG) embedding are boosted by about $2\%$-$10\%$ with [[BEM]{}]{}-P. As for the concatenation version, the concat-O vector is expected to work better than embeddings by [[BEM]{}]{} if the classifier is expressive enough — there might be loss of information during the procedure of the [[BEM]{}]{} integration. However, it turns out that concat-P outperforms concat-O. It indicates that [[BEM]{}]{}-P does not lose information related to the classification task, and is able to make the embeddings into a better shape for the classification task. Second, for a fair comparison in terms of the dimension, we use Gaussian random projections (repeated for $10$ times) to project the concatenated embedding to ${{\mathbb R}}^{50}$ and ${{\mathbb R}}^{100}$, respectively. KG-P is superior to the projections of concat-O (for both ${{\mathbb R}}^{50}$ and ${{\mathbb R}}^{100}$), and is even comparable to concat-O. From the perspective of dimension reduction, this result suggests that [[BEM]{}]{}-P can preserve the majority of information for KG. On the other hand, considering the goal of preserving the topological structure, [[BEM]{}]{}-P is unlikely to boost the performance of low-quality BG-O to the level of concat-O. Third, we note the projections of concat-P loses marginal power during the dimension reduction, and are more robust than the projections of concat-O. It indicates that the [[BEM]{}]{}-P representation is less noisy than the original embeddings. Finally, as we expect, [[BEM]{}]{}-P outperforms the [[BEM]{}]{}-I where the former accounts for the pairwise interactions. Such key information is crucial for the learning of both the KG and BG embeddings. -- ---------------- ----------- ----------- -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- ----------- [[BEM]{}]{} KG BG concat$\shortrightarrow{{\mathbb R}}^{50}$ concat$\shortrightarrow{{\mathbb R}}^{100}$ concat O 85.59 75.12 82.86 (0.93) 87.58 (0.27) 89.39 I 85.51 82.56 83.96 (0.35) 85.39 (0.16) 85.97 P 88.89 86.32 88.71 (0.20) 89.27 (0.16) 90.29 O 86.06 75.12 82.37 (0.82) 86.24 (0.26) 89.18 I 83.73 78.86 81.67 (0.80) 83.83 (0.28) 84.16 P 88.60 85.39 87.83 (0.26) 88.92 (0.27) 89.90 [[BEM]{}]{} KG BG concat$\shortrightarrow{{\mathbb R}}^{50}$ concat$\shortrightarrow{{\mathbb R}}^{100}$ concat O 85.59 77.57 79.49 (1.14) 86.54 (0.40) 89.44 I 86.35 85.44 85.65 (0.34) 86.63 (0.14) 87.05 P 88.21 86.27 88.21 (0.48) 89.12 (0.15) 90.01 O 86.06 77.57 77.51 (1.16) 85.80 (1.03) 89.00 I 86.58 85.10 85.36 (0.35) 86.40 (0.18) 86.69 P 88.70 85.30 87.95 (0.44) 88.82 (0.15) 89.73 -- ---------------- ----------- ----------- -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- ----------- : The node classification accuracy (%) on the FB15K237-pagelink dataset, using the BG/KG embeddings refined by [[BEM]{}]{}. Here concat$\shortrightarrow{{\mathbb R}}^{50}$/concat$\shortrightarrow{{\mathbb R}}^{100}$ refers to the projection of concat into ${{\mathbb R}}^{50}$/${{\mathbb R}}^{100}$, and concat refers to the concatenated embedding itself. The numbers in the brackets of concat$\shortrightarrow{{\mathbb R}}^{50}$/${{\mathbb R}}^{100}$ are the standard errors across $10$ random projections.[]{data-label="appendix-tbl:cate-classification-pagelink"} -- ---------------- ----------- ----------- -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- ----------- [[BEM]{}]{} KG BG concat$\shortrightarrow{{\mathbb R}}^{50}$ concat$\shortrightarrow{{\mathbb R}}^{100}$ concat O 85.32 75.62 83.87 (0.63) 86.77 (0.23) 87.92 I 86.19 81.50 85.32 (0.48) 86.10 (0.08) 86.41 P 87.68 81.52 86.40 (0.21) 87.78 (0.21) 87.86 O 85.83 75.62 83.19 (0.62) 86.57 (0.35) 88.07 I 86.75 81.44 85.48 (0.73) 86.52 (0.13) 86.85 P 87.34 82.24 86.31 (0.43) 87.57 (0.19) 88.15 [[BEM]{}]{} KG BG concat$\shortrightarrow{{\mathbb R}}^{50}$ concat$\shortrightarrow{{\mathbb R}}^{100}$ concat O 85.32 83.42 86.67 (0.39) 87.58 (0.24) 88.43 I 87.61 85.18 86.95 (0.31) 87.70 (0.14) 88.07 P 88.05 85.82 87.61 (0.16) 88.36 (0.24) 88.57 O 85.83 83.42 85.69 (0.32) 87.83 (0.16) 88.52 I 87.96 84.97 86.89 (0.4) 87.91 (0.24) 88.07 P 88.36 86.12 87.40 (0.20) 89.59 (0.18) 88.86 -- ---------------- ----------- ----------- -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- ----------- : The node classification accuracy (%) on the FB15K237-desc dataset, using the BG/KG embeddings refined by [[BEM]{}]{}. Here concat$\shortrightarrow{{\mathbb R}}^{50}$/concat$\shortrightarrow{{\mathbb R}}^{100}$ refers to the projection of concat into ${{\mathbb R}}^{50}$/${{\mathbb R}}^{100}$, and concat refers to the concatenated embedding itself. The numbers in the brackets of concat$\shortrightarrow{{\mathbb R}}^{50}$/${{\mathbb R}}^{100}$ are the standard errors across $10$ random projections.[]{data-label="appendix-tbl:cate-classification-desc"} [^1]: [email protected] [^2]: [email protected] [^3]: [email protected] [^4]: [email protected] [^5]: [email protected] [^6]: [email protected] [^7]: [email protected] [^8]: The concept of BG covers a wide range of conventional graphs and networks: pagelink networks (the link behavior), author-citation networks (the citation behavior), item-item interaction behavior (the co-click, co-purchase behaviors and etc.), to name a few. [^9]: The code can be found at <https://github.com/Elric2718/Bayes_Embedding>. [^10]: https://www.tensorflow.org/ [^11]: https://github.com/thunlp/OpenKE [@han2018openke] [^12]: The details of the Alibaba Taobao’s dataset are deferred to Appendix \[appendix:data\_detail\].	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| For a graph $F$, a hypergraph ${{\mathcal H}}$ is a Berge copy of $F$ (or a Berge-$F$ in short), if there is a bijection $f : E(F) \rightarrow E(\mathcal{H})$ such that for each $e \in E(F)$ we have $e \subset f(e)$. A hypergraph is Berge-$F$-free if it does not contain a Berge copy of $F$. We denote the maximum number of hyperedges in an $n$-vertex $r$-uniform Berge-$F$-free hypergraph by ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textrm{Berge-}F).$ In this paper we prove two general lemmas concerning the maximum size of a Berge-$F$-free hypergraph and use them to establish new results and improve several old results. In particular, we give bounds on ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}F)$ when $F$ is a path (reproving a result of Győri, Katona and Lemons), a cycle (extending a result of Füredi and Özkahya), a theta graph (improving a result of He and Tait), or a $K_{2,t}$ (extending a result of Gerbner, Methuku and Vizer). We also establish new bounds when $F$ is a clique (which implies extensions of results by Maherani and Shahsiah and by Gyárfás) and when $F$ is a general tree. author: - 'Dániel Gerbner[^1] Abhishek Methuku[^2] Cory Palmer[^3]' date: title: ' General lemmas for Berge-Turán hypergraph problems ' --- Introduction ============ Let $F$ be a graph. We say that a hypergraph $\mathcal{H}$ is a Berge-$F$ if there is a bijection $f : E(F) \rightarrow E(\mathcal{H})$ such that for each $e \in E(F)$ we have $e \subset f(e)$. In other words, $\mathcal{H}$ is a Berge-$F$ if we can embed a distinct graph edge into each hyperedge of $\mathcal{H}$ to create a copy of the graph $F$ on the vertex set of $\mathcal{H}$. Viewed another way, given a graph $F$ we can construct a Berge-$F$ by replacing each edge of $F$ with a hyperedge that contains it. Observe that for a fixed $F$ there are many hypergraphs that are a Berge-$F$. For simplicity, we use the term “Berge-$F$” to refer to this collection of hypergraphs. This definition was introduced by Gerbner and Palmer [@gp1] to generalize the established concepts of “Berge path” and “Berge cycle” to general graphs. For a fixed graph $F$, if a hypergraph $\mathcal{H}$ has no subhypergraph isomorphic to any Berge-$F$ we say that $\mathcal{H}$ is Berge-$F$-free. We denote the maximum number of hyperedges in an $n$-vertex $r$-uniform Berge-$F$-free hypergraph by $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textrm{Berge-}F).$$ In this paper we prove two general lemmas and use them to prove several new results and give new short proofs of previously-known bounds on ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textrm{Berge-}F)$ for various graphs $F$. In most of these cases, these proofs lead to improved theorems. Results of Győri, Katona, and Lemons [@GyKaLe] and Davoodi, Győri, Methuku and Tompkins [@DavoodiGMT] establish an analogue of the Erdős-Gallai theorem for Berge paths. Győri and Lemons [@Gyori_Lemons] proved that the maximum number of hypereges in an $n$-vertex $r$-uniform $\textup{Berge-}C_{2k}$-free hypergraph (for $r \ge 3$) is $O(n^{1+1/k})$. This matches the order of magnitude of the bound found in the graph case (see the even cycle theorem of Bondy and Simonovits [@BS1974]). They also prove the unexpected result that the maximum number of hyperedges in an $n$-vertex $r$-uniform $\textup{Berge-}C_{2k+1}$-free hypergraph (for $r \ge 3$) is also $O(n^{1+1/k})$ which is significantly different from the graph case. Very recently, the problem of avoiding all Berge cycles of length at least $k$ has been investigated in a series of papers [@fkl; @EGMNSTLongBerge; @KostochkaLuo]. For general results on the maximum size of a Berge-$F$-free hypergraph for an arbitrary graph $F$ see Gerbner and Palmer [@gp1] and Grósz, Methuku and Tompkins [@GMTthreshold]. A notion related to Berge-Turán problems is the subgraph-counting problem. Following Alon and Shikhelman [@AlonS], let us denote the maximum number of copies of a graph $H$ in an $n$-vertex $F$-free graph by $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,H,F).$$ For an overview of bounds on ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,H,F)$ see [@AlonS; @gp2]. A simple observation (that will be helpful later) by Gerbner and Palmer [@gp2] connects these two areas, \[Bergecontainment\] For any graph $F$ we have $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,K_r,F)\le {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}F) \le {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,K_r,F)+{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,F).$$ Note that this proposition yields asymptotics for many graphs $F$ as ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,F)$ gives at most a quadratic gap between the upper and lower bounds. Another connection appears in a paper of Palmer, Tait, Timmons and Wagner [@pttw] which follows from the combination of results from Mubayi and Verstraëte [@MuVe] and Alon and Shikhelman [@AlonS]. In particular, when $F$ is a graph with chromatic number $\chi(F) > r$, then $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,K_r,F) \sim {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textrm{Berge-}F) \sim \binom{k-1}{r}\left(\frac{n}{k-1}\right)^r.$$ In the next section we prove two main lemmas that will be used in the later sections to derive new results and improve several existing theorems. In particular, we give bounds on ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}F)$ when $F$ is a path (reproving a result of Győri, Katona and Lemons), a cycle (extending a result of Füredi and Özkahya), a theta graph (improving a result of He and Tait), or a $K_{2,t}$ (extending a result of Gerbner, Methuku and Vizer). We also establish new bounds when $F$ is a clique (which implies extensions of results by Maherani and Shahsiah and by Gyárfás) and when $F$ is a general tree. General lemmas for Berge-F-free hypergraphs =========================================== Throughout this section we will deal with graphs that are $2$-edge-colored with colors red and blue. We will refer to a graph with such an edge-coloring as a [red-blue graph]{}. In a red-blue graph $G$ we denote the graph spanned by the red edges by $G_{\textrm{red}}$ and the graph spanned by the blue edges by $G_{\textrm{blue}}$. Let $\mathcal{N}(H,G)$ denote the number of copies of the graph $H$ in the graph $G$. Finally, for a positive integer $r$ and a red-blue graph $G$, put $$g_r(G)=e(G_{\textrm{red}}) + \mathcal{N}(K_r,G_{\textrm{blue}}).$$ For several graphs $F$, our theorems in following sections imply that the lower bound in Proposition \[Bergecontainment\] is sharp. However, one can easily see that the lower bound is not always sharp. For example, if $r>\|V(F)\|$, an $F$-free graph cannot contain a clique of size $r$, but a Berge-$F$-free hypergraph can contain hyperedges of size $r$. The following lemma improves the upper bound in Proposition \[Bergecontainment\]. Note that an essentially equivalent statement (with different proof) has recently been independently discovered by Füredi, Kostochka and Luo ([@fkl], Lemma 4.3). \[main\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be an $r$-uniform Berge-$F$-free hypergraph. Then we can construct a $F$-free red-blue graph $G$ such that $$\|\mathcal{H}\| \leq g_r(G) = e(G_{\textrm{red}}) + \mathcal{N}(K_r,G_{\textrm{blue}}).$$ Let $\mathcal{H}$ be an $n$-vertex $r$-uniform Berge-$F$-free hypergraph with ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}F)$ hyperedges. Define an auxiliary bipartite graph $X$ with classes $A$ and $B$ as follows. The class $A$ is the set of hyperedges of $\mathcal{H}$ and the class $B$ is the set of all pairs of vertices contained in some hyperedge of $\mathcal{H}$. A vertex $b \in B$ is joined to $a \in A$ if the pair of vertices corresponding to $b$ is contained in the hyperedge corresponding to $a$. A matching in $X$ induces a set of vertices in $B$; these vertices correspond to a set of pairs on the vertex set of $\mathcal{H}$, i.e., they form a graph on the vertex set of $\mathcal{H}$. Let $M$ be a maximum-size matching in $X$ and let $G$ be the graph corresponding to the endpoints of $M$ in $B$. Note that $G$ is $F$-free as each edge of $G$ is associated with a hyperedge in $\mathcal{H}$ that contains it. If $M$ saturates $A$, then $G$ satisfies the statement of the theorem if we color all edges red. Now consider the case when $M$ does not saturate $A$. An [alternating path]{} in $X$ is a path that alternates between edges in $M$ and edges not in $M$ (beginning with an edge of $M$). Let $A_1 \subset A$ and $B_1 \subset B$ be the vertices of $X$ that are not in $M$. As $M$ is maximum, there are no edges between $A_1$ and $B_1$. Let $A_2 \subset A$ be vertices of $M$ in $A$ that are connected by an alternating path to a vertex in $B_1$. Let $B_2 \subset B$ be vertices matched to $A_2$ by $M$. Suppose there is an edge $ab$ where $a \in A \setminus A_2$ and $b \in B_2$. By definition, there is an alternating path from $a$ to a vertex in $A_1$. Adding the edge $ab$ to this alternating path gives an alternating path with both start and end edges not in $M$, i.e., $M$ would not be maximal. Therefore, every edge incident to $B_2$ is incident to $A_2$. Similarly, let $B_3 \subset B$ be vertices of $M$ in $B$ that are connected by an alternating path to a vertex in $A_1$. Let $A_3 \subset A$ be the vertices matched to $B_3$ by $M$. For any edge $ab$ of $M$, if there is an alternating path from $a$ to a vertex in $B_1$, then there is no alternating path from $b$ to a vertex in $A_1$ otherwise $M$ can be increased. Therefore, $A_2$ and $A_3$ are disjoint as are $B_2$ and $B_3$. Finally, let $A_4$ and $B_4$ be the remaining vertices in $A$ and $B$, respectively. Thus $G$ is spanned by the pairs represented by vertices in $B_2 \cup B_3 \cup B_4$. Now color red the edges of $G$ that are represented by vertices of $B_2$ and color blue the edges of $G$ represented by vertices of $B_3 \cup B_4$. The number of hyperedges in $\mathcal{H}$ is $$\|\mathcal{H}\| = \|A_1\|+\|A_2\|+\|A_3\|+\|A_4\| = \|B_2\|+\|A_1\|+\|A_3\|+\|A_4\| = e(G_{\textup{red}}) + \|A_1\|+\|A_3\|+\|A_4\|.$$ The vertices in $A_1 \cup A_3 \cup A_4$ are only adjacent to vertices in $B_3 \cup B_4$. Thus $$\|A_1\|+\|A_3\|+\|A_4\| \leq \mathcal{N}(K_r,G_{\textrm{blue}}).$$ Thus $\|\mathcal{H}\| \leq e(G_{\textrm{red}}) + \mathcal{N}(K_r,G_{\textrm{blue}})$. Observe that Lemma \[main\] implies the following corollary \[blue-redtobergeF\] $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}F) \le \max \{ g_r(G): G \textrm{ is an $n$-vertex $F$-free red-blue graph}\}.$$ Now we prove a general lemma that will be used throughout the later sections. \[genenew\] Let $F$ be a graph and let $F'$ be a graph resulting from the deletion of a vertex from $F$. Let $c = c(n)$ be such that ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n, K_{r-1},F')\le c n$ for every $n$. Then $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}F)\le \max\left\{\frac{2c}{r}, 1 \right\} {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,F).$$ Let $G$ be an $n$-vertex $F$-free red-blue graph. Let $m$ be the number of blue edges in $G$. Thus, the number of red edges in $G$ is at most ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,F)-m$. Now we give an upper bound on the number of $r$-cliques in $G_{\textup{blue}}$. Let $d(v)$ be the degree of $v$ in $G_{\textup{blue}}$. Obviously the neighborhood of every vertex in $G_{\textup{blue}}$ is $F'$-free. An $F'$-free graph on $d(v)$ vertices contains at most $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(d(v),K_{r-1},F')\le cd(v)$$ copies of $K_{r-1}$. Thus $v$ is contained in at most $c d(v)$ copies of $K_r$ in $G_{\textup{blue}}$. If we sum, for each vertex, the number of copies of $K_r$ containing a vertex, then each $K_r$ is counted $r$ times. On the other hand as $\sum_{v\in V(G_{\textup{blue}})} d(v)=2m$, we have $\sum_{v\in V(G_{\textup{blue}})} cd(v)=2cm$. This gives that the number of $r$-cliques in $G_{\textup{blue}}$ is at most $2cm/r.$ Thus we obtain $$g_r(G) \le ({\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,F)-m)+ \frac{2c}{r}m \le \max\left\{1, \frac{2c}{r} \right\} ({\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,F) - m +m) = \max\left\{1, \frac{2c}{r} \right\} {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,F).$$ Now, using Corollary \[blue-redtobergeF\], the proof is complete. Note that Lemma \[genenew\] gives an improvement (with a simpler proof) to a theorem of Gerbner, Methuku and Vizer ([@gmv], Theorem 12) in the case when $c$ is a constant. We will only apply the lemma in this case. Our proof uses a special case of Claim 26 from [@gmv] about the number of $r$-cliques in $F'$-free graphs with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges. Another upper bound on this number is given in [@gmv], which implies a better upper bound on ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}F)$ in case $c$ is not a constant, i.e., in case when $F$ cannot be made acyclic by deleting a vertex. Berge trees =========== Erdős-Sós conjectured [@ErSo] that the extremal number for trees is the same as that of paths, i.e., Let $T$ be a tree on $k+1$ vertices. Then $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,T) \leq \frac{k-1}{2}n.$$ A proof of the conjecture for large trees was announced by Ajtai, Komlós, Simonovits and Szemerédi. The conjecture is known to hold for various classes of trees. In particular, the conjecture holds for paths by the Erdős-Gallai theorem [@Er-Ga] and more generally for spiders by a result of Fan, Hong and Liu [@faholi]. Recall that a spider is a tree with at most one vertex of degree greater than $2$. Győri, Katona and Lemons [@GyKaLe] generalized the Erdős-Gallai theorem to Berge-paths. More precisely, they determined ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}P_k)$ for both the range $k>r+1$ and the range $k \le r$, where $P_k$ denotes a path of length $k$ (i.e., a path on $k+1$ vertices). \[GKL\] If $k>r+1>3$, then $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}P_k) \le \frac{n}{k} \binom{k}{r}.$$ If $r \ge k>2$, then $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}P_k) \le \frac{n(k-1)}{r+1}.$$ For the case $k=r+1$, Győri, Katona and Lemons conjectured that the upper bound should have the same form as the $k>r+1$ case. This was settled by Davoodi, Győri, Methuku and Tompkins [@DavoodiGMT] who showed that if $k = r+1>2$, then $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}P_k) \le \frac{n}{k} \binom{k}{r} = n.$$ We generalize the above theorem to every tree and prove a sharp result under the assumption that Erdős-Sós conjecture holds. \[trees-thm\] Let us suppose that the Erdős-Sós conjecture holds for all trees. Let $T$ be a tree on $k+1$ vertices. If $k > r+1>3$, then $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}T) \leq \frac{n}{k}\binom{k}{r}.$$ Moreover, if $k$ divides $n$, this bound is sharp. If $k \leq r+1$, then $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}T) \leq \frac{k-1}{2}n.$$ Let us fix $k-r$ and proceed by induction on $r$. Put $r=3$ and let us remove a leaf from $T$ to get a tree $T'$ on $k$ vertices. By the Erdős-Sós conjecture we have ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,K_2,T') = {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,T') \leq \frac{k-2}{2}n$. Thus, $c=\frac{k-2}{2}$ in the statement of Lemma \[genenew\]. First let us consider the case $k > r+1$. Then we have $\max\left\{\frac{2c}{r}, 1 \right\} = \max\left\{\frac{k-2}{r}, 1 \right\} = \frac{k-2}{r}$. So Lemma \[genenew\] gives $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_3(n,\textup{Berge-}T) \leq \frac{k-2}{3}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,T) \leq \frac{k-2}{3} \cdot \frac{k-1}{2}n = \frac{n}{k} \binom{k}{3}$$ proving the base case. Now assume that $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_{r-1}(n,\textup{Berge-}T') \leq \frac{n}{k-1}\binom{k-1}{r-1}.$$ By Proposition \[Bergecontainment\] this implies $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,K_{r-1},T') \leq \frac{n}{k-1}\binom{k-1}{r-1}.$$ Similar to the base case this gives $c=\frac{1}{k-1}\binom{k-1}{r-1}$ in the statement of Lemma \[genenew\]. Moreover, we have $$\frac{2c}{r} = \frac{2}{r(k-1)}\binom{k-1}{r-1} = \frac{2}{k(k-1)}\binom{k}{r} = \frac{\binom{k}{r}}{\binom{k}{2}}.$$ Since $k > r+1$, we have $2 \le r \le k-2$, which means $\binom{k}{r} \ge \binom{k}{2}$, so $\max\left\{\frac{2c}{r}, 1 \right\} = \frac{2c}{r}$. So we may apply Lemma \[genenew\] again to get $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}T) \leq \frac{2}{r(k-1)}\binom{k-1}{r-1}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,T) \leq \frac{2}{r(k-1)}\binom{k-1}{r-1} \frac{k-1}{2}n = \frac{n}{k} \binom{k}{r}.$$ When $k$ divides $n$, the result is sharp by considering a hypergraph obtained by partitioning the vertex set into sets of size $k$ and taking all possible subsets of size $r$ in each of these sets. Let us continue with the case $k\le r+1$. The proof is similar to the previous case; we proceed by fixing $k-r$ and by applying induction on $r$. However, now $\max\left\{\frac{2c}{r}, 1 \right\} = 1$. Thus we obtain ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_3(n,\textup{Berge-}T) \leq {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,T) \le \frac{k-1}{2}n$ proving the base case. Similarly in the induction step we get $c = \frac{k-2}{2}$, so $\max\left\{\frac{2c}{r}, 1 \right\} = 1$ again. Thus we obtain ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}T) \leq {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,T) \le \frac{k-1}{2}n$ (by Lemma \[genenew\] and the Erdős-Sós conjecture), finishing the proof. Note that the above proof uses only the fact that the Erdős-Sós conjecture holds for $T$ and its subtrees. In particular, this gives a new proof of Theorem \[GKL\] in the case $k>r+1>3$ and a sharp result for spiders (as Erdős-Sós conjecture holds for paths and spiders). By Proposition \[Bergecontainment\] we have ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,K_r,T) \leq {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,\textup{Berge-}T)$ so Theorem \[trees-thm\] gives the following corollary for the subgraph-counting problem. Let us suppose that the Erdős-Sós conjecture holds for all trees. Let $T$ be a tree on $k+1$ vertices. If $k>r+1$, then $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,K_r,T) = (1+o(1))\frac{n}{k} \binom{k}{r}.$$ When $k > r+1$, then Theorem \[trees-thm\] gives a sharp bound. When $k \le r$ we give the following result without assuming that the Erdős-Sós conjecture is true. Our proof of the theorem below is inspired by some ideas in [@EGMNSTLongBerge]. \[delt\] Let $T$ be a tree on $k+1$ vertices with maximum degree $\Delta(T)$. If $k \le r$, then we have ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}T) \leq (\Delta(T)-1)n$. We proceed by induction on $n$. The base case $n \le r+1$ is easy to check. Suppose the statement of the theorem is true for all values less than $n$ and let us show it is true for $n$. Let $\mathcal H$ be a $\textup{Berge-}T$-free hypergraph on $n$ vertices. We may assume that: $$\label{eq:Multifoldhalls} \text{Any set $S \subseteq V(\mathcal H)$ is incident to at least $(\Delta(T)-1)\|S\|$ hyperedges of $\mathcal H$.}$$ Indeed, otherwise we may delete the vertices of $S$ (and the hyperedges incident to them) from $\mathcal H$ to obtain a new hypergraph $\mathcal H'$ with $n-\|S\|$ vertices. Note that we deleted less than $(\Delta(T)-1)\|S\|$ hyperedges. By the induction hypothesis, $\mathcal H'$ has at most $(\Delta(T)-1)(n-\|S\|)$ hyperedges. This implies that $\mathcal H$ has less than $(\Delta(T)-1)\|S\| + (\Delta(T)-1)(n-\|S\|) \le (\Delta(T)-1) n$ hyperedges, and we are done. Now consider an auxiliary bipartite graph $A$ with parts $A_1$ and $A_2$, where $A_1 = V(\mathcal H)$ and $A_2 = E(\mathcal H)$ and $v \in A_1$ is adjacent to $e \in A_2$ in $A$ if the hyperedge $e$ is incident to the vertex $v$ in $\mathcal H$. We will use the following claim. For a vertex $a \in A_1$, let $N(a) \subseteq A_2$ denote the set of vertices adjacent to $a$ in $A$, and for a set $S \subseteq A_1$, let $N(S) = \cup_{a \in S} N(a)$. \[private\_hyperedges\] For every vertex $a \in A_1$, there exists a set of $\Delta(T)-1$ vertices $S_a \subseteq N(a)$, such that if $a \not = a'$ then $S_a \cap S_{a'} = \emptyset$. Note that implies $\|N(S)\| \geq (\Delta(T)-1)\|S\|$ for any set $S \subseteq A_1$. Let us replace each vertex $a \in A_1$ with $\Delta(T)-1$ new vertices $a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_{\Delta(T)-1}$ so that each $a_i$ has the same neighborhood as $a$. Let $A'$ be the resulting bipartite graph with parts $A'_1$ and $A_2$ (note $\|A'_1\| = (\Delta(T)-1)\|A_1\|$). Then it is easy to see that for each $S \subseteq A'_1$, $\|N(S)\| \ge \|S\|$, so Hall’s condition holds. Thus we can find a perfect matching $M$ in $A'$ that matches all of the vertices in $A'_1$. Now consider an arbitrary vertex $a \in A_1$ of $A$. The corresponding vertices in $A'$ are $a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_{\Delta(T)-1}$, and let $a_i b_i \in M$ ($1 \le i \le\Delta(T)-1$) be the edges of $A'$ that match these vertices. Let $S_a = \{b_1, b_2, \ldots, b_{\Delta(T)-1}\}$. Then it is easy to see that if $a \not = a'$ then $S_a \cap S_{a'} = \emptyset$, proving the claim. Claim \[private\_hyperedges\] shows that we can assign a set $S_v$ of $\Delta(T)-1$ “private" hyperedges to each vertex $v \in V(\mathcal H)$ such that for any two distinct vertices $v, v'$, the sets $S_v$ and $S_{v'}$ are disjoint. Since any tree contains a leaf vertex, we can order the vertices of $T$ as $v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_{k+1}$ such that $v_1$ is a leaf and every $v_i$ ($i\ge 2$) is adjacent to exactly one of the vertices $v_1,v_2, \ldots, v_{i-1}$, say $v_{i'}$. This vertex $v_{i'}$ will be called backward neighbor of $v_i$. Let $v_1$ be represented by an arbitrary vertex $u_1$ of $\mathcal H$, and consider a hyperedge $h \in S_{u_1}$ (note that $h$ is a hyperedge of $\mathcal H$ containing $u_1$). Let $v_2$ be represented by a vertex $u_2 \in h$ different from $u_1$. Let the subtree of $T$ spanned by $v_1, \ldots, v_{i-1}$ be denoted by $T_{i-1}$. Now suppose we have already found a Berge copy of $T_{i-1}$ in $\mathcal H$ (for some $i \ge 3$), where the vertex $v_l$ of $T_{i-1}$ is represented by the vertex $u_l \in V(\mathcal H)$ in this Berge copy (for each $1 \le l \le i-1$). Moreover, suppose the Berge copy has the additional property that for each $j$ with $1 \le j \le i-1$, if $v_{j'}$ is the backward neighbor of $v_j$, then the edge $v_{j'}v_j$ is represented by a hyperedge in $S_{u_{j'}}$. We now wish to find a vertex $u_i$ in $\mathcal H$ to represent $v_i$ and obtain a Berge copy of the subtree $T_i$ spanned by $v_1, \ldots ,v_i$ such that if $v_{i'}$ is the backward neighbor of $v_i$ then the edge $v_{i'}v_i$ is represented by a hyperedge in $S_{u_{i'}}$. To this end, let $v_{i''}$ be the backward neighbor of $v_{i'}$. Note that $v_{i'}$ has at most $\Delta(T)-1$ neighbors among the vertices of $T_{i-1}$ (recall that $v_{i'}v_i$ is an edge of $T$). Since the hyperedges in $S_{u_{i'}}$ were only used to represent edges incident to $v_{i'}$ in $T$, and we assumed the edge $v_{i''}v_{i'}$ was represented by a hyperedge in $S_{u_{i''}}$, we obtain that at most $\Delta(T)-2$ hyperedges of $S_{u_{i'}}$ have been used to represent the edges of $T_{i-1}$. Hence (as $\|S_{u_{i'}}\| = \Delta(T)-1$) at least one hyperedge, say $h$, of $S_{u_{i'}}$ has not been used to represent any of the edges of $T_{i-1}$, so we can use it to represent the edge $v_{i'}v_i$ provided $h$ contains a vertex $u_i$ not in $T_{i-1}$ (which can be used to represent $v_i$) – this is the case if $\|h\| > \|V(T_{i-1})\|$; this inequality holds whenever $r > k$ because $\|h\| = r$ and $\|V(T_{i-1})\| \le k$. It only remains to deal with the case $r = k$; in this case the inequality $\|h\| > \|V(T_{i-1})\|$ does not hold only when $\|V(T_{i-1})\| \ge k$, so when $i = k+1$ (i.e., when we want to embed the last vertex $v_{k+1}$ of the tree). Let $v_{i}$ be the backward neighbor of $v_{k+1}$. Then, as we argued before, we can find a hyperedge $h$ in $S_{v_i}$ that has not been used to represent any edges of $T_k$. This hyperedge $h$ cannot contain any vertex $u_{k+1} \not \in V(T_k)$, because otherwise we can use $u_{k+1}$ to represent $v_{k+1}$ and we have found a Berge-$T$ in $\mathcal H$, a contradiction. So $h = V(T_k)$. Now consider the backward neighbor $v_{i'}$ of $v_i$; then we know the edge $v_{i'}v_i$ was represented by a hyperedge $h' \in S_{u_{i'}}$. Note that $h \not = h'$ since $S_{v_{i'}} \cap S_{v_{i}} = \emptyset$. So $h'$ must contain a vertex $u \not \in V(T_k)$. Moreover both $h$ and $h'$ contain the edge $v_{i'}v_i$, so we redefine the edge $v_{i'}v_i$ to be represented by $h$ and we use $h'$ to represent the edge $v_iv_{k+1}$, where the vertex $u \in V(\mathcal H)$ represents the vertex $v_{k+1}$. This gives us the desired Berge copy of $T$ in $\mathcal H$; a contradiction. Now we prove and upper bound on ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}T)$ for every uniformity $r$ and every tree $T$ without the need for Erdős-Sós conjecture. \[without\_using\_ErdosSos\] Let $T$ be a tree on $k+1$ vertices. If $k>r$, then $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}T) \leq \frac{2(r-1)}{k}\binom{k}{r}n.$$ If $k\le r$, then $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}T)\le (k-1)n.$$ Let us remove a leaf from $T$ to get a tree $T'$ on $k$ vertices. We will show that ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,K_{r-1},T')\le \binom{k-2}{r-2}n$ by induction on $n$. Assume the statement is true for $n-1$ and prove it for $n$. Let $G$ be a $T'$-free graph on $n$ vertices. First we claim that there is a vertex $v$ of degree at most $k-2$. Indeed, otherwise we can embed $T'$ greedily into $G$. Thus the number of copies of $K_{r-1}$ containing $v$ is at most $\binom{k-2}{r-2}$. We delete $v$ (and the edges containing it) to obtain a graph $G'$ on $n-1$ vertices. By induction, $G'$ contains at most $\binom{k-2}{r-2} (n-1)$ copies of $K_{r-1}$. Thus the number of copies of $K_{r-1}$ in $G$ is at most $\binom{k-2}{r-2} (n-1) + \binom{k-2}{r-2} = \binom{k-2}{r-2} n$, as desired. So we can choose $c = \binom{k-2}{r-2}$ in Lemma \[genenew\] to obtain that $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}T) \leq \max\left\{\frac{2}{r} \binom{k-2}{r-2}, 1 \right\} {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,T).$$ Suppose $k > r$. Then $\binom{k-2}{r-2}\ge r-1$, which implies $\frac{2}{r} \binom{k-2}{r-2} \ge \frac{2}{r} (r-1) \ge 1$, where the last inequality holds because $r \ge 2$. Therefore, $\max\left\{\frac{2}{r} \binom{k-2}{r-2}, 1 \right\} {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,T) = \frac{2}{r} \binom{k-2}{r-2} {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,T)$. It is well known (and easy to see) that ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,T) \le (k-1)n$. Thus, $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}T) \leq \frac{2}{r} \binom{k-2}{r-2} (k-1)n = \frac{2(r-1)}{k}\binom{k}{r}n.$$ On the other hand, if $k \le r$, then $\max\left\{\frac{2}{r} \binom{k-2}{r-2}, 1 \right\} = 1$. So by Lemma \[genenew\], we have ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}T) \le {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,T) \le (k-1)n$. Let us finish this section by considering stars. Let $S_k$ denote the star with $k$ edges. If $k > r+1$, then $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}S_k)\le \frac{n}{k}\binom{k}{r}.$$ Moreover, this bound is sharp whenever $k$ divides $n$. If $k\le r+1$, then $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}S_k)\le \left \lfloor \frac{n(k-1)}{r} \right \rfloor.$$ Moreover, this bound is sharp whenever $n$ is large enough. First let us consider the case $k > r+1$. As it is known that Erdős-Sós conjecture holds for stars, Theorem \[trees-thm\] gives the desired (sharp) bound. Now consider the case when $k\le r+1$. Every vertex in a Berge-$S_k$-free graph has degree at most $k-1$. Indeed, assume $v$ is contained in the hyperedges $e_1,\dots, e_k$. Let us consider the auxiliary bipartite graph where part $A$ consists of the $(r-1)$-sets $e_1\setminus \{v\},\dots, e_k\setminus \{v\}$, and part $B$ consists of the vertices contained in these sets. We connect a vertex in $A$ to the vertices in $B$ that are contained in the corresponding $(r-1)$-set. It is easy to see that a matching covering $A$ would give us a Berge-$S_k$. If there is no such matching, then by Hall’s condition there is a subset $A'$ of $A$ with $\|A'\|>\|N(A')\|$, where $N(A')$ denotes the set of neighbors of $A'$ in $B$. As every vertex in $A$ is connected to $r-1$ vertices, we have $\|A'\|>\|N(A')\|\ge r-1 \ge 1$. As two different $(r-1)$-sets together contain at least $r$ vertices, we obtain $\|A'\|>\|N(A')\|\ge r$, thus $\|A'\| \ge r+1 \ge k$, so $\|A'\| = r+1 = k$. However, $r+1$ different $(r-1)$-sets together contain at least $r+1$ vertices, a contradiction. This gives the upper bound ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}S_k)\le \lfloor n(k-1)/r\rfloor$. It is easy to see that for large enough $n$, there exist $r$-uniform hypergraphs on $n$ vertices such that less than $r$ vertices have degree $k-2$ and the remaining vertices have degree $k-1$. This gives the desired lower bound. Berge-K2t ========= Gerbner, Methuku and Vizer [@gmv] showed that if $t \geq 7$, then $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_3(n,\textup{Berge-}K_{2,t})=(1+o(1))\frac{1}{6}(t-1)^{3/2}n^{3/2}.$$ They also gave bounds for higher uniformities. Using Lemma \[genenew\], we show that the same result holds for $t = 4,5,6$ as well, and also improve their bounds for higher uniformities as follows. If $t \geq r+1$, then $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}K_{2,t})\le(1+o(1)) \frac{\sqrt{(t-1)}\binom{t}{r-1}}{r t} n^{3/2}.$$ If $t\le r$, then $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}K_{2,t})\le (1+o(1)) \frac{\sqrt{t-1}}{2} n^{3/2}.$$ In particular, if $r=3$ and $t\ge 4$, then $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_3(n,\textup{Berge-}K_{2,t})=(1+o(1))\frac{1}{6}(t-1)^{3/2}n^{3/2}.$$ We apply Lemma \[genenew\] with $F = K_{2,t}$, and $F' = K_{1,t}$. In a $K_{1,t}$-free graph, since the degree of any vertex is at most $t-1$, there are at most $\binom{t-1}{r-2}$ cliques of size $r-1$ containing any vertex. Therefore, we get the following. $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n, K_{r-1}, K_{1,t}) \le \frac{n}{r-1}\binom{t-1}{r-2}= \frac{n}{t} \binom{t}{r-1}.$$ Thus $c = \frac{1}{t}\binom{t}{r-1}$ in Lemma \[genenew\]. We have $\max\{2c/r,1\}=2c/r$ if and only if $t\ge r+1$. Thus Lemma \[genenew\] gives $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}K_{2,t})\le \frac{2c}{r}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,K_{2,t}) = \frac{2}{r t} \binom{t}{r-1}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,K_{2,t})$$ when $t \geq r+1$, and ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}K_{2,t})\le {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,K_{2,t})$ if $t\le r$. Now using a result of Füredi [@F1996] which states ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,K_{2,t}) \le (1+o(1)) \frac{\sqrt{t-1}}{2} n^{3/2} $, the proof is complete. Berge-C2k ========= Gerbner, Methuku and Vizer [@gmv] improved earlier bounds due to Füredi and Özkahya [@FO2017] by showing that if $k \ge 5$, then $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_3(n,\textup{Berge-}C_{2k})\le \frac{2k-3}{3} {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,C_{2k}).$$ Now using Lemma \[genenew\], we show that the same statement holds for $k\ge 3$, that is, it holds for $C_6$ and $C_8$ as well. \[2kcycle\] If $k\ge 3$, then $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_3(n,\textup{Berge-}C_{2k})\le \frac{2k-3}{3} {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,C_{2k}).$$ We apply Lemma \[genenew\] with $F = C_{2k}$, and $F' = P_{2k-2}$ (a path of length $2k-2$). The Erdős-Gallai theorem implies that ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n, K_2, P_{2k-2}) \le \frac{2k-3}{2}n$. Then $c = \frac{2k-3}{2}$ in the statement of Lemma \[genenew\]. Moreover, $2c/3 \ge 1$ whenever $k \ge 3$. Thus Lemma \[genenew\] gives that $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_3(n,\textup{Berge-}C_{2k})\le \frac{2c}{3} {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,C_{2k}) = \frac{(2k-3)}{3} {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,C_{2k})$$ whenever $k \geq 3.$ Note that for larger $r$, Jiang and Ma [@JM2016] proved ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}C_{2k}) \le O_r(k^{r-2}) {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,C_{2k}).$ In [@gmv] Gerbner, Methuku and Vizer gave a different proof of this result with an improved constant factor. With a similar calculation to that in the proof of Theorem \[2kcycle\], we can again reprove this result with an improved constant factor using Lemma \[genenew\] but for a larger range of $k$. Berge theta graphs ================== A theta graph $\Theta_{k,t}$ is the graph of $t$ internally-disjoint paths of length $k$ between a fixed pair of vertices. When $t=2$ the theta graph $\Theta_{k,2}$ is exactly the even cycle $C_{2k}$. An upper-bound of $C_{k,t} n^{1+1/k}$ (for some constant $C_{k,t}$ depending only on $k$ and $t$) on the extremal number of $\Theta_{k,t}$ is given by Faudree and Simonovits [@FS]. A lower bound is given by Conlon [@Conlon]. Recently, He and Tait [@HT] generalized the upper bound to the Berge setting. \[hetait\] $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}\Theta_{k,t}) \le M_{k,t,r,2} \cdot {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,\Theta_{k,t}) = O(n^{1+1/k}).$$ where $M_{k,i,r,m} = \sum_{j=1}^{k+1} \binom{mk(i-1)+jm-m}{r-m} + k + 1$. They also showed that for fixed $r$ and any $k \ge 2$, there exists $t$ such that the above upper bound is sharp in the order of magnitude. Now we improve the constant factor in Theorem \[hetait\]. \[improvedtheta\] $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(\textup{Berge-}\Theta_{k,t}) \leq \begin{cases} \frac{2}{r(r-1)} \binom{(k-1)t-1}{r-2} {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,\Theta_{k,t}) & \textup{if } (k-1)t > r \\[1em] \frac{(k-1)t-1}{(k-1)t}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,\Theta_{k,t}) & \textup{if } (k-1)t = r \\[1em] \frac{2(t-1)}{r}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,\Theta_{k,t}) & \textup{if } (k-1)t < r \end{cases}$$ First suppose $(k-1)t > r$. Observe that we can remove a vertex from a theta graph $\Theta_{k,t}$ to get a spider $T$ on $(k-1)t+1$ vertices. Since the Erdős-Sós conjecture is known to hold for spiders, Theorem \[trees-thm\] combined with Lemma \[genenew\] implies that ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,K_{r-1},T) \le \frac{1}{(k-1)t} \binom{(k-1)t}{r-1}n$. Therefore, by Lemma \[genenew\] we have $$\begin{aligned} {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}\Theta_{k,t}) & \le \frac{2}{r(k-1)t} \binom{(k-1)t}{r-1}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,\Theta_{k,t}) = \frac{2}{r(r-1)} \binom{(k-1)t-1}{r-2}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,\Theta_{k,t}).\end{aligned}$$ Suppose now $(k-1)t = r$. Similarly combining Theorem \[trees-thm\] with Lemma \[genenew\], we obtain ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}\Theta_{k,t})\le \frac{(k-1)t-1}{(k-1)t}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,\Theta_{k,t})$. Finally suppose $(k-1)t < r$. Then combining Theorem \[delt\] with Lemma \[genenew\], we obtain ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}\Theta_{k,t})\le \frac{2(t-1)}{r}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,\Theta_{k,t})$. Note that an upper bound of $O(n^{1+1/k})$ in Theorem \[hetait\] also follows from a result of Gerbner, Methuku and Vizer [@gmv] which states that if $F$ contains a vertex such that deleting it makes $F$ acyclic, then ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}F)=O({\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,F))$. Now we will reprove this result from [@gmv] using Lemma \[genenew\] to give an improved constant factor. Let $F$ be a graph on $k$ vertices and $v$ be one of its vertices such that deleting $v$ from $F$ we obtain a forest $F'$. $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}F) \leq \begin{cases} \frac{4(r-2)}{(r-1)r}\binom{k-3}{r-2}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,F) & \textup{if } k>r+1 \\[1em] \frac{2(k-3)}{r}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,F) & \textup{if } \frac{r}{2}+3<k\le r+1 \\[1em] {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,F) & \textup{if } k\le \frac{r}{2}+3 \end{cases}$$ If $k>r+1$, then Proposition \[without\_using\_ErdosSos\] implies that ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,K_{r-1},F')\le{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_{r-1}(n,\textup{Berge-}F')\le \frac{2(r-2)}{k-2}\binom{k-2}{r-1}n$. Thus if $k>r+1$, we use Lemma \[genenew\] with $c = \frac{2(r-2)}{k-2}\binom{k-2}{r-1}$. If $k>r+1$, then it is easy to see that $\max\{\frac{2c}{r},1\}=\frac{2c}{r} = \frac{4(r-2)}{(k-2)r}\binom{k-2}{r-1} = \frac{4(r-2)}{(r-1)r}\binom{k-3}{r-2}$, so Lemma \[genenew\] gives the desired bound. If $k\le r+1$, then Proposition \[without\_using\_ErdosSos\] implies that ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,K_{r-1},F')\le{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_{r-1}(n,\textup{Berge-}F')\le (k-3)n$, thus we can use Lemma \[genenew\] with $c = k-3$. If $\frac{r}{2}+3<k\le r+1$, then $\max\{\frac{2c}{r},1\}=\frac{2c}{r}$, while if $k\le \frac{r}{2}+3$, then $\max\{\frac{2c}{r},1\}=1$. In both cases Lemma \[genenew\] gives the desired bound. Berge-Kr ======== In this section, for brevity, we use the term [$r$-graph]{} to refer to an $r$-uniform hypergraph. Let $T_r(n,k)$ be the complete $k$-partite $n$-vertex $r$-graph where all the parts have size $\lfloor n/k\rfloor$ or $\lceil n/k \rceil$. Erdős [@erd] showed that the Turán graph $T_2(n,k-1)$ maximizes not only the number of edges among $n$-vertex $K_k$-free graphs, but also the number of $K_r$’s for any $r<k$. \[erd\] For any $k, r$ and $n$, $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,K_r,K_k)=\mathcal{N}(T_2(n,k-1),K_r).$$ Observe that if $2<r<k$, then ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,K_r,K_k)$ is at least cubic, so Proposition \[Bergecontainment\] gives asymptotically tight bounds on ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n,\textup{Berge-}K_k)$. In this paper we are interested in exact results for every $n$. For $r < k$, let us define the threshold $n_0=n_0(k,r)$ to be the smallest possible integer such that $T_r(n,k-1)$ is the largest Berge-$K_k$-free $r$-graph for every $n\ge n_0$. We will see that $n_0$ exists. The expansion $F^{+r}$ of a graph $F$ is an $r$-uniform hypergraph obtained by adding $r-2$ distinct new vertices to each edge of $F$. Pikhurko [@pik], improving an asymptotic result of Mubayi [@mub], showed that for $r<k$ there is $n_1=n_1(k,r)$ such that the largest $K_k^{+r}$-free hypergraph is $T_r(n,k-1)$ for $n\ge n_1$. Observe that the expansion of $F$ is one specific Berge copy of $F$. Thus Pikhurko’s result shows $T_r(n,k-1)$ is the largest Berge-$K_k$-free $r$-graph if $n\ge n_1$ provided $r<k$, so $n_0$ exists and is at most $n_1$. However, the value of $n_1$ which follows from Pikhurko’s proof is quite large. Our goal is to give better bounds on the threshold $n_0(k,r)$. In this direction, research has been carried out for $3$-graphs: Maherani and Shahsiah [@masha] showed that for $k\ge 13$, we have $n_0(k,3)=0$, i.e., for every $n$, $T_3(n,k-1)$ contains the largest number of hyperedges among all Berge-$K_k$-free $3$-graphs, provided $k\ge 13$. Gyárfás [@gyarfas] proved that $n_0(4,3)=6$. The situation is different if $n < n_0(4,3) = 6$. In this case Gyárfás showed ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_3(5,\textup{Berge-}K_4)=5$; moreover, any $3$-uniform hypergraph on $5$ vertices with $5$ hyperedges shows that this bound is sharp (because we need at least $6$ hyperedges to form a $\textup{Berge-}K_4$). For $n \le 4$, trivially ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_3(n, \textup{Berge-}K_4) = \binom{n}{3}$ because a complete $3$-graph on at most $4$ vertices is $\textup{Berge-}K_4$-free. Our theorem below implies most of the results for $3$-graphs mentioned above and provides new bounds for all uniformities $r$. \[compl\] For any $n$, $k$ and $r$, we have $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n, \textup{Berge-}K_k) \le \max\{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n, K_k), {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n, K_r, K_k)\}.$$ Our proof is based on a careful adaptation of Zykov’s symmetrization method (see [@zyk]) to red-blue graphs. We will show that if $G$ is an $n$-vertex $K_k$-free graph $G$, then $g_r(G)$ is maximized when $G$ is the Turán graph $T_2(n,k-1)$ with all edges of the same color. This implies $g_r(G)$ is at most $\max\{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n, K_k), {\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n, K_r, K_k)\},$ so applying Lemma \[main\] completes the proof. Let ${{\mathcal G}}$ be the family of $n$-vertex $K_k$-free red-blue graphs that maximize $g_r$. Let $v_1,v_2,\dots, v_n$ be the vertex set of each of these graphs. Then let ${{\mathcal G}}'$ be the subfamily of red-blue graphs in ${{\mathcal G}}$ with the maximum number of edges. Let ${{\mathcal G}}''$ be the subfamily of graphs in ${{\mathcal G}}'$ with the maximum number of red edges. Let $d_{\textup{red}}(v)$ denote the number of red edges incident to a vertex $v$. Let ${{\mathcal G}}_1$ be the subfamily of red-blue graphs in ${{\mathcal G}}''$ which maximize $d_{\textup{red}}(v_1)$. We recursively define further subfamilies. For $2\le i\le n$, let ${{\mathcal G}}_i$ be the subfamily of red-blue graphs in ${{\mathcal G}}_{i-1}$ which maximize $d_{\textup{red}}(v_{i})$. \[symm\] Any red-blue graph $G\in {{\mathcal G}}_n$ is a complete multipartite graph such that for any pair of classes $A,B$ all edges between $A$ and $B$ are of the same color. Let $G$ be an arbitrary red-blue graph in ${{\mathcal G}}_n$. For two non-adjacent vertices $u$ and $v$ of $G$ let us create a new graph $G'$ by deleting all edges incident to $u$ and adding new edges that join $u$ to the neighbors of $v$. Moreover, we color each new edge $uw$ with the same color as the edge $vw$. We call this procedure [symmetrization]{} and say that we symmetrize $u$ to $v$. We claim that $G'$ is $K_k$-free. Indeed, a copy of $K_k$ in $G'$ must contain a new edge and therefore must contain the vertex $u$. As $u$ and $v$ are non-adjacent, the $K_k$ does not include $v$. However, since $u$ and $v$ have the same neighborhood in $G'$ this means that there is a copy of $K_k$ containing $v$ in $G$; a contradiction. This implies that $G$ remains $K_k$-free under symmetrization. For a vertex $v$, let $d^(v)$ denote the number of red edges incident to $v$ plus the number of blue $r$-cliques of $G$ containing $v$. When we symmetrize $u$ to $v$, the number of red edges plus the number of blue $r$-cliques decreases by $d^(u)$ and then increases by $d^(v)$. Since $G\in {{\mathcal G}}$, we have that the value of $g_r(G)$ is maximal. Thus, $d^(u)\ge d^(v)$. As we could also symmetrize $v$ to $u$, we must have $d^(u)=d^(v)$. Similarly, as $G\in {{\mathcal G}}'$ we must have that $d(u)=d(v)$ as otherwise we can symmetrize $u$ to $v$ (or $v$ to $u$) to get a graph with more edges. This would imply that $G \not \in {{\mathcal G}}'$; a contradiction. A similar argument combined with the fact that $G \in {{\mathcal G}}''$ implies that $d_{\textup{red}}(u)=d_{\textup{red}}(v)$ . Now we show that $G$ is a complete multipartite graph. Assume not, then it is easy to see that we have three vertices $x,y,z$ such that $y$ and $z$ are adjacent, but $x$ is adjacent to neither $y$ nor $z$. By the previous paragraph, we have $d^(y)=d^(x)=d^(z)$ and $d(y)=d(x)=d(z)$. Now we symmetrize $y$ to $x$ to obtain $G'$ and then $z$ to $x$ to obtain $G''$. Note that in the first symmetrization step $g_r$ and $d^(y)$ do not change, while $d^(z)$ does not increase (it might decrease if the edge $yz$ is red or contained in a blue $K_r$). This implies $g_r(G)=g_r(G')\le g_r(G'')$, which gives $g_r(G)=g_r(G')= g_r(G'')$ as $G\in {{\mathcal G}}$. Similarly, in the first symmetrization step the total number of edges and $d(y)$ does not change, but this time $d(z)$ decreases by one. Thus in the second symmetrization step the total number of edges increases, a contradiction to the assumption that $G$ is in $\mathcal G'$. Thus we obtained that $G$ is a complete multipartite graph, so any two non-adjacent vertices $u$ and $v$ have the same neighborhood. Let us define $$X(u,v)=\{x\in V: ux \text{ and $vx$ are of different colors}\}.$$ Assume $X(u,v)$ is non-empty and let $i$ be the smallest index with $v_i\in X(u,v)$. Without loss of generality $v_i$ is connected to $u$ by a red edge. Then we symmetrize $v$ to $u$. By the above observations, $g_r$, the total number of edges and the total number of red edges does not change. Also $d_{\textup{red}}(u)$ and $d_{\textup{red}}(v)$ do not change, and $d_{\textup{red}}(x)$ does not change for every $x\not\in X(u,v)$. In particular, $d_{\textup{red}}(v_j)$ does not change for $j<i$, showing $G'\in {{\mathcal G}}_{i-1}$. But $d_{\textup{red}}(v_i)$ increases, contradicting our choice of $G$. This finishes the proof of the claim. Indeed, assume $xy$ is red and $x'y'$ is blue such that $x$ and $x'$ are in the same class and $y$ and $y'$ are together in a different class. If the edge $xy'$ is blue, then $X(x,x')$ is non-empty, while if $xy'$ is red, then $X(y,y')$ is non-empty. Observe that if $u$ and $v$ are in the same part $A$ of a graph $G\in {{\mathcal G}}_n$, then $d^(u)=d^(v)$. Let this value be denoted by $d^(A)$. Similarly we have $d_{\textup{red}}(u) = d_{\textup{red}}(v)$, so denote this value by $d_{\textup{red}}(A)$. Note that a red-blue graph has an underlying* uncolored graph with the same vertex and edge set. Let $G_0$ be an arbitrary red-blue graph in ${{\mathcal G}}_n$. Note that $G_0$ is a complete multipartite graph with classes $A_1,\dots,A_j$ (note that $j \le k-1$ as $G_0$ is $K_k$-free). There may be several red-blue graphs in ${{\mathcal G}}''$ with the same underlying graph $G_0$; let ${{\mathcal H}}$ denote the family of such red-blue graphs. By Claim \[symm\] for any red-blue graph in ${{\mathcal H}}$ all edges between a pair of classes have the same color. Let ${{\mathcal H}}_1$ denote the subfamily of those graphs in ${{\mathcal H}}$ which maximize $d_{\textup{red}}(A_1)$. We recursively define further subfamilies. For $2\le i\le j$, let ${{\mathcal H}}_i$ be the subfamily of graphs in ${{\mathcal H}}_{i-1}$ which maximize $d_{\textup{red}}(A_{i})$. \[equi\] In any graph $G\in {{\mathcal H}}_{j}$, being connected by red edges is an equivalence relation. Let us consider two parts $A$ and $B$ of $G$ that are connected by by red edges. We define another symmetrization step as follows: For every part $C$ (distinct from $A$ and $B$), we change the color of the edges between $A$ and $C$ to the color of the edges between $B$ and $C$; we refer to this symmetrization step by saying that we symmetrize $A$ to $B$. Note that the underlying graph $G_0$ does not change. In this way, the number of red edges plus blue $r$-cliques decreases by $\|A\|d^(A)-\|A\|\|B\|$ and then increases by $\|A\|d^(B)-\|A\|\|B\|$. This implies that $d^(A)\ge d^(B)$ as $G\in {{\mathcal G}}$. As we can symmetrize $B$ to $A$ we obtain that $d^(A) = d^(B)$. Similarly, $d_{\textup{red}}(A)=d_{\textup{red}}(B)$ because if $d_{\textup{red}}(A)<d_{\textup{red}}(B)$ then symmetrizing $A$ to $B$ would increase the number of red edges while $g_r$ and the number of edges does not change, contradicting our assumption that $G\in {{\mathcal G}}''$. Now we show that being connected by red edges is an equivalence relation. Assume for a contradiction that there are two parts $A$ and $B$ connected by red edges and we have at least one other part connected by red edges to one of them and by blue edges to the other, and let $A_i$ be such a part with the smallest index $i$. Without loss of generality $A_i$ is connected to $A$ by red edges and to $B$ by blue edges, then we symmetrize $B$ to $A$. The resulting graph $G'$ is in ${{\mathcal H}}$ as the underlying graph $G_0$ and $g_r$ do not change, and for any two classes of $G'$ the edges between them are of the same color. Also $d_{\textup{red}}(A)$ and $d_{\textup{red}}(B)$ do not change and $d_{\textup{red}}(A_{j})$ does not change for $j<i$. This shows $G'\in {{\mathcal H}}_{i-1}$, but $d_{\textup{red}}(A_i)$ increases, showing $G$ cannot be in ${{\mathcal H}}_i$; a contradiction. Thus we found a red-blue graph $G$ that is complete multipartite, for any two of its classes the edges between them are of the same color, being connected by red edges in $G$ is an equivalence relation, and $G$ maximizes $g_r$ among $K_k$-free red-blue graphs. We will show that all the edges of $G$ are of the same color. If there are no red edges in $G$, we are done. Let $A$ and $B$ be classes connected by red edges. Let us assume first that the vertices of $A$ are not in a blue $r$-clique. Then we can change all the edges incident to $A$ to red. If there was any change, $g_r$ increases, which would be a contradiction. Thus all the edges incident to $A$ are red in $G$, but then all the edges in $G$ are red by Claim \[equi\] and we are done. Hence there is a blue $K_r$ intersecting $A$. Thus there are at least $r-1$ classes $B_1,\dots,B_{r-1}$ in $G$ that are connected to $A$ and each other by blue edges. Note that $B\neq B_i$ for any $i$ as B is connected to $A$ by red edges. Then for any $i$, $B_i$ is connected to $B$ by blue edges, by applying Claim \[equi\]. Let us now change all the edges between $A$ and $B$ to blue, and let $G'$ be the resulting graph. We claim that this way we delete $\|A\|\|B\|$ red edges and add at least $(r-1)\|A\|\|B\|$ blue $r$-cliques, thus $g_r$ increases, a contradiction. To prove this claim, let us pick one vertex from $r-2$ parts among the $B_i$’s, one vertex from $A$ and one vertex from $B$. This way we obtain a new blue $r$-clique. There are at least $r-1$ ways to pick $r-2$ $B_i$’s and one vertex from each of them. There are $\|A\|\|B\|$ ways to pick the remaining two vertices from $A$ and $B$. We obtained that $G$ is monochromatic, thus we have $g_r(G)\le \max\{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,K_k),{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}(n,K_r,K_k)\}$. Since $G$ maximizes $g_r$, the proof is complete. The following corollary of Theorem \[compl\] determines ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n, \textup{Berge-}K_k)$ exactly for every $n$ for any $k>r+2$. \[nothing\] Let $r \ge 2$. If $k>r+2$, then $T_r(n,k-1)$ has the maximum number of hyperedges among all Berge-$K_k$-free $r$-graphs for every $n$. If $n<k$, then the statement is trivial. For $n\ge k$, we are going to show that the Turán graph $T_2(n,k-1)$ contains more copies of $K_r$ than edges. This statement together with Theorem \[compl\] implies our corollary. To prove this statement we use induction on $n$. Consider the base case $n=k$. In this case observe that the Turán graph $T_2(k,k-1)$ contains exactly two vertices in one part and exactly one vertex in each of the other parts. The number of edges is $\binom{k-2}{2}+2(k-2)$ and the number of copies of $K_r$ is $\binom{k-2}{r}+2\binom{k-2}{r-1}$. It is easy to see the latter is at least the former if $k > r+2$. Let us assume the statement holds for $n$, and the Turán graph $T_2(n,k-1)$ has parts $A_1,\dots,A_{k-1}$. We add one more vertex $v$ to, say, part $A_{k-1}$, to obtain the Turán graph $T_2(n+1,k-1)$. Let $G$ denote the subgraph induced by the other parts $A_1,\dots,A_{k-2}$. The number of edges added (by adding $v$) is the number of vertices of $G$, say $n'$, while the number of $r$-cliques added is the number of $(r-1)$-cliques in $G$. Observe that $G$ is the Turán graph $T_2(n',k-2)$. Thus it is enough to prove that the number of $(r-1)$-cliques in the Turán graph $T_2(n',k-2)$ is at least $n'$. Once again, we can prove this statement by induction on the number of vertices. Note that $n'\ge k-2>r$. For the base case $n' = k-2$ the Turán graph $T_2(n',k-2)$ is a complete graph, so it has $\binom{k-2}{r-1} $ copies of $K_{r-1}$, and it is easy to see that $\binom{k-2}{r-1} \ge k-2$ as $k>r+2$. For the induction step, if we add any vertex, the number of $(r-1)$-cliques increases by at least one, finishing the proof. Note that if $k\le r$, then the Turán hypergraph is empty. If $k=r+1$ or $k=r+2$ and $r\ge 3$, then ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_r(n, \textup{Berge-}K_k)$ is not given by the Turán hypergraph $T_r(n,k-1)$ for small $n$, for example when $n=k$. Indeed, if $n=k=r+1$, then the Turán hypergraph $T_r(n,k-1)$ contains two hyperedges, while even the complete $r$-uniform hypergraph on $n=r+1$ vertices does not contain a Berge-$K_k$ and it has $r+1>2$ hyperedges. If $n=k=r+2$, then the Turán hypergraph $T_r(n,k-1)$ contains $2r+1$ hyperedges, while any $r$-uniform hypergraph on $n$ vertices with $\binom{k}{2}-1>2r+1$ hyperedges does not contain a Berge-$K_k$. However, it is not hard to compute the upper bound that Theorem \[compl\] gives on the thresholds $n_0(r+1,r)$ and $n_0(r+2,r)$ for any fixed $r$. One can easily see that the upper bound we obtain this way on $n_0(r+1,r)$ is $r+2\log r + O(1)$, while the upper bound on $n_0(2+1,r)$ is $r+\log r + O(1)$ as $r$ increases. Let us finish this section by considering the $3$-uniform case. Theorem \[compl\] and Corollary \[nothing\] imply the following bounds for $3$-graphs: $n_0(4,3)\le 9$, $n_0(5,3)\le 7$, and for $k\ge 6$ we have $n_0(k,3)=0$. For $\textup{Berge-}K_5$, by a simple (but tedious) case-analysis, one can show that $n_0(5,3) = 6$. The situation is different when $n < n_0(5,3) = 6$: Firstly, ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_3(5, \textup{Berge-}K_5) = 9$ since any $3$-uniform hypergraph on $5$ vertices with $9$ hyperedges is Berge-$K_5$-free. Now if $n < 5$, ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_3(n, \textup{Berge-}K_5) = \binom{n}{3}$ because a complete $3$-graph on fewer than $5$ vertices is obviously $\textup{Berge-}K_5$-free. Combining these results with the results of Gyárfas [@gyarfas] (concerning $\textup{Berge-}K_4$) mentioned earlier, we have the exact value of ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_3(n, \textup{Berge-}K_k)$ for all $n$ and $k>3$, as summarized below: Let $n\ge 1$ and $k\ge 4$ be integers. Then $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ex}}}_3(n,\textup{Berge-}K_k) = \begin{cases} \|T_3(n,k-1)\| & \textup{if } k\ge 6 \textup{ or } k=5, \, n\ge 6 \textup{ or } k=4,\, n\ge 6 \\[1em] \binom{n}{3} & \textup{if } k=5, n\le 4 \textup{ or } k=4, n\le 4 \\[1em] 5 & \textup{if } k=4,\,n=5 \\[1em] 9 & \textup{if } k=5,\,n=5. \end{cases}$$ [99]{} N. Alon, C. Shikhelman. Many $T$ copies in $H$-free graphs. [Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B]{} 121 (2016): 146–172. J. Bondy, M. Simonovits. Cycles of even length in graphs. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, 16(2), 97–105, (1974). D. Conlon. Graphs with few paths of prescribed length between any two vertices. [Bull. Lond. Math. Soc.,]{} to appear. arXiv:1411.0856. A. Davoodi, E. Győri, A. Methuku, C. Tompkins. An Erdős-Gallai type theorem for uniform hypergraphs. [European Journal of Combinatorics]{} 69 (2018): 159-162. P. Erdős. On the number of complete subgraphs contained in certain graphs. [Magyar Tud. Akad. Mat. KutatóInt. Közl.]{} 7 (1962) 459–464. P. Erdős. Extremal problems in graph theory. [Theory of Graphs and its Applications (Proc. Sympos. Smolenice, 1963)]{}, pages 29–36, 1964. P. Erdős, T. Gallai. On maximal paths and circuits of graphs. [Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar.]{} [10]{}, (1959) 337-356. B. Ergemlidze, E. Győri, A. Methuku, N. Salia, C. Tompkins, O. Zamora. Avoiding long Berge cycles, the missing cases $k=r+1$ and $k=r+2$. [arXiv preprint]{} arXiv:1808.07687, (2018). G. Fan, Y. Hong, Q. Liu. The Erdős-Sós Conjecture for Spiders. [arXiv preprint]{} arXiv:1804.06567, (2018). R. J. Faudree, M. Simonovits. On a class of degenerate extremal graph problems. [Combinatorica]{} 3(1):83–93, 1983. Z. Füredi. New asymptotics for bipartite Turán numbers. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 75(1), 141–144, (1996). Z. Füredi, A. Kostochka, R. Luo. Avoiding long Berge cycles. [arXiv preprint]{} arXiv:1805.04195 (2018). Z. Füredi, L. Özkahya. On 3-uniform hypergraphs without a cycle of a given length. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 216, 582–588, (2017). D. Gerbner, A. Methuku, M. Vizer. Asymptotics for the Turán number of Berge-$ K_{2, t}$. [arXiv preprint]{} arXiv:1705.04134 (2017). D. Gerbner, C. Palmer. Extremal Results for Berge Hypergraphs. [SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics]{} 31.4 (2017): 2314–2327. D. Gerbner, C. Palmer. Counting copies of a fixed subgraph in $ F $-free graphs. [arXiv preprint]{} arXiv:1805.07520 (2018). D. Grósz, A. Methuku and C. Tompkins. Uniformity thresholds for the asymptotic size of extremal Berge-F-free hypergraphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.01953 (2017). A. Gyárfás. The Turán number of Berge-$K_4$ in triple systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.11211. (2018). E. Győri, G. Y. Katona, N. Lemons. Hypergraph extensions of the Erdős-Gallai Theorem, [European Journal of Combinatorics]{} 58 (2016) 238–246. E. Győri and N. Lemons. 3-uniform hypergraphs avoiding a given odd cycle. [Combinatorica]{} 32: 187 (2012). doi:10.1007/s00493-012-2584-4 Z. He, M. Tait. Hypergraphs with few Berge paths of fixed length between vertices. [arXiv preprint]{} arXiv:1807.10177 (2018). T. Jiang, J. Ma. Cycles of given lengths in hypergraphs. [arXiv preprint]{} arXiv:1609.08212 (2016). A. Kostochka, R. Luo. On $r$-uniform hypergraphs with circumference less than $r$. [arXiv preprint]{} arXiv:1807.04683 (2018). R. Luo. The maximum number of cliques in graphs without long cycles. [Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B]{} 128 (2018): 219–226. L.Maherani, M.Shahsiah. Turán numbers of complete 3-uniform Berge-hypergraphs. [arXiv preprint]{} arXiv:1612.08856 (2016). D.Mubayi. A hypergraph extension of Turán’s theorem. [Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B]{}, 96, 122–134 (2006) D. Mubayi and J. Verstraëte. A survey of Turán problems for expansions. [Recent Trends in Combinatorics]{}, 117–143, IMA Vol. Math. Appl., 159, Springer, 2016. C. Palmer, M. Tait, C. Timmons, A. Z. Wagner. Turán numbers for Berge-hypergraphs and related extremal problems. [arXiv preprint]{} arXiv:1706.04249 (2017) O. Pikhurko. Exact computation of the hypergraph Turán function for expanded complete 2-graphs. [Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B]{} 103.2 (2013): 220–225. A. A. Zykov. On some properties of linear complexes. [Mat. Sbornik N.S. (in Russian)]{}, 24(66), 163–-188, 1949. [^1]: Alfréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. e-mail: [email protected] [^2]: Central European University, Budapest. e-mail: [email protected] [^3]: University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59801, USA. e-mail: [email protected]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The shell structure underlying shape changes in neutron-rich nuclei near $N=28$ has been investigated by a novel application of the transient field technique to measure the first-excited state $g$ factors in $^{38}$S and $^{40}$S produced as fast radioactive beams. There is a fine balance between proton and neutron contributions to the magnetic moments in both nuclei. The $g$ factor of deformed $^{40}$S does not resemble that of a conventional collective nucleus because spin contributions are more important than usual.' author: - 'A.D. Davies' - 'A.E. Stuchbery' - 'P.F. Mantica' - 'P.M. Davidson' - 'A.N. Wilson' - 'A. Becerril' - 'B.A. Brown' - 'C.M. Campbell' - 'J.M. Cook' - 'D.C. Dinca' - 'A. Gade' - 'S.N. Liddick' - 'T.J. Mertzimekis' - 'W.F. Mueller' - 'J.R. Terry' - 'B.E. Tomlin' - 'K. Yoneda' - 'H. Zwahlen' bibliography: - 'AESsulfurHVTF.bib' title: 'Probing shell structure and shape changes in neutron-rich sulfur isotopes through transient-field $g$-factor measurements on fast radioactive beams of $^{38}$S and $^{40}$S.' --- The fundamental question of how major shell closures, or magic numbers, change in neutron-rich nuclei remains unresolved. At present there is conflicting evidence concerning the $N=28$ shell gap in nuclei approaching the neutron dripline. From the measured $\beta$-decay halflife it has been suggested that $^{42}_{14}$Si$_{28}$ is strongly deformed, implying a quenching of the $N=28$ gap [@gre04], whereas knockout reactions on $^{42}$Si give evidence for a nearly spherical shape [@fri05]. Low-excitation level structures and $B(E2)$ values imply that the nearby even sulfur isotopes between $N=20$ and $N=28$ undergo a transition from spherical at $^{36}_{16}$S$_{20}$, to prolate deformed in $^{40}_{16}$S$_{24}$ and $^{42}_{16}$S$_{26}$, and that the $N=28$ nucleus $^{44}_{16}$S$_{28}$ appears to exhibit collectivity of a vibrational character [@Sche1996; @Glasm1997; @Wing2001; @Sohl2002]. However the evolution of deformation in these nuclei has underlying causes that remain unclear. Some have argued that a weakening of the $N=28$ shell gap is important [@Sohl2002], while others have argued that the effect of adding neutrons to the $f_{7/2}$ orbit is primarily to reduce the proton $s_{1/2}$-$d_{3/2}$ gap and that a weakening of the $N=28$ shell gap is not needed to explain the observed collectivity near $^{44}$S [@Cott1998]. There have been several theoretical studies discussing the erosion of the $N=28$ shell closure and the onset of deformation (e.g. Refs. [@rod02; @cau04] and references therein). To resolve questions on the nature and origins of deformation near $N=28$, we have used a novel technique to measure the $g$ factors of the 2$_1^+$ states in $^{38}_{16}$S$_{22}$ and $^{40}_{16}$S$_{24}$. The $g$ factor, or gyromagnetic ratio, is the magnetic moment divided by the angular momentum. The existence of deformation in nuclei has long been associated with strong interactions between a significant number of valence protons and neutrons, particularly in nuclei near the middle of a major shell. Without exception the deformed nuclei studied to date have $g$ factors near the hydrodynamical limit, $Z/A$, reflecting the strong coupling between protons and neutrons, and a magnetic moment dominated by the orbital motion of the proton charge with small contributions from the intrinsic magnetic moments of either the protons or the neutrons. In transitional regions $g$ factors have considerable sensitivity to the proton and/or neutron contributions to the state wavefunctions, particularly if the intrinsic spin moments of the nucleons come to the fore. The present Letter presents the first application of a high-velocity transient-field (HVTF) technique [@Stuc2004a] to measure the $g$ factors of excited states of fast radioactive beams. In brief, intermediate-energy Coulomb excitation [@Glasm1998] is used to excite and align the nuclear states of interest. The nucleus is then subjected to the transient field in a higher velocity regime than has been used previously for moment measurements, which causes the nuclear spin to precess. Finally, the nuclear precession angle, to which the $g$ factor is proportional, is observed via the perturbed $\gamma$-ray angular correlation measured using a multi-detector array. It is important to note that the transient-field technique has sensitivity to the [sign]{} of the $g$ factor, which in itself can be a distinguishing characteristic of the proton/neutron contributions to the state under study, since the signs of the spin contributions to the proton and the neutron $g$ factors are opposite. The transient field (TF) is a velocity-dependent magnetic hyperfine interaction experienced by the nucleus of a swift ion as it traverses a magnetized ferromagnetic material [@Kol1980; @spe02]. For light ions ($Z \leq 16$) traversing iron and gadolinium hosts at high velocity, the dependence of the TF strength on the ion velocity, $v$, and atomic number, $Z$, can be parametrized [@Stuc2004a; @Stuc2005a] as $$B_{\rm tf}(v,Z) = A Z^P (v/Zv_0)^2 {\rm e}^{- \frac{1}{2}(v/Zv_0)^4}, \protect \label{eq:aes-param}$$ where $v_0 = c/137$ is the Bohr velocity. A fit to data for iron hosts yielded $A=1.82(5)$ T with $P=3$ [@Stuc2004a]. The maximum TF strength is reached when the ion velocity matches the $K$-shell electron velocity, $v = Zv_0$. Since the transient field arises from polarized electrons carried by the moving ion its strength falls off as the ion velocity exceeds $Zv_0$ and becomes fully stripped; a transient-field interaction will not occur for fast radioactive beams with energies near 100 MeV/nucleon until most of that energy is removed. The experiment was conducted at the Coupled Cyclotron Facility of the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory at Michigan State University. Secondary beams of $^{38}$S and $^{40}$S were produced from 140 MeV/nucleon primary beams directed onto a $\sim 1$ g/cm$^2$ $^9$Be fragmentation target at the entrance of the A1900 fragment separator [@Morr2003]. An acrylic wedge degrader 971 mg/cm$^2$ thick and a 0.5% momentum slit at the dispersive image of the A1900 were employed. The wedge degrader allowed the production of highly pure beams and also reduced the secondary beam energy to $\sim 40$ MeV/nucleon. Further details of the radioactive beams are given in Table \[tab:beams\]. The $^{38}$S ($^{40}$S) measurement ran for 81 (68) hours. ----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ----------------- -------- Ion Intensity Ion $E$ Intensity Purity (pnA) (MeV) (pps) (%) $^{40}$Ar 25 $^{38}$S 1547.5 $ 2 \cdot 10^5$ $>99$ $^{48}$Ca 15 $^{40}$S 1582.5 $ 2 \cdot 10^4$ $>95$ ----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ----------------- -------- : Production and properties of radioactive beams. \[tab:beams\] Figure \[fig:schematic\] shows the experimental arrangement. The radioactive beams were delivered onto a target which consisted of a 355 mg/cm$^2$ Au layer backed by a 110 mg/cm$^2$ Fe layer of dimensions $30 \times 30$ mm$^2$. The target was held between the pole tips of a compact electromagnet that provided a magnetic field of 0.11 T, sufficient to fully magnetize the Fe layer. To minimize possible systematic errors, the external magnetic field was automatically reversed every 600 s. Table \[paramtable\] summarizes the properties of the 2$^+_1$ states, the key aspects of the energy loss of the sulfur beams in the target, the precession results and the extracted $g$ factors. The high-$Z$ Au target layer serves to enhance the Coulomb excitation yield and slow the projectiles to under 800 MeV, while the thick iron layer results in a long interaction time with the transient field, maximizing the spin precession. The sulfur fragments emerge with energies in the range from $\sim 80$ MeV to $\sim 200$ MeV. Most of this energy spread stems from the energy width of the radioactive beam. Projectiles scattering forward out of the target were detected with a 15.24 cm diameter plastic scintillator phoswich detector placed 79.2 cm downstream of the target position. The maximum scattering angle of 5.5$^{\circ}$ limits the distance of closest approach to near the nuclear interaction radius in both the Au and Fe target layers. Positioning the particle detector downstream also lowers the exposure of the $\gamma$-ray detectors to the radioactive decay of the projectiles. To detect de-excitation $\gamma$ rays, the target chamber was surrounded by 14 HPGe detectors of the Segmented Germanium Array (SeGA) [@Muel2001]. The SeGA detectors were positioned with the crystal centers 24.5 cm from the target position. Six pairs of detectors were fixed at symmetric angles $(\pm\theta,\phi) = (29^{\circ}, 90^\circ)$, $(40^{\circ}, 131^\circ)$, $(60^{\circ}, 61^\circ)$, $(139^{\circ}, 46^\circ)$, $(147^{\circ}, 143^\circ)$, and $(151^{\circ}, 90^\circ)$, where $\theta$ is the polar angle with respect to the beam axis and $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle measured from the vertical direction, which coincides with the magnetic field axis. Each $\pm \theta$ pair is in a plane that passes through the center of the target; $(-\theta,\phi) = (\theta,\phi + 180^\circ)$. Two more detectors were placed at $\theta = 90^{\circ}$ and $\theta = 24^{\circ}$. All 14 detectors were used to measure the $\gamma$-ray angular correlations concurrently with the precessions. Since the precession angles are small, the unperturbed angular correlation can be reconstructed by adding the data for the two directions of the applied magnetic field. Coincidences between the phoswich particle detector and SeGA were recorded, and $\gamma$-ray spectra gated on sulfur recoils and corrected for random coincidences were produced. Doppler-corrected spectra were also produced using the angular information from the SeGA detector segments and the particle energy information from the phoswich detector on an event-by-event basis, which is essential because of the spread in particle velocities. Figure \[3840Sspectra\] shows examples of the $\gamma$-ray spectra. From the measured Doppler shift of the deexcitation $\gamma$ rays in the laboratory frame, the average after-target ion velocities were determined. The velocity distribution of the exiting $^{40}$S ions was also measured by shifting the phoswich detector by $\pm 15$ cm from its normal position and observing the change in the flight times of the projectiles. These procedures firmly establish that the sulfur ions were slowed through the peak of the TF strength at $Zv_0$ into the region where it has been well characterized [@spe02; @Stuc2004a]. -- -- -- -- The 2$^+$ peak areas averaged 925 counts/detector per field direction for $^{38}$S and 400 counts/detector per field direction for $^{40}$S, in each of the six angle pairs of SeGA detectors used for extracting the precessions. The angular correlation of $\gamma$ rays was calculated with the program GKINT [@Stuc2005b] using the theory of Coulomb excitation [@Bert2003]. Recoil-in-vacuum effects were evaluated based on measured charge-state fractions for sulfur ions emerging from iron foils [@Stuc2005c]. Good agreement was found between the calculated $\gamma$-ray angular correlations and the data, as shown in Fig \[3840Sangdist\]. The experimental nuclear precession angle, $\Delta \theta_{\rm exp}$, was extracted from $\gamma$-ray count ratios in pairs of detectors at $(\pm \theta, \phi)$ for both field directions, using standard analysis methods as described in [@Stuc2005a]. -- -- -- -- [\*[12]{}c]{} Isotope & E(2$^+_1$) & $B(E2)\uparrow$ & $\tau$(2$^+_1$) & $\langle E_i \rangle$ & $\langle E_e \rangle$ & $\langle v_i/Zv_0 \rangle$ & $\langle v_e/Zv_0 \rangle$ & $t_{\rm eff}$ & $(\Delta\theta/g)_{\rm calc}$ & $\Delta \theta_{\rm exp}$ & $g$\ & (keV) & (e$^2$fm$^4$) & (ps) & (MeV) & (MeV) & & & (ps) & (mrad) & (mrad)\ $^{38}$S & 1292 & 235(30) & 4.9 & 762 & 123 & 1.75 & 0.71 & 2.98 & $-330$ & $-43(15)$ & $+0.13(5)$\ $^{40}$S & 904 & 334(36) & 21 & 782 & 145 & 1.73 & 0.75 & 2.99 & $-339$ & $+5(21)$ & $-0.02(6)$\ \[paramtable\] An evaluation of $\Delta \theta / g = (-\mu_{\rm N}/\hbar) \int B_{\rm tf} dt$ is required to extract the $g$ factors. Calculations were performed using the code GKINT to take into account the incoming and exiting ion velocities, the energy- and angle-dependent Coulomb excitation cross sections in both target layers, the excited-state lifetimes, and the parametrization of the TF strength in Eq. (\[eq:aes-param\]). The results and the $g$ factors extracted are given in Table \[paramtable\]. These $g$ factor results are not very sensitive to the somewhat uncertain behavior of the transient field at the highest velocities because (i) the ions spend least time interacting with the TF at high velocity and (ii) the TF strength near $2Zv_0$ is very small. Furthermore, the positive $g$ factor in $^{38}$S and the essentially null effect for $^{40}$S are both firm observations, independent of the transient-field strength. The experimental uncertainties assigned to the $g$ factors are dominated by the statistical errors in the $\gamma$-ray count ratios, with a small contribution (10%) from the angular correlation added in quadrature. Shell model calculations were performed for $^{36}_{16}$S$_{20}$, $^{38}_{16}$S$_{22}$ and $^{40}_{16}$S$_{24}$, and their isotones $^{38}_{18}$Ar$_{20}$, $^{40}_{18}$Ar$_{22}$ and $^{42}_{18}$Ar$_{24}$, using the code OXBASH [@oxbash] and the $sd$-$pf$ model space where (for $N\geq20$) valence protons are restricted to the $sd$ shell and valence neutrons are restricted to the $pf$ shell. The Hamiltonian was that developed in Ref. [@Numm2001] for neutron-rich nuclei around $N=28$. These calculations reproduce the energies of the low-excitation states to within 200 keV. With standard effective charges of $e_p \sim 1.5$ and $e_n \sim 0.5$ they also reproduce the measured $B(E2)$ values. The $g$ factors of the 2$^+_1$ states were evaluated using the bare nucleon $g$ factors. The calculated $g$ factors are compared with experimental results in Fig. \[theoryfig\]. Overall the level of agreement between theory and experiment is satisfactory given the extreme sensitivity to configuration mixing and the near cancelation of proton and neutron contributions in the $N=22,24$ isotones (see below). In the $N=20$ isotones, $^{36}$S and $^{38}$Ar, the 2$^+_1$ state is a pure proton excitation for our model space. Two neutrons have been added in the $fp$ shell in the $N=22$ isotones $^{38}$S and $^{40}$Ar. Since $^{36}$S is almost doubly magic, the initial expectation might be that the first-excited state of $^{38}$S would be dominated by the neutron $f_{7/2}$ configuration weakly coupled to the $^{36}$S core, resulting in a $g$ factor near $-0.3$. In contrast, the near zero theoretical $g$ factor and the small but positive experimental $g$ factor require additional proton excitations, which indicates strong coupling between protons and neutrons - one of the prerequisites for the onset of deformation. For $N=22,24$ the shell model predicts a cancelation of the proton and neutron contributions to the moment; in terms of $g^{\rm th}=g^{\rm th}_{\rm proton} + g^{\rm th}_{\rm neutron}$, $g(^{38}{\rm S})=-0.003=0.298-0.301$, $g(^{40}{\rm S})=0.035=0.276-0.241$, $g(^{40}{\rm Ar})=-0.200=0.164-0.364$ and $g(^{42}{\rm Ar})=-0.060=0.220-0.280$. The proton contributions to the $g$ factors are dominated by the orbital component but the substantial neutron contributions originate entirely with the intrinsic spin associated with a dominant occupation of the neutron $f_{7/2}$ orbit. Some tuning of the Hamiltonian may be required to reproduce the sign of the $g$ factor in $^{38}$S, which is very sensitive to the separation of the proton $s_{1/2}$ and $d_{3/2}$ orbitals, for example. The dependence of the $g(2^+)$ in $^{40}$Ar on the basis space, the interaction, and the choice of effective nucleon $g$ factors, has been investigated in Ref. [@Stef2005]. As noted above, Coulomb-excitation studies and the level scheme of $^{40}$S suggest that it is deformed. Supporting this interpretation, the shell model calculations predict consistent intrinsic quadrupole moments when derived from either the $B(E2)$ or the quadrupole moment, $Q(2^+_1)$, implying a prolate deformation of $\beta \approx +0.3$, in agreement with the value deduced from the experimental $B(E2)$ [@Sche1996; @Reta1997]. But the near zero magnetic moment does not conform to the usual collective model expectation of $g \sim Z/A$. Since the shell model calculations reproduce both the electric and magnetic properties of the 2$^+_1$ state they give insight into the reasons for this unprecedented magnetic behavior in an apparently deformed nucleus. The essential difference between the deformed neutron-rich sulfur isotopes and the deformed nuclei previously encountered (i.e. either light nuclei with $N=Z$ or heavier deformed nuclei) is that the spin contributions to the magnetic moments are relatively more important, especially for the neutrons. In comparison to $^{40}$S, the 2$^+_1$ state in the $N=20$ nucleus $^{32}_{12}$Mg$_{20}$ has a similar excitation energy, lifetime and $B(E2)$. However the $g$ factor in $^{32}$Mg might be closer to that of a conventional collective nucleus since the $N=20$ shell closure is known to vanish far from stability. We thank the NSCL operations staff for providing the primary and secondary beams for the experiment. This work was supported by NSF grants PHY-01-10253, PHY-99-83810, and PHY-02-44453. AES, ANW, and PMD acknowledge travel support from the ANSTO AMRF scheme (Australia).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'In this work, we aim to evaluate different Distributed Lock Management service designs with Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA). In specific, we implement and evaluate the centralized and the RDMA-enabled lock manager designs for fast network settings. Experimental results confirms a couple of hypotheses. First, in the traditional centralized lock manager design, CPU is the bottleneck and bypassing CPU on client-to-server communication using RDMA results in better lock service perofrmance. Second, different lock manager designs with RDMA in consideration result in even better performance; we need to re-design lock management system for RDMA and fast networks.' author: - \| <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yeounoh Chung</span>\ <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Erfan Zamanian</span>\ - \| \ <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">John Meehan</span>\ <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Stan Zdonik</span>\ bibliography: - 'main.bib' title: 'Using RDMA for Lock Management' --- [2]{} Introduction {#Introduction} ============ Lock management is a critical component of many distributed systems, such as databases and file systems, in which shared resources are accessed by many applications across the network. A lock manager provides advisory locking services to these higher level applications and therefore is used to ensure serialization of access to shared resources (for example databases need this property to ensure the isolation between concurrent transactions). In a single-sited lock managers, clients have to contact the centralized lock service before accessing or moving any data item. In such systems, reasoning about starvation and deadlocks is relatively straightforward, and is handled by the central lock server. They are rarely used in distributed systems, however, due to two main reasons. First, as all requests have to be handled by a single machine, the central lock manager becomes the bottleneck and therefore such systems do not scale with the number of clients. Second, loosely-coupled distributed systems are usually deployed on commodity clusters, where failures are quite common. A failure or delay in the central lock manager could bring the entire system down. In this work, we aim to evaluate different Distributed Lock Management service designs with Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA). In specific, we implement and evaluate the centralized and the RDMA-enabled lock manager designs for fast network settings. Our hypothesis is that the centralized lock manager is the bottleneck and bypassing CPU on client-to-server communication using RDMA results in better lock service performance; furthermore, different lock manager designs with RDMA in consideration result in even better performance. The key idea is to have clients take part in lock management via RDMA, and our experimental results show that the new lock manager designs along this line can outperform the traditional centralized lock manager by an order of magnitude. In the following sections, we first describe RDMA features and basics, describe different lock manager designs and their performances over a fast network. Finally, we highlight the comparison results in section 5. And we discuss any related work to this project in section 6 and conclude in section 7. Remote Direct Memory Access {#background:rdma} =========================== Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) is an emerging technology in computer networks which allows machines send or receive messages directly to each other’s memory. Invoking this process does not involve any system call and context switch from the user space to the kernel space. Besides, throughout the process, kernel of either side is not involved. As most operating systems impose high overheads for interrupt processing, network protocol stacks, and context switching, avoiding them significantly helps decrease the latency. RDMA programming model is based on the concept of verbs, which allows for two communication models: one-sided communication and two-sided communication. One-sided, or memory semantic verbs, are those verbs which are performed without any knowledge of the remote side. RDMA READ, WRITE, and atomic operations, such as Compare and Swap (CS), and Fetch and Add (FA) are one-sided operations. The active side submits the verb, while the passive side is completely unaware of the process. Both active and passive sides must register the memory region to be able to access it via RDMA. The passive side’s RNIC directly writes/fetches the desired data using an DMA operation from local memory. Two-sided, or channel semantic verbs, such as SEND and RECEIVE, require both sites to involve in the communication process. The payload of the SEND is written to the memory region specified by a corresponding RECEIVE which must be posted by the receiver before the sender actually sends its request. Therefore, the sender’s RNIC does not have to register the remote memory region before performing the operation. While two-sided verbs are workflow-wise similar to socket programming semantics, namely read() and write(), leveraging the one-sided verbs, such as READ and WRITE, requires a dramatic change in the programming model. RDMA uses the concept of queue pairs for connections. Application posts verbs to the send queue, which has a corresponding receive queue on the receive side, so the name queue pair. Once RNIC performs the requested memory access at the remote side, it pushes a completion event on a corresponding completion queue, which can notify the sender about the completion of the task. All queues are maintained inside RNIC. [.5]{} ![image](figs/perf-client.png){width=".8\linewidth"} [.5]{} ![image](figs/perf-CR.png){width=".8\linewidth"} Pure Client Centric Design {#client_DLM} ========================== ![image](figs/pure-client-centric.png) One problem with server centric designs is that server could become the bottleneck as the number of clients grows. In order to support concurrent requests, servers are usually implemented as a multi-threaded program. In such cases, accessing or modifying the state of locks requires using mutexes, semaphores or other similar concurrency control mechanisms, which is expensive. Given that the logic of a lock manager is relatively simple (lock and unlock an item), RDMA could be leveraged to allow the clients directly participate in lock management. We started out with an extreme design, where RDMA is leveraged as much as possible. The basic idea here is that server is completely oblivious of lock requests, and serves merely as the lock holder, while clients directly compete for lock acquisition. As such, clients try to “register” themselves as the shared or exclusive owner of the lock by issuing RDMA atomic operations. In the following, we will explain the details of our algorithm. Lock states are kept inside the lock table, which resides in the main memory, whose structure is shown in Figure \[fig:pure-design\]. Entry <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> of this table represents the status of lock <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> as a 64-bit memory region, and is divided to two 32-bit parts. the most significant 32 bits represent the client ID which is currently owning the exclusive lock. The least significant 32 bits represent the number of requests for the shared lock. In the following subsections, we outline the procedure for acquiring and releasing locks. Exclusive Lock Acquisition -------------------------- As a client can only acquire exclusive lock when nobody else is holding the lock (neither in shared mode nor exclusive), the procedure must be only successful if these requirements are fulfilled. Therefore, the client submits an atomic Compare-and-Swap to the server with the following parameters: (0\|0) as the expected value, and (client\_id\|0) as the swap value. The first number of each tuple is the most significant 32 bits, and the second one is the least significant one. Note that atomic operations always return the old value of the asked memory regions, regardless of whether or not they succeeded. Therefore, the client can know whether its CAS request was successful or not, by comparing the return value to (0\|0). Any value other than this means that the lock is not acquired. If it was successful, the client does not need to do anything else. If not, then it backs off for a pre-determined time, and try again with the same parameters. We found that the back-off should of 0 seconds gives the best result. Shared Lock Acquisition {#pure:shared_acquisition} ----------------------- Shared lock can be acquired when nobody is holding the lock, or if all the owners are also in shared mode. Therefore, the algorithm must make sure that the shared lock is not granted only when there is an exclusive owner. Therefore, the client sens an atomic Fetch-and-Add with increment value equals one to the server. Note that atomic FA is always successful and adds the specified value to the memory region. Again, the return value of this operation determines whether the lock is granted or not. If the exclusive part of returned value (the most significant 32 bits) is zero, then the client can go ahead with the shared lock. If not, then the lock must be exclusively owned by another client. In this case, similar to exclusive lock, the client backs off for a specific amount of time, and then retry. However, retrying is not be done by submitting another FA operation, since calling FA again will cause the lock status to get incremented once more. Therefore, the consequent retries will be done via RDMA READ of the exclusive part (only 32 bits). If the client finds that the lock is not in exclusive mode, it can proceed with the shared lock. Exclusive Lock Release ---------------------- In order to release an exclusive lock, the client only needs to clear the exclusive part of the lock status. This can be easily done by RDMA WRITE. More specifically, the client WRITEs zero to the exclusive part of the lock. Shared Lock Release ------------------- As we have seen in Section \[pure:shared\_acquisition\], acquiring shared lock involves atomically incrementing the shared part of the lock status. Consequently, releasing the shared lock involves decrementing the same region by one. [.5]{} ![image](figs/result.png){width=".8\linewidth"} [.5]{} ![image](figs/result2.png){width=".8\linewidth"} Experiments =========== We evalute the server centric (TCP, S/R) and the client centric (Backoff) designs for lock operation throughput. The evaluation is done with a small cluster of 7 machines, each equipped with 40-cosre processors. Figure \[fig:comparison\_result\] shows the throughput comparison results for server centric and client centric designs. RDMA let clients to bypass server CPU in requesting and receiving locks and the server can handle more lock requests with its limited resources; furthermore, the client centric design outperforms the server centric design, even with RDMA, by a huge margin. Related Work {#related-works} ============ Distributed lock management over the traditional network has been the topic of many research works [@Aldred:distributed:95; @kishida:SSDLM:03]. [@born:analytical:96; @knottenbelt:performance:01] presented a detailed analysis of lock management in distributed systems. There are a few works which tried to leverage one-sided RDMA verbs to build a DLM [@devulapalli:distributed-queue-based-locking:05; @narravula:high-performance-distributed-lock-management:07]. The authors in [@devulapalli:distributed-queue-based-locking:05] proposed to use atomic operations to provide. The basic idea is to have the server only store the tail of the FIFO lists. Each client keeps track of its immediate subsequent node in the queue. Once a node is done with a lock, if it has a child, it notifies it by sending an RDMA message to that node. It is worth noting that their design only supports exclusive locks. Their techniques were augmented by Narravula et al. [@narravula:high-performance-distributed-lock-management:07] to support shared locks. Both these papers have the problem of resulting too many connections between clients, and is not scalable with the number of clients. conclusion ========== We set out to remove the bottleneck of the traditional lock manager, which we speculated to be CPU. Using RDMA with the traditional lock manager, we were able to achieve just that; however, re-designing the lock manager and having the clients to partake in lock management can dramatically improve the system throughput. We believe that the proposed design is still not the right way to leverage RDMA for lock management. In the future, we would like to explore several design choices.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We carry out numerical simulations of vesicle formation based on the density functional theory for block copolymer solutions. It is shown by solving the time evolution equations for concentrations that a polymer vesicle is spontaneously formed from the homogeneous state. The vesicle formation mechanism obtained by our simulation agree with the results of other simulations based on the particle models as well as experiments. By changing parameters such as the volume fraction of polymers or the Flory-Huggins interaction parameter between the hydrophobic subchains and solvents, we can obtain the spherical micelles, cylindrical micelles or bilayer structures, too. We also show that the morphological transition dynamics of the micellar structures can be reproduced by controlling the Flory-Huggins interaction parameter.' author: - \| Takashi Uneyama\ \ Department of Physics, Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University\ Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8502, JAPAN title: 'Density Functional Simulation of Spontaneous Formation of Vesicle in Block Copolymer Solutions' --- Introduction ============ Amphiphilic block copolymers, which consists of hydrophilic subchains and hydrophobic subchains, are known to form micellar structures, such as spherical micelles, cylindrical micelles, and vesicles [@Disher-Eisenberg-2002; @Choucair-Eisenberg-2003]. To clarify how these structures are self-organised is a basic problem of the kinetics of micellar systems. Several computer simulations have been available to study formation of a vesicle based on the particle models (Brownian dynamics (BD) [@Noguchi-Takasu-2001], dissipative particle dynamics (DPD) [@Yamamoto-Maruyama-Hyodo-2002], and molecular dynamics (MD) [@Marrink-Mark-2003]). The spontaneous vesicle formation process from the homogeneous state observed in these simulations is as follows: The amphiphilic block copolymers aggregate into small spherical micelles rapidly from the homogeneous initial state. The spherical micelles grows to larger micelles by collision (cylindrical micelles, open disk-like micelles). The large disk-like micelles finally close up and form vesicles. The micelle growth process and the closure process are slower than the first spherical micelle formation process. Hereafter we call this process the “mechanism I” (see also Figure \[vesicle\_formation\_mechanisms\](a)). Note that the mechanism I is also supported by Monte Carlo simulations [@Bernardes-1996] or experiments of lipid systems [@Leng-Egelhaaf-Cates-2002; @Leng-Egelhaaf-Cates-2003]. Strictly speaking, the mechanism obtained by the experiments for lipid systems may be different from one for polymer systems. However, since the DPD simulations for polymer systems and the BD and MD simulations for lipid systems give similar results (mechanism I), we believe that the vesicle formation mechanism is common for polymer systems and lipid systems. We also note that the similar mechanism obtained for polymer systems by the experiments of morphological transition of cylindrical micelles to vesicles [@Chen-Shen-Eisenberg-1999]. The field theoretical approach, which has been developed to study mesoscale structures of block copolymers [@Leibler-1980; @Ohta-Kawasaki-1986; @BohbotRaviv-Wang-2000; @Matsen-Schick-1994; @Matsen-Bates-1996; @Fraaije-1993; @Fredrickson-Ganesan-Drolet-2002], is considered to be useful for vesicle formation, but most of the works have been limited to simulations in thermal equilibrium [@He-Liang-Huang-Pan-2004; @Uneyama-Doi-2005a]. Since these simulations ignore realistic kinetics (for example, local mass conservation is not satisfied), the vesicle formation process observed in these simulations are different from the mechanism I: The first process is similar to the mechanism I. Small spherical micelles are formed rapidly. The spherical micelles then grow up to large spherical micelles by the evaporation-condensation like process. The large spherical micelles are energetically unfavourable, and thus the large micelles take the solvents into them to lower the energy. We call this process the “mechanism II” (see also Figure \[vesicle\_formation\_mechanisms\](b)). The dynamical simulations for diblock copolymer solutions were carried by Sevink and Zvelindovsky [@Sevink-Zvelindovsky-2005], using the dynamic self consistent field (SCF) theory. However, in their simulations both subchains are hydrophobic and the resulting structures are so-called onion structures [@Koizumi-Hasegawa-Hashimoto-1994; @Ohta-Ito-1995; @Uneyama-Doi-2005; @Sevink-Zvelindovsky-2005]. The onion structures obtained by simulations are essentially microphase separation structure in the block copolymer rich droplets in the solvents, and qualitatively different from the multilayer vesicle structures which is often called as “onion structures” in surfactant solutions. The vesicle structures contain solvents inside them and therefore different from these polymer onion structures, and one should distinguish the onion formation process from the vesicle formation process. We also note that the simulations for onion structures were carried out for weak segregation region and this does not agree with previous equilibrium simulations for vesicles, since vesicles are observed in rather strong segregation region. (In this work, we use the word “strong segregation region” as the region where the minimum and maximum values of the density field is approximately $0$ and $1$. One may call such region as the intermediate segregation region.) It should be noted that the formation processes of the onion structures by simulations [@Ohta-Ito-1995; @Sevink-Zvelindovsky-2005] are mainly the lamellar ordering process in droplet like regions. Therefore the resulting morphologies (onions) are similar to the phase separation patterns in droplets [@Fraaije-Sevink-2003] than vesicles. Thus we consider that the onion formation process is not the mechanism I. Recently, dynamical simulations of vesicle formation have been done by He and Schmid [@He-Schmid-2006], using the external potential dynamics (EPD) [@Maurits-Fraaije-1997]. They obtained vesicles, but their formation process is similar to the mechanism II. Unfortunately the mechanism II is qualitatively different from the mechanism I, and this means that their result does not agree with particle simulations or experiments (we will discuss the reason for this difference in Section \[comparison\_with\_epd\_simulations\]). We expect that the mechanisms observed by different simulation methods should be the same. In the present work, we apply our previous model, the density functional theory for block copolymers [@Uneyama-Doi-2005; @Uneyama-Doi-2005a], to the dynamics. We carry out numerical simulations for amphiphilic diblock copolymer solutions in three dimensions. By using the continuous field model, we show, for the first time, that a vesicle is spontaneously formed from a disordered uniform phase. The simulation result is consistent with the mechanism I. We also show that we can simulate the spontaneous formation process of various micellar structures (such as spherical micelles or cylindrical micelles) and the morphological transition dynamics. Theory ====== The dynamics of block copolymer systems are well studied by using the dynamic SCF theory [@Fraaije-1993] as well as the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau (TDGL) equation [@Bahiana-Oono-1990]. The dynamic SCF simulations are known to be accurate for from weak segregation region to strong segregation region, but they consume memory and need large CPU power. In contrast, the TDGL simulations need less CPU power and enables large scale simulations. However, the free energy functionals [@Leibler-1980; @Ohta-Kawasaki-1986] used in the TGDL approach is generally not appropriate for the strong segregation region, since the validity of the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) expansion is guaranteed only for the weak segregation region where the density fluctuation is sufficiently small [@Kawakatsu-book; @Matsen-Bates-1996; @Uneyama-Doi-2005]. Actually Maurits and Fraaije [@Maurits-Fraaije-1997b] showed that the widely used fourth-order GL expansion model is not sufficient for dynamical simulations. To overcome this limitation we need to use free energy functional model such as the Flory-Huggins-de Gennes-Lifshitz free energy [@deGennes-1980; @Grosberg-Khokhlov-book; @Frusawa-2005], which is not expressed in the GL expansion form. In previous simulations, vesicles are observed for rather strong segregation region in diblock copolymer solutions. Thus we can conclude that the use of inappropriate free energy functional models qualitatively affects micellar structures in diblock copolymer solutions. We need to use a free energy model and a dynamic equation which is valid for the strong segregation region and for the macrophase separation. In our previous work [@Uneyama-Doi-2005] we proposed the free energy functional which is valid for strong segregation region, that is, valid for vesicles [@Uneyama-Doi-2005a]. Free Energy Functional {#free_energy_functional} ---------------------- The free energy functional for the system can be expressed as follows by using the soft-colloid picture [@Louis-Bolhuis-Hansen-Meijer-2000; @Pagonabarraga-Cates-2001; @Frusawa-2005]. $$\label{freeenergy_softcolloid} F = - T S + U = - T S_{\text{trans}} - T S_{\text{conf}} + U$$ where $S$ and $U$ are the entropy functional and the interaction energy functional, and $T$ is the temperature. The entropy functional can be decomposed into two parts; the translational entropy functional $S_{\text{trans}}$ and the conformational entropy functional $S_{\text{conf}}$. In the density functional theory, $U$, $S_{\text{trans}}$ and $S_{\text{conf}}$ are expressed as the functional of the local volume fraction fields. (The local volume fraction field is equivalent to the local density field, if the segment volume is set to unity. We assume that the segment volume is unity in this work.) Each contributions to the free energy functional can be modelled for AB type diblock copolymer and solvent mixtures by [@Uneyama-Doi-2005; @Uneyama-Doi-2005a] $$\label{translational_entropy} - \frac{S_{\text{trans}}}{k_{B}} = \sum_{i \, (= A,B)} \int d\bm{r} \, f_{i} C_{ii} \phi_{i}(\bm{r}) \ln \phi_{i}(\bm{r}) + \int d\bm{r} \, \phi_{S}(\bm{r}) \ln \phi_{S}(\bm{r})$$ $$\label{conformational_entropy} \begin{split} - \frac{S_{\text{conf}}}{k_{B}} = & \sum_{i,j \, (= A,B)} \int d\bm{r} d\bm{r}' \, 2 \sqrt{f_{i} f_{j}} A_{ij} \tilde{\mathcal{G}}(\bm{r} - \bm{r}') \psi_{i}(\bm{r}) \psi_{j}(\bm{r}') \\ & + \int d\bm{r} \, 4 \sqrt{f_{A} f_{B}} C_{AB} \psi_{A}(\bm{r}) \psi_{B}(\bm{r}) + \sum_{i \, (= A,B,S)} \int d\bm{r} \, \frac{b^{2}}{6} \left\| \nabla \psi_{i}(\bm{r}) \right\|^{2} \end{split}$$ $$\label{interaction_energy} \frac{U}{k_{B} T} = \sum_{i,j \, (= A,B,S)} \int d\bm{r} \, \frac{\chi_{ij}}{2} \phi_{i}(\bm{r}) \phi_{j}(\bm{r}) + \int d\bm{r} \frac{P(\bm{r})}{2} \left[ \phi_{A}(\bm{r}) + \phi_{B}(\bm{r}) + \phi_{S}(\bm{r}) - 1 \right]$$ where $k_{B}$ is the Boltzmann constant, $\phi_{i}(\bm{r})$ is the local volume fraction of the $i$ segment at position $\bm{r}$, $\psi_{i}(\bm{r})$ is the order parameter field ($\psi$-field) defined as $\psi_{i}(\bm{r}) \equiv \sqrt{\phi_{i}(\bm{r})}$ [@Frusawa-2005]. The coefficients $A_{ij}$ and $C_{ij}$ are constants determined from the block copolymer architecture (we don’t show the explicit forms of $A_{ij}$ and $C_{ij}$ here; they can be found in Refs [[@Uneyama-Doi-2005a; @Uneyama-Doi-2005]]{}), $f_{i}$ is the block ratio of the block copolymer, $b$ is the Kuhn length, $\chi_{ij}$ is the Flory-Huggins $\chi$ parameter, and $\tilde{\mathcal{G}}(\bm{r} - \bm{r}')$ is the Green function which satisfies $[ -\nabla^{2} + \lambda^{-2} ] \tilde{\mathcal{G}}(\bm{r} - \bm{r}') = \delta(\bm{r} - \bm{r}')$ [@Tang-Freed-1992; @notes-inpreparation], where $\lambda$ is a cutoff length and is about the size of microphase separation structures. $P(\bm{r})$ is the Lagrange multiplier for the incompressible condition ($\phi_{A}(\bm{r}) + \phi_{B}(\bm{r}) + \phi_{S}(\bm{r}) = 1$) [@Drolet-Fredrickson-1999]. The conformational entropy is expressed in the bilinear form of $\psi$-field [@Lifshitz-Grosberg-Khokhlov-1978; @Grosberg-Khokhlov-book; @Uneyama-Doi-2005]. One significant property of the conformational entropy is that it satisfies the following relation. $$\label{conformational_entropy_extensivity} S_{\text{conf}}\left[ \{ \alpha \phi_{i}(\bm{r}) \} \right] = \alpha S_{\text{conf}}\left[ \{ \phi_{i}(\bm{r}) \} \right]$$ where $\alpha$ is arbitrary positive constant. (It is clear that the conformational entropy in the bilinear form of $\psi$ satisfies eq .) We can interpret eq as the extensivity of the conformational entropy; under the current approximation (using mean field, and neglecting many body correlations), the total conformational entropy is sum of the conformational entropy of each polymer chains. Since the density profiles of miecellar structures are determined to achieve the low free energy, the conformational entropy which does not satisfy eq may lead unphysical density profile. We note that the Lifshitz entropy [@Lifshitz-Grosberg-Khokhlov-1978; @Grosberg-Khokhlov-book] and the conformational entropy calculated by the SCF theory satisfy eq , while most of previous phenomenological free energy models do not satisfy eq . Substituting eqs - into eq , we get $$\label{freeenergy_diblocksolution} \begin{split} \frac{F}{k_{B} T} = & \sum_{i \, (= A,B)} \int d\bm{r} \, 2 f_{i} C_{ii} \psi^{2}_{i}(\bm{r}) \ln \psi_{i}(\bm{r}) + \int d\bm{r} \, 2 \psi^{2}_{S}(\bm{r}) \ln \psi_{S}(\bm{r}) \\ & + \sum_{i,j \, (= A,B)} \int d\bm{r} d\bm{r}' \, 2 \sqrt{f_{i} f_{j}} A_{ij} \tilde{\mathcal{G}}(\bm{r} - \bm{r}') \psi_{i}(\bm{r}) \psi_{j}(\bm{r}') \\ & + \int d\bm{r} \, 4 \sqrt{f_{A} f_{B}} C_{AB} \psi_{A}(\bm{r}) \psi_{B}(\bm{r}) + \sum_{i \, (= A,B,S)} \int d\bm{r} \, \frac{b^{2}}{6} \left\| \nabla \psi_{i}(\bm{r}) \right\|^{2} \\ & + \sum_{i,j \, (= A,B,S)} \int d\bm{r} \, \frac{\chi_{ij}}{2} \psi^{2}_{i}(\bm{r}) \psi^{2}_{j}(\bm{r}) + \int d\bm{r} \frac{P(\bm{r})}{2} \left[ \psi^{2}_{A}(\bm{r}) + \psi^{2}_{B}(\bm{r}) + \psi^{2}_{S}(\bm{r}) - 1 \right] \end{split}$$ The difference between the free energy functional and our previous model [@Uneyama-Doi-2005] is the form of the Green function (in the previous theory, the Green function $\mathcal{G}(\bm{r} - \bm{r}')$ has no cutoff, $- \nabla^{2} \mathcal{G}(\bm{r} - \bm{r}') = \delta(\bm{r} - \bm{r}')$). A cutoff for the Green function was first introduced by Tang and Freed [@Tang-Freed-1992], without derivation, for the Ohta-Kawasaki type standard GL free energy [@Ohta-Kawasaki-1986]. The Ohta-Kawasaki type Coulomb type long range interaction term may cause unphysical interaction or correlation in non-periodic systems such as block copolymer solutions. The true form of long range interaction can be, in principle, obtained by calculating higher order terms in free energy functional (the effect of higher order vertex functions) exactly. While we can calculate the higher order terms numerically by using the SCF, it is practically impossible to get analytical form of them and take a summation. To avoid the unphysical correlation without numerically demanding calculations, in the present study, We employ a theory which describes more precisely the properties of the length scale of the order of one polymer chain [@notes-inpreparation]; We modify the Coulomb type interaction by introducing Tang-Freed type cutoff [@Tang-Freed-1992], instead of calculating higher order terms exactly. It is reasonable to consider that the interaction range (or the cutoff length $\lambda$) of the long range interaction cannot exceed the characteristic size of the polymer chain. Generally it is difficult to determine the cutoff length (one way to determine it is to use the SCF calculation or other microscopic calculations such as the MD). Here we estimate the cutoff length for the simplest case, diblock copolymer melts. For homogeneous ideal state, the cutoff length is considered to be the mean square end to end distance of a polymer chain $N^{1/2} b$ where $N$ is the polymerization index. On the other hand, for microphase separation structures at the strong segregation region, the polymer chains are strongly stretched. The periods of the structures are known to be proportional to $N^{2/3} b$ [@Ohta-Kawasaki-1986; @Hashimoto-Shibayama-Kawai-1980]. Thus we have the following polymerization index dependence for the cutoff length of diblock copolymer melts. $$\label{lambda_melt} \lambda \propto \begin{cases} N^{1/2} b & (\text{for ideal state}) \\ N^{2/3} b & (\text{for strong segregation region}) \end{cases}$$ We assume that the micellar structures have the similar cutoff length as the melt case. In this work we use $\lambda \simeq N^{2/3} b$ for micellar systems. Note that this is a rough estimation and the validity is not guaranteed. For example, the proportional coefficient in eq is ignored here, or the effect of swelling of the hydrophilic subchain in the solution is not taken into account. Therefore the validity of this value of $\lambda$ should be tested by comparing with the characteristic scale of the resulting phase separation structure. We also note that the dependence of the morphologies to the value of $\lambda$ is not so sensitive (see also Appendix \[cutoff\_length\_dependency\]). What important here is that the interaction range is not infinite (as the original Ohta-Kawasaki green function) but finite (as the modified green function by Tang and Freed). Dynamic Equation {#dynamic_equation} ---------------- We employ the stochastic dynamic density functional model [@Dean-1996; @Frusawa-Hayakawa-2000; @Archer-Rauscher-2004] for the time evolution equation. The diblock copolymer solutions are expressed as three component systems (hydrophilic subchain $A$, hydrophobic subchain $B$, and solvent $S$). The dynamic equation for multicomponent systems can be expressed as follows. $$\label{dynamic_density_functional_equation} \frac{\partial \phi_{i}(\bm{r})}{\partial t} = \nabla \cdot \left[ \frac{1}{\zeta_{i}} \phi_{i}(\bm{r}) \nabla \frac{\delta F}{\delta \phi_{i}(\bm{r})}\right] + \xi_{i}(\bm{r},t)$$ where $\phi_{i}(\bm{r})$ is the concentration of $i$-th component ($i = A,B,S$) and $\zeta_{i}$ is a friction coefficient. $F$ is the free energy. $\xi_{i}(\bm{r},t)$ is the thermal noise which satisfies the fluctuation-dissipation relation. $$\begin{aligned} \label{fluctuation_dissipation_relation_first} \left\langle \xi_{i}(\bm{r},t) \right\rangle & = 0 \\ \label{fluctuation_dissipation_relation_second} \left\langle \xi_{i}(\bm{r},t) \xi_{j}(\bm{r}',t') \right\rangle & = - \frac{2}{\zeta_{i}} \tilde{\beta}^{-1} k_{B} T \delta_{ij} \nabla \cdot \left[ \phi_{i}(\bm{r}) \nabla \delta(\bm{r} - \bm{r}') \right] \delta(t - t')\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle \dots \rangle$ represents the statistical average and $0 \le \tilde{\beta}^{-1} < 1$ is the constant determined from the degree of coarse graining (see Ref [[@Archer-Rauscher-2004]]{} for detail). One can interpret that the temperature of the noise is the effective temperature $\tilde{\beta}^{-1} T$, instead of the real temperature $T$. We also note that $\xi_{i}(\bm{r})$ can be generated easily by the algorithm proposed by van Vlimmeren and Fraaije [@vanVlimmeren-Fraaije-1996]. It should be noted here that the free energy functional in eq is generally some kind of effective free energy functional, and is not equal to the free energy functional for the equilibrium state [@Archer-Rauscher-2004]. In this work we approximate the effective free energy functional as the equilibrium free energy functional . This approximation corresponds to assume that all the polymer chains are fully relaxed, and thus this approximation neglects the viscoelasticity associated with the relaxation of polymer chains. We can interpret the dynamic equation as the TDGL equation. In this case, the Onsager coefficients (or the mobility) $\phi_{i}(\bm{r}) / \zeta_{i}$ is proportional to $\phi_{i}(\bm{r})$. This is most important for the strong segregation region or in the situation that the solute concentration is sufficiently small [@Langer-Baron-Millar-1975; @Kitahara-Imada-1978; @deGennes-1980]. Here we note that the TDGL equation with density dependent mobility and the free energy of ideal gases (the translational entropy of ideal gases) reduces to the diffusion equation (or the Smoluchowski equation) [@Doi-Edwards-book]. This suggests that we should use the Flory-Huggins (or Bragg-Williams) type free energy model once we employed the density dependent mobility. Similarly we should use the density dependent mobility if we employ the Flory-Huggins type free energy model. It is also noted that the TDGL equation with the constant mobility and the Flory-Huggins type free energy leads unphysical singular behaviour near $\phi_{i}(\bm{r}) = 0$. For simplicity, we assume that all the segments have the same friction coefficient ($\zeta_{i} = \zeta$). We can rewrite eq by using $\phi_{i}(\bm{r}) = \psi^{2}_{i}(\bm{r})$ as follows. $$\label{dynamic_density_functional_equation_psi} \begin{split} \frac{\partial \phi_{i}(\bm{r})}{\partial t} & = \nabla \cdot \left[ \frac{k_{B} T}{\zeta} \psi^{2}_{i}(\bm{r}) \nabla \left[ \frac{\delta (F / k_{B} T)}{\delta \psi_{i}(\bm{r})} \frac{\partial \psi_{i}(\bm{r})}{\partial \psi^{2}_{i}(\bm{r})} \right] \right] + \xi_{i}(\bm{r},t) \\ & = \frac{k_{B} T}{2 \zeta} \left[ \psi_{i}(\bm{r}) \nabla^{2} \mu_{i}(\bm{r}) - \mu_{i}(\bm{r}) \nabla^{2} \psi_{i}(\bm{r}) \right] + \xi_{i}(\bm{r},t) \\ & = \frac{k_{B} T}{2 \zeta} \left[ \psi_{i}(\bm{r}) \nabla^{2} \mu_{i}(\bm{r}) - \mu_{i}(\bm{r}) \nabla^{2} \psi_{i}(\bm{r}) + \frac{2 \zeta}{k_{B} T} \xi_{i}(\bm{r},t) \right] \end{split}$$ where $\mu_{i}(\bm{r}) \equiv \delta (F / k_{B} T) / \delta \psi_{i}(\bm{r})$ is a kind of chemical potential field. It is noted that $\mu_{i}(\bm{r})$ is not singular at $\psi_{i}(\bm{r}) = 0$ and thus we can perform stable simulations (on the other hand, $\delta (F / k_{B} T) / \delta \phi_{i}(\bm{r})$ has a singularity and is numerically unstable). By introducing rescaled variables defined as $$\begin{aligned} \label{tilde_t_definition} \tilde{t} & \equiv \frac{k_{B} T}{2 \zeta} t \\ \label{tilde_xi_definition} \tilde{\xi}_{i}(\bm{r},t) & \equiv \frac{2 \zeta}{k_{B} T} \xi_{i}(\bm{r}, t)\end{aligned}$$ and substituting eqs and into eqs , and , we obtain the dynamic equation for rescaled variables $$\label{dynamic_density_functional_equation_psi_rescaled} \frac{\partial \phi_{i}(\bm{r})}{\partial \tilde{t}} = \psi_{i}(\bm{r}) \nabla^{2} \mu_{i}(\bm{r}) - \mu_{i}(\bm{r}) \nabla^{2} \psi_{i}(\bm{r}) + \tilde{\xi}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t})$$ and the fluctuation dissipation relation for the rescaled noise field $$\begin{aligned} \label{fluctuation_dissipation_relation_rescaled_first} \left\langle \tilde{\xi}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t}) \right\rangle & = 0 \\ \label{fluctuation_dissipation_relation_rescaled_second} \left\langle \tilde{\xi}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t}) \tilde{\xi}_{j}(\bm{r}',\tilde{t}') \right\rangle & = - 4 \tilde{\beta}^{-1} \delta_{ij} \nabla \cdot \left[ \phi_{i}(\bm{r}) \nabla \delta(\bm{r} - \bm{r}') \right] \delta(\tilde{t} - \tilde{t}')\end{aligned}$$ It should be noted here that the magnitude of the noise $\tilde{\xi}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t})$ depends only on $\tilde{\beta}^{-1}$. The temperature change corresponds to the change of the time scale (since $t \propto \tilde{t} / T$) and the change of the $\chi$ parameter. However, notice that to return from the to rescaled time $\tilde{t}$ (which is used in the actual simulations) to the real time scale $t$, we have to multiply the factor $2 \zeta / k_{B} T$. We note that we can set $k_{B} T / 2 \zeta = 1$ instead of introducing rescaled variables ($\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\xi}_{i}$). This corresponds to setting the effective diffusion coefficient for the monomer to unity (strictly speaking, the half of the effective diffusion coefficient is set to unity). This change can be done without losing generality, as shown above. To return to the real time scale, we have to multiply the factor $2 \zeta / k_{B} T$ to the rescaled time. This factor can be estimated from the experimental diffusion data. (We will estimate the real time scale in Section \[comparison\_with\_experiments\].) It should be noted here that eqs and implies that the annealing process (the temperature change process) corresponds to the change of the $\chi$ parameter, and the magnitude of the noise is not changed because there are no other parameters related to $T$. The magnitude of the noise is characterized only by $\tilde{\beta}^{-1}$ in the rescaled units. Simulation ========== We solve eq numerically in three dimensions. The chemical potential $\mu_{i}(\bm{r})$ can be calculated from the free energy functional whereas thermal noise $\xi_{i}(\bm{r},t)$ is calculated by the van Vlimmeren and Fraaije’s algorithm [@vanVlimmeren-Fraaije-1996]. Numerical Scheme {#numerical_scheme} ---------------- Simulations are started from the homogeneous state ($\phi_{i}(\bm{r}) = \bar{\phi}_{i}$, where $\bar{\phi}_{i}$ is the spatial average of $\phi_{i}(\bm{r})$). Each step of the time evolution in the simulation is as follows; 1. \[simulation\_firststep\] Calculate the $\psi$-field $\psi_{i}(\bm{r})$ and the chemical potential field $\mu_{i}(\bm{r})$ from the density field $\phi_{i}(\bm{r})$. 2. Generate the thermal noise $\tilde{\xi}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t})$. 3. Calculate the Lagrange multiplier $P(\bm{r})$. 4. \[density\_time\_evolution\] Evolve the density field $\phi_{i}(\bm{r})$ by time step ${\Delta}{\tilde t}$, using $\psi_{i}(\bm{r}), \mu_{i}(\bm{r})$ and $\tilde{\xi}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t})$. 5. Return to the step \[simulation\_firststep\]. Here we describe the numerical scheme for the simulations in detail. As mentioned above, the dynamic density functional equation is reduced to the diffusion equation for the Flory-Huggins type translational entropy functional. In our free energy , we have the Flory-Huggins translational entropy term. Thus the dynamic equation contains the standard diffusion term (Laplacian term). $$\frac{\partial \phi_{i}(\bm{r})}{\partial \tilde{t}} = 2 \tilde{C}_{i} \nabla^{2} \phi_{i}(\bm{r}) + \dotsb$$ where we set $\tilde{C}_{i} = f_{i} C_{ii}$ ($i = A,B$) and $\tilde{C}_{s} = 1$. The numerical stability of the diffusion type equation can be improved by the implicit schemes. In the previous work [@Uneyama-Doi-2005a] we employed the alternating direction implicit (ADI) scheme [@NumericalRecipes] for the Laplacian term. In this work we employ the ADI scheme to improve stability, as the numerical scheme for the equilibrium simulations. We split the each time evolution steps (time step $\Delta\tilde{t}$) into three substeps (time step $\Delta\tilde{t} / 3$). The update scheme for the density field from $\phi^{(n)}_{i}(\bm{r}) \equiv \phi_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t} + n \Delta\tilde{t} / 3)$ to $\phi^{(n + 1)}_{i}(\bm{r})$ is as follows. (For simplicity, here we use the continuum expression for the position $\bm{r}$ and the differential operators $\partial^{2} / \partial x^{2}, \partial^{2} / \partial y^{2}, \partial^{2} / \partial z^{2}$ and $\nabla^{2}$. In real simulations we use the standard lattice for the position and the center difference operators for the differential operators [@NumericalRecipes]) $$\begin{aligned} \label{update_scheme_adi_x} \begin{split} \left[ 1 - \frac{2 \Delta\tilde{t}}{3} \tilde{C}_{i} \frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x^{2}} \right] \phi^{(1)}_{i}(\bm{r}) = & \, \phi^{(0)}_{i}(\bm{r}) + \frac{\Delta\tilde{t}}{3} \bigg[ - 2 \tilde{C}_{i} \frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x^{2}} \phi^{(0)}_{i}(\bm{r}) + \psi^{(0)}_{i}(\bm{r}) \nabla^{2} \mu^{(0)}_{i}(\bm{r}) \\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad - \mu^{(0)}_{i}(\bm{r}) \nabla^{2} \psi^{(0)}_{i}(\bm{r}) + \tilde{\xi}^{(0)}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t}) \bigg] \end{split} \\ \label{update_scheme_adi_y} \begin{split} \left[ 1 - \frac{2 \Delta\tilde{t}}{3} \tilde{C}_{i} \frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial y^{2}} \right] \phi^{(2)}_{i}(\bm{r}) = \, & \phi^{(1)}_{i}(\bm{r}) + \frac{\Delta\tilde{t}}{3} \bigg[ - 2 \tilde{C}_{i} \frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial y^{2}} \phi^{(1)}_{i}(\bm{r}) + \psi^{(1)}_{i}(\bm{r}) \nabla^{2} \mu^{(1)}_{i}(\bm{r}) \\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad - \mu^{(1)}_{i}(\bm{r}) \nabla^{2} \psi^{(1)}_{i}(\bm{r}) + \tilde{\xi}^{(1)}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t}) \bigg] \end{split} \\ \label{update_scheme_adi_z} \begin{split} \left[ 1 - \frac{2 \Delta\tilde{t}}{3} \tilde{C}_{i} \frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial z^{2}} \right] \phi^{(3)}_{i}(\bm{r}) = \, & \phi^{(2)}_{i}(\bm{r}) + \frac{\Delta\tilde{t}}{3} \bigg[ - 2 \tilde{C}_{i} \frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial z^{2}} \phi^{(2)}_{i}(\bm{r}) + \psi^{(2)}_{i}(\bm{r}) \nabla^{2} \mu^{(2)}_{i}(\bm{r}) \\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad - \mu^{(2)}_{i}(\bm{r}) \nabla^{2} \psi^{(2)}_{i}(\bm{r}) + \tilde{\xi}^{(2)}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t}) \bigg] \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ In each steps, the chemical potential $\mu_{i}^{(n)}(\bm{r})$ and $\xi_{i}^{(n)}(\bm{r})$ is regenerated. The numerical Scheme for the calculation of the chemical potential $\mu_{i}^{(n)}(\bm{r})$ is found in Ref [[@Uneyama-Doi-2005a]]{}. Eqs - can be solved easily by using the numerical scheme for the cyclic tridiagonal matrix [@NumericalRecipes]. We need to calculate $\psi^{(n)}_{i}(\bm{r})$ to calculate the chemical potential $\mu_{i}^{(n)}(\bm{r})$. Because of the thermal noise and numerical error, the condition $0 \le \phi^{(n)}_{i}(\bm{r}) \le 1$ is not always satisfied. Thus we put $\psi^{(n)}_{i}(\bm{r})$ as $$\psi^{(n)}_{i}(\bm{r}) = \begin{cases} 0 & (\phi^{(n)}_{i}(\bm{r}) < 0) \\ 1 & (\phi^{(n)}_{i}(\bm{r}) > 1) \\ \sqrt{\phi^{(n)}_{i}(\bm{r})} & (\text{otherwise}) \end{cases}$$ This avoids numerical difficulty associated with negative value of $\phi^{(n)}_{i}(\bm{r})$. The noise field $\xi^{(n)}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t})$ is calculated at each ADI time steps, by using the scheme described in Appendix \[noise\_generation\_scheme\] (notice that the size of the time step here is $\Delta\tilde{t} / 3$ instead of $\Delta\tilde{t}$). The Lagrange multiplier $P(\bm{r})$ is also updated at each ADI time steps by the following scheme. Because of the large thermal noise, the incompressible condition is not always satisfied. Thus we use roughly approximated and relatively simple scheme to calculate $P(\bm{r})$. If we ignore the terms in the chemical potential except for the Lagrange multiplier term, the ADI update scheme can be approximately written as $$\label{update_scheme_p} \phi^{(n + 1)}_{i}(\bm{r}) \approx \phi^{(n)}_{i}(\bm{r}) + \frac{\Delta\tilde{t}}{3} \nabla \cdot \left[ \phi^{(n)}_{i}(\bm{r}) \nabla P(\bm{r}) \right]$$ From eq we have $$\begin{split} \sum_{i} \phi^{(n + 1)}_{i}(\bm{r}) & \approx \sum_{i} \phi^{(n)}_{i}(\bm{r}) + \frac{\Delta\tilde{t}}{3} \nabla \cdot \left[ \sum_{i} \phi^{(n)}_{i}(\bm{r}) \nabla P(\bm{r}) \right] \\ \frac{1}{\Delta\tilde{t} / 3} \left[ \sum_{i} \phi^{(n + 1)}_{i}(\bm{r}) - \sum_{i} \phi^{(n)}_{i}(\bm{r}) \right] & \approx \nabla^{2} P(\bm{r}) - \nabla \cdot \left[ \left[ 1 - \sum_{i} \phi^{(n)}_{i}(\bm{r}) \right] \nabla P(\bm{r}) \right] \end{split}$$ Using the constraint $\sum_{i} \phi^{(n + 1)}_{i}(\bm{r}) = 1$ and assuming $\|1 - \sum_{i} \phi^{(n)}(\bm{r})\| \ll 1$, finally we have $$\label{update_scheme_kappa} \nabla^{2} P(\bm{r}) \approx \frac{1}{(\Delta\tilde{t} / 3)} \left[ 1 - \sum_{i} \phi^{(n)}_{i}(\bm{r}) \right]$$ Eq and the long range interaction terms (which contains the Green function $\tilde{\mathcal{G}}(\bm{r} - \bm{r}')$) in the chemical potential $\mu_{i}(\bm{r})$ can be calculated by several numerical methods for partial differential equations. Here we calculate them by the direct method, using FFTW3 [@Frigo-Johnson-2005]. Results ------- Parameters for the diblock copolymer are as follows: polymerization index $N = 10$, block ratio $f_{A} = 1/3, f_{B} = 2/3$, the spatial average of the volume fraction $\bar{\phi}_{p} = 0.2$. The cutoff length for the long range interaction should be set appropriately. If there are no solvent diblock copolymers form strongly segregated microphase separation structure (currently we are interested in the strong segregation region). Thus from eq we have $\lambda \propto N^{2/3} b \simeq 4.64$. Here we set $\lambda = 5$. The validity of this value is argued later. (See also Appendix \[cutoff\_length\_dependency\].) Parameters for the solvent are as follows: the spatial average of the volume fraction $\bar{\phi}_{s} = 1 - \bar{\phi}_{p} = 0.8$. Flory-Huggins $\chi$ parameters are $\chi_{AB} = 2.5, \chi_{AS} = -0.5, \chi_{BS} = 5$ (the $A$ monomer is hydrophilic and the $B$ monomer is hydrophobic) and the Kuhn length is set to unity ($b = 1$). All the simulations are carried out in three dimensions. The size of the simulation box is $24b \times 24b \times 24b$ and the number of lattice points is $48 \times 48 \times 48$. We apply the periodic boundary condition. The time step is set to ${\Delta}{\tilde t} = 0.0025$ and the magnitude of noise is $\tilde{\beta}^{-1} = 0.0390625$. The simulation is carried out up to $2500000$ time steps (from $\tilde{t} = 0$ to $\tilde{t} = 6250$) and it requires about $20$ days on a $2.8\text{GHz}$ Xeon work station. The snapshots of dynamics simulations are shown in Figure \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots\]. The observed vesicle formation process is different from the mechanism II, which is observed in the previous thermal equilibrium simulations [@He-Liang-Huang-Pan-2004; @Uneyama-Doi-2005a] and EPD simulations [@He-Schmid-2006]. First, spherical micelles are formed (Figure \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots\](a)). Then the micelles aggregate and become large (Figure \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots\](b)), and a disk-like micelle (Figure \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots\](c)) appears. The disk-like micelle is closed (Figure \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots\](d),(e)) to form a vesicle (Figure \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots\](f)). This vesicle formation process agrees with the mechanism I, which is observed in the particle simulations [@Noguchi-Takasu-2001; @Yamamoto-Maruyama-Hyodo-2002; @Marrink-Mark-2003]. To confirm that our vesicle formation is independent of the random seed, next we perform simulations with different random seeds. We peform four simulations here and vesicles are obtained in two simulations. Figures \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots2\] and \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots3\] show the snapshots of vesicle formation processes obtained for different random seeds (all other parameters are the same as the previous simulation). The vesicle formation processes in Figures \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots2\] and \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots3\] again agree with the mechanism I. While the vesicles are not observed for all the simulations, but we consider that the vesicle formation process obtained by the previous simulation is not artifact. The characteristic size of the phase separation structure should be compared with the cutoff length $\lambda$. The characteristic size of the micellar structure can be found in the two dimensional cross section data or the density correlation function. Figure \[cross\_section\_density\_correlation\](a) and (b) show the two dimensional cross section of the final structure ($\tilde{t} = 6250$, Figure \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots\](f)). From Figure \[cross\_section\_density\_correlation\](a) and (b) we can observe that the cutoff length $\lambda = 5$ is comparable to the characteristic size of the micelle bilayer structure. Figure \[cross\_section\_density\_correlation\] (c) shows the radial averaged correlation function of the density field in the Fourier space $S_{AB}(q)$, defined as [@Shinozaki-Oono-1993] $$S_{AB}(q) \equiv \frac{\displaystyle \sum_{q - \Delta / 2 \le \|\bm{q}'\| < q + \Delta / 2} \left[ \phi_{A}(\bm{q'}) / f_{A} - \phi_{B}(\bm{q'}) / f_{B} \right]^{2}} {\displaystyle \sum_{q - \Delta / 2 \le \|\bm{q}'\| < q + \Delta / 2} 1}$$ where $\phi_{i}(\bm{q})$ is the Fourier transform of the density field and $\Delta$ is the width of the shell in the Fourier space (here we set $\Delta = 0.5 \times 2 \pi$). The correlation functions have peaks at $q / 2 \pi \simeq 0.15$. Thus the characteristic wave length for the corona (the $A$ subchain rich region) and the core (the $B$ subchain rich region) is $\simeq 6.7$. While the resolution (the shell width $\Delta$) is not fine, the characteristic size of the structure is comparable with the value of the cutoff length, $\lambda = 5$. Therefore we consider that the value of $\lambda$ used in this simulation is appropriate and valid. (See also Appendix \[cutoff\_length\_dependency\]). Figure \[structure\_volume\_fraction\_dependence\] shows various micellar structures obtained from simulations for different volume fractions $\bar{\phi}_{p} = 0.1, 0.15, 0.25,$ and $0.3$. Simulations are performed up to $1250000$ time steps (from $\tilde{t} = 0$ to $\tilde{t} = 6250$). All other parameters are the same as those in Figure \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots\]. If the volume fraction of the polymer is small (Figure \[structure\_volume\_fraction\_dependence\](a),(b)) only small micelles (spherical micelles in \[structure\_volume\_fraction\_dependence\](a) and disk-like micelles in \[structure\_volume\_fraction\_dependence\](b)) are formed. On the other hand, if the volume fraction of the polymer is large (Figure \[structure\_volume\_fraction\_dependence\](c),(d)) bilayer structures are formed. Vesicles in Figure \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots\] are observed only for the intermediate volume fraction. In experiments, the mixed solvent (mixture of organic solvents and water) is often used to control the morphology of the micellar structures of block copolymers [@Shen-Eisenberg-1999; @Shen-Eisenberg-2000; @Bhargava-Zheng-Li-Quirk-Harris-Cheng-2006]. If we assume that the mixed solvent is the mixture of common solvent ($\chi_{AS}$ and $\chi_{BS}$ is sufficiently small or negative) and water, the volume fraction of water mainly affect the interaction between the hydrophobic subchain and the solvent. We change $\chi_{BS}$ to mimic these experiments. Figure \[structure\_chi\_parameter\_dependence\] shows the results of simulations for various $\chi_{BS}$ ($\chi_{BS} = 0.2, 0.25, 0.3$ and $0.35$). We can observe the spherical micelles are formed for low $\chi_{BS}$ and cylindrical micelles are formed for high $\chi_{BS}$. This agree with the experimental results qualitatively. Shen and Eisenberg [@Shen-Eisenberg-1999; @Shen-Eisenberg-2000] reported that by controlling solvent condition, one can control the morphology of the block copolymer micelles. The control of the morphology is especially important for application use such as the drug delivery system. Here we mimic the solvent condition change by changing the $\chi$ parameter between the hydrophobic segment and the solvent, $\chi_{BS}$. We change the $\chi$ parameter at $\tilde{t} = 6250$ (Figure \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots\](f)), from $\chi_{BS} = 5$ to $\chi_{BS} = 2.5$ or $3$, and perform the simulations up to $\tilde{t} = 9375$. The snapshots at $\tilde{t} = 9375$ are shown in Figure \[structural\_transition\]. The vesicle is changed into spherical micelles (Figure \[structural\_transition\](a)) or cylindrical micelles (Figure \[structural\_transition\](b)). The resulting morphologies are consistent with the morphologies obtained by the simulations started from the homogeneous state (Figure \[structure\_chi\_parameter\_dependence\](b) and Figure \[structure\_chi\_parameter\_dependence\](c)). Discussion ========== From the dynamics simulations based on the density functional theory for amphiphilic diblock copolymers, we could observe the time-evolution of spontaneous formation of vesicles. We also observed the micellar structures depending on the volume fraction of polymers. The observed vesicle formation process is just the same as the results of the previous particle model simulations (mechanism I). At the initial stage of time evolution, rapid formation of small spherical micelles is observed. After the small micelles are formed, they aggregate each other by collision and become larger micelles. Finally the large disk-like micelles are closed and become vesicles. The late stage process, collision process and the close-up process, is slower than the initial stage, as the mechanism I. There are several important differences between our model and the standard TDGL model for the weak segregation limit. Here we mention some essential properties of our model. First, our model can be applied for the strong segregation region, at least qualitatively. This is especially important, since the vesicles are observed in the strong segregation region. Second, the interaction between the hydrophilic subchain and solvent should be handled carefully. If the hydrophilic interaction ($\chi_{AS}$) is too small or both subchains are hydrophobic, the system undergoes macrophase separation and separates into block copolymer rich region and solvent rich region. In such a situation, vesicles are not formed and onion structures [@Koizumi-Hasegawa-Hashimoto-1994; @Ohta-Ito-1995; @Uneyama-Doi-2005; @Sevink-Zvelindovsky-2005] are formed instead. Third, we applied rather large thermal noise to the system. Recently Zhang and Wang [@Zhang-Wang-2006] have shown that the glass transition temperature and the spinodal line (stability limit of the disordered phase) for the microphase separation in diblock copolymer melts are quite close. This implies that microphase separated structures in the block copolymer systems are intrinsically glassy at the strong segregation region. Without sufficiently large and realistic thermal noise, the system is completely trapped at intermediate metastable structures (in most cases, spherical micelles) and thus thermodynamically stable structures (vesicles) will never be achieved. As mentioned above, the magnitude of the noise is determined by the characteristic time scale and the factor $\tilde{\beta}^{-1}$ is independent of the temperature. Thus the noise is important for mesoscopic systems even if the temperature of the system is not high. Thermal Noise {#effective_temparature_for_noise} ------------- Here we discuss about the thermal noise in detail. Intuitively, the large thermal noise is needed to overcome the free energy barrier. In the kinetic pathway of usual macrophase separation processes (for example, phase separations in homopolymer blends), there are not so large free energy barriers. Therefore, in most cases, the simulations for such systems work well with small thermal noise or without thermal noise. On the other hand, in the kinetic pathway of vesicle / micelle formation processes, there are various large free energy barriers (for example, in the collision and coalescence process of spherical micelles). However, it is not clear and established how to determine the magnitude of the thermal noise for such systems. As mentioned, the thermal noise in eq is expressed by using the effective temperature $\tilde{\beta}^{-1} T$, instead of the real temperature $T$ and $\tilde{\beta}^{-1}$ is determined from the degree of coarse graining. Intuitively this means that the coarse graining procedure decreases the degree of the freedom of the field. The similar approach can be found in the van Vlimmeren and Fraaije’s theory [@vanVlimmeren-Fraaije-1996]. They employed the noise scaling parameter $\Omega$ to express the effective degree of freedom in the simulation cell. These two approaches are similar and in fact, we can write the relation between them. $$\label{omega_beta_inv_relation} \Omega = \frac{\|\bm{h}_{x}\| \|\bm{h}_{y}\| \|\bm{h}_{z}\|}{\tilde{\beta}^{-1}}$$ where $\bm{h}_{\alpha}$ is the lattice vector. From eq we can calculate the noise scaling parameter for our simulation. Using the parameters used in Section \[results\], we have $\Omega = (0.5^{3}) / 0.0390625 = 3.2$. It should be noticed that this value of the noise scaling parameter is much smaller than the values used in most of previous works ($\Omega = 100$) by Fraaije et al [@Zvelindovsky-vanVlimmeren-Sevink-Maurits-Fraaije-1998; @Zvelindovsky-vanVlimmeren-Sevink-Maurits-Fraaije-1998b; @vanVlimmeren-Maurits-Zvelindovsky-Sevink-Fraaije-1999]. However, since the thermal noise play an important role in the vesicle formation process, we cannot underestimate $\tilde{\beta}^{-1}$. One may consider that the mean field approximation and the free energy functional does not hold for low noise scaling parameter systems. It may be true, but as shown by Dean[@Dean-1996], the dynamic density functional equation holds even if there are not large number of particles. Thus here we believe that the mean field approximation still holds for our systems. To show the necessity of the large thermal noise in the simulations, we perform several simulations with various values of $\tilde{\beta}^{-1}$. We expect that the simulations for small boxes are sufficient to see the effect of the magnitude of the thermal noise, since the effect is large even for early stage of the dynamics. Thus we perform simulations for small systems (system size $12b \times 12b \times 12b$, lattice points $24 \times 24 \times 24$) with different values of $\tilde{\beta}^{-1}$, $\tilde{\beta^{-1}} = 0.00390625, 0.0390625, 0.390625$. All the other parameters are set to the previous vesicle formation simulations in Section \[results\] (Figure \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots\]). Figure \[thermal\_noise\_snapshots\] shows the snapshots of the simulations. For small thermal noise case (Figure \[thermal\_noise\_snapshots\](a),(b)), we can observe many micelles with sharp interfaces. For large thermal noise case used in Section \[results\] (Figure \[thermal\_noise\_snapshots\](c),(d)) we can observe the collision-coalescence type coarsening process of micelles, driven by the thermal noise. For larger thermal noise case (Figure \[thermal\_noise\_snapshots\](e),(f)) no structures are observed. (We consider this is because the thermal noise is too large.) Thus we can conclude that the large (but not too large) thermal noise is required. This result is consistent with the proposition of van Vlimmeren et al [@vanVlimmeren-Postma-Huetz-Brisson-Fraaije-1996]. They carried out two dimensional simulations for dense amphiphilic triblock copolymer solutions, with the full (large) noise and the reduced (small) noise and proposed that the real systems should have some intermediate noise (smaller than the full noise, but larger than the reduced noise). It should be noted that simulations with small thermal noise is very difficult to perform for our systems, because they are in the strong segregation region. The simulation with the small noise shows strong lattice anisotropy. This means that there are very sharp interfaces which often leads numerical instability, and thus we should use finer lattices for such systems. On the other hand, we do not observe such strong lattice anisotropy in the simulations with large noise. We believe that the large thermal noise stirs the density fields and stabilizes the simulation. At the end of this section, we note that it is difficult to determine the parameter $\tilde{\beta}^{-1}$ theoretically. The estimation of the magnitude of the thermal noise is the open problem. Comparison with Experiments {#comparison_with_experiments} --------------------------- Next we discuss about the relation between the simulation results and the experiments. We used many parameters for the simulations and they should be related to the real experimental parameters. Unfortunately, because the accuracy of our theory is not high and many approximations are involved, it is difficult to calculate the real parameters from our simulation parameters. The most important parameters are the Flory-Huggins $\chi$ parameters. The $\chi$ parameters are experimentally measured or calculated from the solubility parameters. The $\chi$ parameter between the hydrophilic subchain and the hydrophobic subchain is in most cases sufficiently large to cause the microphase separation. For example, Bhargava et al [@Bhargava-Zheng-Li-Quirk-Harris-Cheng-2006] calculated the $\chi$ parameter between polystyrene (PS), which can be used as the hydrophobic monomer [@Choucair-Eisenberg-2003], and water as $\chi_{\text{PS,water}} = 6.27$. Dormidontova [@Dormidontova-2002] measured the $\chi$ parameter between poly(ethyrene oxide) (PEO) and water and reported that the $\chi$ parameter can be expressed as $\chi_{\text{PEO,water}} = -0.0615 + 70 / T$ ($T$ is the absolute temperature). Lam and Goldbeck-Wood [@Lam-GoldbeckWood-2003] also measured $\chi_{\text{PEO,water}}$ and obtained $\chi_{\text{PEO,water}} = 1.35$. Xu et al [@Xu-Winnik-Riess-Chu-Croucher-1992] measured the interaction between PS and PEO and reported $\chi_{\text{PS,PEO}} = 0.02 \sim 0.03$. Zhu et al [@Zhu-Cheng-Calhoun-Ge-Quirk-Thomas-Hsiao-Yeh-Lotz-2001] also measured $\chi_{\text{PS,PEO}}$ and and obtained $\chi_{\text{PS,PEO}} = -0.00705 + 21.3 / T$. The polymerization index of PS-PEO diblock copolymer used in the experiments [@Bhargava-Zheng-Li-Quirk-Harris-Cheng-2006] is typically $\simeq 1000$, thus we expect that $\chi_{\text{PS,PEO}} N$ is sufficiently larger than the critical value $\chi_{c} N = 10.495$ [@Matsen-Bates-1996]. Note that the polyelectrolytes such as poly(acrylic acid) (PAA) is often used as the hydrophilic subchian [@Shen-Eisenberg-1999; @Shen-Eisenberg-2000]. Such polyelectrolytes can be dissolved into water easily, and thus we expect the $\chi$ parameter between the polyelectrolytes and the water is negative. Thus we can say the diblock copolymers are in strong segregation region, and the effect of water addition is expected to be large for hydrophobic subchains, but not so large for hydrophilic subchains. Thus we consider that our simulation is qualitatively consistent with these experiments. Note that, however, we cannot compare the $\chi$ parameter used in the simulations and measured by experiments directly because the value of the $\chi$ parameter depends on the definition of the segment, and our free energy functional is not quantitatively accurate as the SCF theory [@Uneyama-Doi-2005]. We also note that most experiments are carried out in the very strong segregation region in which it is quite hard to perform continuum field simulations. While it is difficult to compare our simulations with real experiments, our simulations are expected to give qualitatively correct physical process since our simulations take the crucial physical properties correctly; the hydrophobic interaction $\chi_{BS}$ is sufficiently large and the hydrophilic interaction $\chi_{AS}$ is small. These properties are not well considered in most of previous dynamics simulations. Other interesting properties are the size of the vesicles, the content of solvents inside vesicles, or the higher order structures. These properties cannot be discussed from our current results, since the system size is not large. We have only one vesicle in the simulation box (Figures \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots\],\[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots2\] and \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots3\]) and there may be the finite size effect (see also Appendix \[finite\_size\_effect\]). Nevertheless, we believe our model and simulation results are still valuable. These properties of vesicles should be observed if we perform the simulations for large systems while it is too difficult to perform large scale simulations by the current models, algorithms and CPU power. The characteristic time scales are also interesting and important property. As mentioned above, the real time scale can be estimated from the diffusion data. Here we estimate the time scale by using the empirical equation for diffusion coefficient of short polystyrene melts (at $T_{g} + 125 {}^{\circ}\text{C}$) by Watanabe and Kotaka [@Watanabe-Kotaka-1986]. $$D \simeq 6.3 \times 10^{-5} M^{-1} \mathrm{cm^{2} / s}$$ where $M$ is the molecular weight. We have to determine the number of monomers in one segment used in our simulations. Since the polymerization index of typical amphiphilic block copolymers used in experiments [@Shen-Eisenberg-2000; @Bhargava-Zheng-Li-Quirk-Harris-Cheng-2006] are about $M \simeq 50 \sim 1000$, we consider that each segment used in simulations contains about $10$ monomer units. In our simulations, we used dimensionless segment size ($b = 1$). Thus we also need the size of the segment. The segment size of the styrene monomer is about $7 \textrm{\AA}$ (it can be calculated from the experimental data of the radius of gyration[@PoLyInfo; @Wignall-Ballard-Schelten-1974]). So if we assume the Gaussian statistics for monomers in the segment, size of the segment can be expressed as $b_{0} \simeq \sqrt{10} \times 7 \textrm{\AA}$. Now we can estimate the characteristic time scale for the system. If we assume that the polymer chains are not entangled and obey the Rouse dynamics, the characteristic time scale $\tau$ can be calculated as follows. $$\tau = \frac{2 \zeta b_{0}^{2}}{k_{B} T} = \frac{2 b_{0}^{2}}{N D}$$ $b_{0}$ is the size of the segment and $N$ is the number of segments in one polymer chain (polymerization index), and $D$ is the diffusion coefficient. $N$ and $M$ can be related as $M = 104 \times 10 \times N$ and thus we have $$\tau \simeq \frac{2 \times 1040 \times \left(\sqrt{10} \times 7 \times 10^{-10} \mathrm{m} \right)^{2}}{6.5 \times 10^{-9} \mathrm{m}^{2} / \mathrm{s}} \simeq 1.6 \times 10^{-6} \mathrm{s}$$ Thus we know that the characteristic time scale in our simulations are about $1$ microsecond, and the time scale of the vesicle formation is about $10$ milliseconds. Of course the time scale estimated here is quite rough and cannot be compared with real experiments directly, but the time scale of our simulation is considered to be much smaller than one of experiments. The possible reasons are that the accuracy of the dynamic equation used for the simulation is not so good, and that the sizes of the formed vesicles are small since the system size is small. Comparison with the EPD simulations {#comparison_with_epd_simulations} ----------------------------------- We compare our simulation results with EPD simulation results and discuss the reason why the EPD simulations [@He-Schmid-2006] and our DF simulations give qualitatively different results (the mechanism II and the mechanism I). The main difference between the EPD simulations and our DF simulations are the free energy functional model and the dynamic equation. The EPD simulations use the free energy calculated from the SCF theory while the DF simulations use the free energy functional . It is known that the DF theory is less accurate than the SCF theory, but gives qualitatively acceptable results [@Uneyama-Doi-2005; @Uneyama-Doi-2005a]. Thus it is difficult to consider that the accuracy of the free energy model affect the observed mechanisms. We expect that the mechanism I is reproduced if we change the free energy functional model from eq to more accurate SCF model. Other difference is the dynamic equation. The EPD model employs nonlocal mobility model, but in the derivation of the dynamic equation, rather rough approximations are involved [@Muller-Schmid-2005]. Because of these approximations, the local mass conservation is not satisfied in the EPD simulations (unless the system is homogeneous). This may affect the dynamic behaviour seriously. The mobility in our dynamic equation is the local type, and thus it is considered to be less accurate than the nonlocal model. But in our dynamic equation, local mass conservation is satisfied exactly. Thus we consider that the EPD simulations reproduce the mechanism II because it does not satisfy the local mass conservation. We expect that if the dynamic equation which satisfy the local mass conservation is used with nonlocal mobility and the SCF free energy, the mechanism I should be reproduced. Conclusion ========== We have shown that we can reproduce the vesicle formation mechanism I by the simulation using the dynamic density functional equation and the free energy functional . The simulation results are qualitatively in agreement with other simulations [@Noguchi-Takasu-2001; @Yamamoto-Maruyama-Hyodo-2002]. This is the first realistic vesicle formation dynamics simulation based on the field theoretical model. To reproduce the mechanism I, we need the free energy functional which can be applied to strong segregation regions, the large thermal noise, and the proper interaction parameters for hydrophilic and hydrophobic interactions. These conditions are not satisfied previous field theoretical dynamic simulations. We have also shown that the formation dynamics of various micellar structures (spherical micelles, cylindrical micelles, vesicles, bilayers) and morphological transitions can be simulated by our model. The morphological transitions can be reproduced only by changing the $\chi$ parameter which corresponds to the change of the solvent condition. The merit of using the field theoretical approach is that we can use the Flory-Huggins interaction parameters, instead of potentials between segments which is required for particle simulations. We have shown that we can mimic the solvent condition control by changing the $\chi$ parameter between the hydrophobic segment and the solvent and have shown that the solvent condition control actually causes morphological transitions. For coarse grained particle simulations, we cannot use the microscopic potential directly, and in most cases the phenomenological potential models are used. Of course for some particle simulations, such as the DPD, we can use the $\chi$ parameters by mapping them onto the DPD potential parameters. But such method is based on the parameter fitting [@Groot-Warren-1997] and not always justified. Thus we consider that especially for many component systems, such as solutions of amphiphiles, the field theoretical approaches have advantages. Although the $\chi$ parameters in the current model cannot be compared with the experiments directly, our data may help understanding experimental data or the physical mechanism. It will be possible to use the experimentally determined $\chi$ parameters by employing more accurate free energy model such as the SCF model [@Fraaije-1993; @Fredrickson-Ganesan-Drolet-2002; @Kawakatsu-book] and efficient numerical algorithms. (We note that recently Honda and Kawakatsu [@Honda-Kawakatsu-2006] proposed the hybrid theory of the DF and the SCF and reported that accurate and numerically efficient simulations can be performed by the hybrid method. By employing their method, accurate and fast simulations for the dynamics of micelles and vesicles may be possible.) The quantitative simulations will be the future work. While the efficiency of our simulation method based on the density functional theory (eqs and ) is larger than the SCF simulations, currently it is still comparable to particle simulations. Besides, because the late stage of the mechanism I is a very slow process, the current model still need considerable computational costs. To study the late stage dynamics or large scale systems (for example, many vesicle systems), we will need more coarse grained and numerically more efficient computational methods. Our current work can be the basis of the further coarse grained field theoretical model. Acknowledgement {#acknowledgment} =============== The author thanks T. Ohta for reading the manuscript and giving useful suggestions, and for helpful comments and discussions. Thanks are also due to H. Morita, T. Taniguchi, Y. Masubuchi, H. Frusawa, and T. Kawakatsu for helpful comments and discussions. The author also thanks anonymous referees who read the original manuscript and gave him useful comments for the improvement of the manuscript. This work is supported by the Research Fellowships of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists. Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered} ======== Noise Generation Scheme {#noise_generation_scheme} ======================= In this section we derive the numerical scheme for generating random noise field which satisfies the fluctuation dissipation relation (eqs and ). Such a noise field can be expressed as [@vanVlimmeren-Fraaije-1996] $$\label{tilde_xi_explicit} \begin{split} \tilde{\xi}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t}) & = \sqrt{4 \tilde{\beta}^{-1}} \nabla \cdot \left[ \sqrt{\phi_{i}(\bm{r})} \bm{\omega}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t}) \right] \\ & = 2 \sqrt{\tilde{\beta}^{-1}} \nabla \cdot \left[ \psi_{i}(\bm{r}) \bm{\omega}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t}) \right] \end{split}$$ where $\bm{\omega}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t})$ is the Gaussian white noise (vector) field which satisfies $$\begin{aligned} \label{fluctuation_dissipation_relation_omega_first} \left\langle \bm{\omega}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t}) \right\rangle & = 0 \\ \label{fluctuation_dissipation_relation_omega_second} \left\langle \bm{\omega}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t}) \bm{\omega}_{j}(\bm{r}',\tilde{t}') \right\rangle & = \delta_{ij} \delta(\bm{r} - \bm{r}') \delta(\tilde{t} - \tilde{t}') \bm{1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{1}$ is the unit tensor. To generate the noise numerically, we need the descretized version of eq . The descretized noise field $\tilde{\xi}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t})$ is defined only on the lattice points. Here we express the position of the lattice point as $\bm{r} = n_{x} \bm{h}_{x} + n_{y} \bm{h}_{y} + n_{z} \bm{h}_{z}$ where $\bm{h}_{\alpha}$ ($\alpha = x,y,z$) is the lattice vector and $n_{\alpha}$ is the integer. The rescaled time $\tilde{t}$ is also descretized as $\tilde{t} = n_{t} \Delta\tilde{t}$ where $n_{t}$ is the integer. The Laplacian operator is replaced by the standard centre finite difference operator as follows $$\label{descretized_laplacian_definition} \nabla^{2} f(\bm{r}) \to \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z} \frac{1}{\|\bm{h}_{\alpha}\|^{2}} \left[ f(\bm{r} + \bm{h}_{\alpha}) - f(\bm{r}) + f(\bm{r} - \bm{h}_{\alpha}) \right]$$ where $f(\bm{r})$ is a descretized field defined on the lattice points. The delta functions are replaced as follows $$\begin{aligned} \label{descretized_delta_r_definition} \delta(\bm{r} - \bm{r}') & \to \frac{\delta_{\bm{r} \bm{r}'}}{\|\bm{h}_{x}\| \|\bm{h}_{y}\| \|\bm{h}_{z}\|} \\ \label{descretized_delta_t_definition} \delta(t - t') & \to \frac{\delta_{t t'}}{\Delta\tilde{t}}\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta_{\bm{r} \bm{r}'} = \delta_{n_{x} n'_{x}} \delta_{n_{y} n'_{y}} \delta_{n_{z} n'_{z}}$ and $\delta_{\tilde{t} \tilde{t}'} = \delta_{n_{t} n'_{t}}$. The fluctuation dissipation relation for the second order moment (eq ) can be rewritten as $$\label{fluctuation_dissipation_relation_rescaled_second_modified} \begin{split} \left\langle \tilde{\xi}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t}) \tilde{\xi}_{j}(\bm{r}',\tilde{t}') \right\rangle & = - 4 \tilde{\beta}^{-1} \delta_{ij} \nabla \cdot \left[ \psi^{2}_{i}(\bm{r}) \nabla \delta(\bm{r} - \bm{r}') \right] \delta(\tilde{t} - \tilde{t}') \\ & = - 4 \tilde{\beta}^{-1} \delta_{ij} \nabla \cdot \left[ \psi^{2}_{i}(\bm{r}) \nabla \frac{\psi_{i}(\bm{r}) \delta(\bm{r} - \bm{r}')}{\psi_{i}(\bm{r})} \right] \delta(\tilde{t} - \tilde{t}') \\ & = - 4 \tilde{\beta}^{-1} \delta_{ij} \left[ \psi_{i}(\bm{r}) \nabla^{2} \left[ \psi_{i}(\bm{r}) \delta(\bm{r} - \bm{r}') \right] - \left[ \psi_{i}(\bm{r}) \delta(\bm{r} - \bm{r}') \right] \nabla^{2} \psi_{i}(\bm{r}) \right] \delta(\tilde{t} - \tilde{t}') \end{split}$$ Using eqs - , we get the descretized version of the fluctuation dissipation relation . $$\label{fluctuation_dissipation_relation_rescaled_second_descretized} \begin{split} \left\langle \tilde{\xi}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t}) \tilde{\xi}_{j}(\bm{r}',\tilde{t}') \right\rangle \approx - \frac{4 \tilde{\beta}^{-1} \delta_{ij}}{\|\bm{h}_{x}\| \|\bm{h}_{y}\| \|\bm{h}_{z}\| \Delta\tilde{t}} \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z} & \frac{1}{\|\bm{h}_{\alpha}\|^{2}} \bigg[ \psi_{i}(\bm{r} + \bm{h}_{\alpha}) \psi_{i}(\bm{r}) \left[ \delta_{(\bm{r} + \bm{h}_{\alpha}) \bm{r}'} - \delta_{\bm{r} \bm{r}'} \right] \\ & - \psi_{i}(\bm{r}) \psi_{i}(\bm{r} - \bm{h}_{\alpha}) \left[ \delta_{\bm{r} \bm{r}'} - \delta_{(\bm{r} - \bm{h}_{\alpha}) \bm{r}'} \right] \bigg] \delta_{\tilde{t} \tilde{t}'} \end{split}$$ In this work, we employ the following descretized equation to generate the noise field. $$\label{tilde_xi_descretized} \begin{split} \tilde{\xi}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t}) \approx 2 \sqrt{\tilde{\beta}^{-1}} \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z} \frac{1}{\|\bm{h}_{\alpha}\|} \Big[ & \sqrt{\psi_{i}(\bm{r} + \bm{h}_{\alpha}) \psi_{i}(\bm{r})} \, \tilde{{\omega}}^{(\alpha)}_{i}(\bm{r} + \bm{h}_{\alpha} / 2,\tilde{t}) \\ & - \sqrt{\psi_{i}(\bm{r}) \psi_{i}(\bm{r} - \bm{h}_{\alpha})} \, \tilde{{\omega}}^{(\alpha)}_{i}(\bm{r} - \bm{h}_{\alpha} / 2,\tilde{t}) \Big] \end{split}$$ where $\tilde{\omega}^{(\alpha)}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t})$ is the $\alpha$ element of $\tilde{\bm{\omega}}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t})$. $\tilde{\bm{\omega}}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t})$ is the descretized Gaussian white noise field which satisfies $$\begin{aligned} \label{fluctuation_dissipation_relation_omega_descretized_first} \left\langle \tilde{\bm{\omega}}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t}) \right\rangle & = 0 \\ \label{fluctuation_dissipation_relation_omega_descretized_second} \left\langle \tilde{\bm{\omega}}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t}) \tilde{\bm{\omega}}_{j}(\bm{r}',\tilde{t}') \right\rangle & = \frac{\delta_{ij} \delta_{\bm{r} \bm{r}'} \delta_{\tilde{t} \tilde{t}'}}{\|\bm{h}_{x}\| \|\bm{h}_{y}\| \|\bm{h}_{z}\| \Delta\tilde{t}} \bm{1}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $\tilde{\bm{\omega}}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t})$ is defined on the staggered lattice. The position of the staggered lattice point is $\bm{r} = (n_{x} + 1/2) \bm{h}_{x} + n_{y} \bm{h}_{y} + n_{z} \bm{h}_{z}, n_{x} \bm{h}_{x} + (n_{y} + 1/2) \bm{h}_{y} + n_{z} \bm{h}_{z}, n_{x} \bm{h}_{x} + n_{y} \bm{h}_{y} + (n_{z} + 1/2) \bm{h}_{z}$ where $n_{\alpha}$ is the integer. It is easy to show that the noise field generated by eq satisfies eq . The noise generation scheme is finally written as follows. 1. Generate the Gaussian white normal distribution vector noise field $\tilde{\bm{\omega}}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t})$ on the staggered lattice points. The noise is generated by using the Mersenne twister pseudo-random number generator [@Matsumoto-Nishimura-1998] and the standard Box-Muller method [@NumericalRecipes]. 2. Calculate the noise field $\tilde{\xi}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t})$ from $\psi_{i}(\bm{r})$ and $\tilde{\bm{\omega}}_{i}(\bm{r},\tilde{t})$ by using eq . Finite Size Effect {#finite_size_effect} ================== It is well known that the size of the simulation box often affects the simulation results (the finite size effect). In this appendix, we study the finite size effect for our simulations by performing simulations with different box size. Figure \[small\_boxes\] shows the simulation results for different (small) box sizes. All the parameters except for the box size are the same for the previous vesicle formation simulation (Figure \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots\]). The box sizes are set to $6b \times 6b \times 6b$ ($12 \times 12 \times 12$ lattice points), $8b \times 8b \times 8b$ ($16 \times 16 \times 16$ lattice points), $12b \times 12b \times 12b$ ($24 \times 24 \times 24$ lattice points), and $16b \times 16b \times 16b$ ($32 \times 32 \times 32$ lattice points). We can observe the spherical micelles (Figure \[small\_boxes\](a)) and the cylindrical micelles (Figure \[small\_boxes\](b),(c)) for small boxes. These structures are much different from the vesicle structures in Figure \[small\_boxes\](d) or Figure \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots\]. This means that if the simulation box is too small, we cannot obtain vesicles. It also implies that there may be the finite size effect in our vesicle formation simulations (box size $48 \times 48 \times 48$), since the size of obtained vesicles are in most cases comparable to the box sizes. But at least we can claim that our vesicle formation process itself is not affected qualitatively since the system size is not so small for the formation of disk like structures (unlike the case of Figure \[small\_boxes\](a),(b),(c)) and we can observe that the small vesicle formation process (Figure \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots2\](d)) is qualitatively same as one for larger vesicles. Cutoff Length Dependency {#cutoff_length_dependency} ======================== The cutoff length $\lambda$ for the long range interaction term in eq is introduced rather intuitively, and therefore the value of $\lambda$ for simulations should be considered carefully. In this section, we perform the simulations with different values of $\lambda$. Simulations are performed in two dimensions. Parameters are as follows: $N = 10$, $f_{A} = 1/3, f_{B} = 2/3$ $\lambda = 2,4,5,6,8$. $\bar{\phi}_{s} = 1 - \bar{\phi}_{p} = 0.8$. $\chi_{AB} = 2.5, \chi_{AS} = -0.5, \chi_{BS} = 5$, $b = 1$. The size of the 2 dimensional simulation box is $64b \times 64b$ ($128 \times 128$ lattice points, periodic boundary condition). The time step is ${\Delta}{\tilde t} = 0.0025$ (for $\lambda = 2,4,5$), $0.000625$ (for $\lambda = 6$), ${\Delta}{\tilde t} = 0.0003125$ (for $\lambda = 8$). The magnitude of the noise is $\tilde{\beta}^{-1} = 0.078125$. All the simulations are started from the homogeneous state. Figure \[lambda\_snapshots\] shows the results for various value of the cutoff length ((a),(b) $\lambda = 1$, (c),(d) $\lambda = 2$, (e),(f) $\lambda = 4$, (g),(h) $\lambda = 5$, (i),(j) $\lambda = 6$, and (k),(l) $\lambda = 8$) at $\tilde{t} = 312.5, 1250$. We can observe the droplet like structures are observed for $\lambda = 1$. and micellar structures for $2 \le \lambda \le 8$. The resulting morphologies for $2 \le \lambda \le 8$ are qualitatively same. (Strictly speaking, $\lambda = 2$ looks slightly different from others and somehow resembles to $\lambda = 1$.) As expected, the cutoff length dependence of the morphology is small. Thus even if the value of $\lambda$ is not accurate, the results are expected not to be affected qualitatively. From this result, we can justify to use the value $\lambda = 5$, which is estimated by the rough argument. [67]{} natexlab\#1bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{} , **, (). , , (). , , (). , , , , (). , , (). , , (). , , , , (). , , , , (). , , , , (). , , (). , , (). , , (). , , (). , , (). , , (). , , , , (). , , , , , (). , , (). , , (). , , , , (). , , (). , , (). , , (). , , (). , , (). , , (). , (, , ). , **, (). , , (). , (, , ). , **, (). , , , , , (). , , (). , , (). , . , , (). , , , , (). , , , , (). , , (). , , (). , , (). , , (). , , , , (). , , (). , (, , ). , , , , (, ), ed. , in (), **, , . , , (). , , (). , , (). , , , , , , , (). , , (). , , , , , , (). , , , , , , (). , , , , , , (). , , , , , , (). , , (). , , (). , , , , , , (). , , , , , , , , , , (). , , (). , . , , , **, (). , , (). , , (). , , . , **, (), . Figures {#figures .unnumbered} ======= Figure Captions {#figure-captions .unnumbered} --------------- Figure \[vesicle\_formation\_mechanisms\]: [Schematic representation of two vesicle formation mechanisms from the initial homogeneous state. Black and grey color corresponds to hydrophobic and hydrophilic subchains, respectively. (a) mechanism I: First, small micellar structures are formed. The micellar structures grow by collision and become large cylindrical or open disk-like micelles. Finally the open disk-like micelle close up to form closed vesicles. (b) mechanism II: The initial stage is similar to the mechanism I. However, the small micellar structures formed in the initial stage grows up to be large spherical micelles. The large spherical micelles then take the solvent inside and thus vesicles are formed.]{} Figure \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots\]: [Snapshots of the dynamics simulation for the amphiphilic diblock copolymer solution ($\bar{\phi}_{p} = 0.2$). Grey surface is the isodensity surface for the hydrophobic subchain, $\phi_{B}(\bm{r}) = 0.5$. (a) $\tilde{t} = 6.25$, (b) $\tilde{t} = 312.5$, (c) $\tilde{t} = 1562.5$, (d) $\tilde{t} = 3125$, (e) $\tilde{t} = 4687.5$, (f) $\tilde{t} = 6250$.]{} Figure \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots2\]: [Snapshots of the dynamics simulation for the amphiphilic diblock copolymer solution ($\bar{\phi}_{p} = 0.2$). Grey surface is the isodensity surface for the hydrophobic subchain, $\phi_{B}(\bm{r}) = 0.5$. (a) $\tilde{t} = 6.25$, (b) $\tilde{t} = 312.5$, (c) $\tilde{t} = 1562.5$, (d) $\tilde{t} = 3125$.]{} Figure \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots3\]: [Snapshots of the dynamics simulation for the amphiphilic diblock copolymer solution ($\bar{\phi}_{p} = 0.2$). Grey surface is the isodensity surface for the hydrophobic subchain, $\phi_{B}(\bm{r}) = 0.5$. (a) $\tilde{t} = 6.25$, (b) $\tilde{t} = 3125$, (c) $\tilde{t} = 4687.5$, (d) $\tilde{t} = 6250$.]{} Figure \[cross\_section\_density\_correlation\]: [Two dimensional cross sections of density field for (a) $\phi_{A}(\bm{r})$ and (b) $\phi_{B}(\bm{r})$. (c) The density correlation function $S_{AB}(\bm{q})$. $\tilde{t} = 6250$.]{} Figure \[structure\_volume\_fraction\_dependence\]: [Snapshots of the dynamics simulations for amphiphilic diblock copolymer solutions with various volume fractions. Grey surface is the isodensity surface for the hydrophobic subchain, $\phi_{B}(\bm{r}) = 0.5$ at $\tilde{t} = 3125$. (a) $\bar{\phi}_{p} = 0.1$, (b) $\bar{\phi}_{p} = 0.15$, (c) $\bar{\phi}_{p} = 0.25$, (d) $\bar{\phi}_{p} = 0.3$. ($\bar{\phi}_{p} = 0.2$ corresponds to Figure \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots\](d).)]{} Figure \[structure\_chi\_parameter\_dependence\]: [Snapshots of the dynamics simulations for amphiphilic diblock copolymer solutions with various $\chi_{BS}$ (the $\chi$ parameter between the hydrophobic chain and the solvent). Grey surface is the isodensity surface for the hydrophobic subchain, $\phi_{B}(\bm{r}) = 0.5$ at $\tilde{t} = 3125$. (a) $\chi_{BS} = 2$, (b) $\chi_{BS} = 2.5$, (c) $\chi_{BS} = 3$, (d) $\chi_{BS} = 3.5$. ($\chi_{BS} = 5$ corresponds to Figure \[vesicle\_formation\_snapshots\](d).)]{} Figure \[structural\_transition\]: [Snapshots of the structural transition dynamics simulations. The $\chi$ parameter $\chi_{BS}$ is initially set to $\chi_{BS} = 5$ and at $\tilde{t} = 6250$, $\chi_{BS}$ is set to lower value. Grey surface is the isodensity surface for the hydrophobic subchain, $\phi_{B}(\bm{r}) = 0.5$ at $\tilde{t} = 9375$. (a) $\chi_{BS} = 5 \to 2.5$, (b) $\chi_{BS} = 5 \to 3$. ]{} Figure \[thermal\_noise\_snapshots\]: [Snapshots of the dynamics simulations for values of $\tilde{\beta}^{-1}$ at $\tilde{t} = 6.25, 12.5$. (a),(b) $\tilde{\beta}^{-1} = 0.00390625$, $\tilde{t} = 6.25, 12.5$. (c),(d) $\tilde{\beta}^{-1} = 0.0390625$, $\tilde{t} = 6.25, 12.5$. (e),(f) $\tilde{\beta}^{-1} = 0.390625$, $\tilde{t} = 6.25, 12.5$. ]{} Figure \[small\_boxes\]: [Snapshots of the dynamics simulations for amphiphilic diblock copolymer solutions with various small box sizes at $\tilde{t} = 3125$. (a) box size $6b \times 6b \times 6b$ ($12 \times 12 \times 12$ lattice points), (b) box size $8b \times 8b \times 8b$ ($16 \times 16 \times 16$ lattice points), (c) box size $12b \times 12b \times 12b$ ($24 \times 24 \times 24$ lattice points), and (d) box size $16b \times 16b \times 16b$ ($32 \times 32 \times 32$ lattice points). Super cells (size $24b \times 24b \times 24b$) is shown. Small gray boxes show the real simulation box. ]{} Figure \[lambda\_snapshots\]: [Snapshots of the dynamics simulations for amphiphilic diblock copolymer solutions with various cutoff length $\lambda$. Black color represents $\phi_{B}(\bm{r})$. (a),(b) $\lambda = 1$, $\tilde{t} = 312.5, 1250$. (c),(d) $\lambda = 2$, $\tilde{t} = 312.5, 1250$. (e),(f) $\lambda = 4$, $\tilde{t} = 312.5, 1250$. (g),(h) $\lambda = 5$, $\tilde{t} = 312.5, 1250$. (i),(j) $\lambda = 6$, $\tilde{t} = 312.5, 1250$. (k),(l) $\lambda = 8$, $\tilde{t} = 312.5, 1250$. ]{}	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- bibliography: - 'final.bib' --- Introduction ============ The running coupling {#sec:coupling} ==================== General considerations on the continuum limit of flow quantities {#sec:cont} ================================================================ Continuum extrapolations and the $\beta$-function {#sec:step} ================================================= Connection of scales $1/L_0$ and $1/L_\mathrm{had}$ {#sec:scales} =================================================== \[sec:L0\] Discussion {#sec:conclusions} ========== We thank our colleagues in the ALPHA collaboration, in particular C. Pena, S. Schaefer, H. Simma, and U. Wolff for many useful discussions. We would also like to show our gratitude to S. Schaefer and H. Simma for their invaluable contribution regarding important modifications to the `openQCD` code. Furthermore, we have benefited from the joint production of gauge field ensembles with a project computing the running of quark masses. We thank I. Campos, C. Pena and D. Preti for this collaboration. We also thank Pol Vilaseca who computed the used one-loop coefficient of $\cttil$. We thank the computer centres at HLRN (bep00040) and NIC at DESY, Zeuthen for providing computing resources and support. We are indebted to Isabel Campos and thank her and the staff at the University of Cantabria at IFCA in the Altamira HPC facility for computer resources and technical support. R.S. acknowledges support by the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics at Kyoto University, where part of this work was carried out. S.S. acknowledges support by SFI under grant 11/RFP/PHY3218. P.F. acknowledges financial support from the Spanish MINECO’s “Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa” Programme under grant SEV-2012-0249, as well as from the grant FPA2015-68541-P (MINECO/FEDER). This work is based on previous work [@Sommer:2015kza] supported strongly by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft in the SFB/TR 09. Simulation details {#ap:simulation} ==================	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The topological antisymmetric tensor field theory in $n$-dimensions is perturbed by the introduction of local metric dependent interaction terms in the curvatures. The correlator describing the linking number between two surfaces in $n$-dimensions is shown to be not affected by the quantum corrections.' author: - 'V. E. R. Lemes, S. P. Sorella, A. Tanzini, O. S. Ventura,' - \| L.C.Q.Vilar,\ UERJ, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro\ Departamento de Física Teórica\ Instituto de Física\ Rua São Francisco Xavier, 524\ 20550-013, Maracanã, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - 'UERJ-DFT/09/99$\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,$PACS: 11.10.Gh' title: 'Linking observables in perturbed topological field theories ' --- Introduction ============ Since their introduction [@schw; @witt], topological field theories have been object of continuous and renewed investigations and have led to many interesting applications [@rep]. Their original motivation was to provide a natural framework for a field theory characterization and computation of several topological invariants. For instance, the Chern-Simons and the BF theories in three dimensions play a relevant role in knots theory, their correlation functions being respectively related to the Jones [@witt] and the Alexander-Conway [@cotta] polynomials. In particular, a generalization of this framework to higher dimensions allows to describe the linking number of surfaces in terms of antisymmetric tensor fields, whose action reads [@hor; @bt] $$\mathcal{S}_{top}=\int_MBdC\;, \label{s-top}$$ where $B$ and $C$ are forms of degree $p$ and $n-p-1$ respectively. Indeed, it is possible to show [@hor; @bt] that the correlation function $$\left\langle \int_{\Sigma _p}B\int_{\Sigma _{n-p-1}^{\prime }}C\right\rangle _{\mathcal{S}_{top}}=Link(\Sigma ,\Sigma ^{\prime })\; \label{corr-top}$$ gives the linking number between two smooth, closed nonintersecting surfaces $\Sigma _p$ and $\Sigma _{n-p-1}^{^{\prime }}$. It is worth underlining also that, more recently, much attention has been given to the fact that topological terms of the kind of (\[s-top\]) appear frequently as parts of more general effective actions describing the low-energy dynamics of several field theory models. For instance, the effective action corresponding to the bosonization [[@hall]]{} of relativistic three-dimensional massive fermionic systems at $T=0$ can be written as the sum of a Chern-Simons term $\int BdB$ and of an infinite series of higher order terms in the curvature $dB$ and its derivatives. The same procedure can be applied when fermions are coupled to a dynamical vector field $C$. In this case the resulting bosonized action contains a mixed term of the type of (\[s-top\]). These effective actions are well suited to describe several three-dimensional phenomena such as the Fermi-Bose transmutation [@pol], the quantum Hall effect [@hall], the incompressible chiral liquids [@sod; @zee]. Further interesting examples are provided by the low energy effective supergravities studied in the context of the $AdS/CFT$ correspondence [@ads]. Indeed, as discussed by [@ads-witt], the dual supergravity action which describes the $N=4\;$SYM theory with electric and magnetic fluxes is $$\mathcal{S}_{sugra}=\int_XB^{RR}dB^{NS}\;+\;\mathcal{S}(dB)\;, \label{s-g}$$ where [ ]{}$B^{RR},\;B^{NS}\;$are the Ramond-Ramond and Neveu-Schwarz–Neveu-Schwarz two forms, transforming as a doublet under the $SL(2,\Bbb{Z})$ S-duality symmetry, $X$ is a negatively curved five-dimensional Einstein manifold, and $\mathcal{S}(dB)$ collects all the higher order terms in the curvatures $dB^{RR},\;dB^{NS}$. In all these models, the topological terms appear together with higher derivatives terms in the generalized curvatures, which depend on the metric. Therefore we are naturally led to analyse the possible contributions coming from these terms, as recently done for the three-dimensional abelian Chern-Simons theory [[@pert]. In this case it has been possible to prove that ]{}the correlator $$\left\langle \int_{\gamma _1}A\int_{\gamma _2}A\right\rangle =Link(\gamma _1,\gamma _2)\;, \label{c-s-l}$$ describing the linking number between two smooth closed nonintersecting curves $\gamma _1,\gamma _2$, is not affected by the presence of higher derivative interaction terms of the type $\int F^n$. The aim of the present work is that of generalizing this result to higher dimensions. In particular we shall see that, in analogy with the three-dimensional Chern-Simons, the correlator $$\left\langle \int_{\Sigma _p}B\int_{\Sigma _{n-p-1}^{\prime }}C\right\rangle _{\left( \mathcal{S}_{top}+\mathcal{S}_{int}\right) }=Link(\Sigma ,\Sigma ^{\prime })\;, \label{1}$$ is not affected by the introduction of local perturbation terms in the curvatures of the type $$\mathcal{S}_{int}=\int \;(dB)^k(dC)^q\;, \label{int}$$ and gives as final result the linking number of the two surfaces $\Sigma,\Sigma ^{\prime }$. This result means that the correlator (\[1\]) is stable against the introduction of perturbing local terms in the curvatures, regardless of their power-counting nonrenormalizability. It is worth underlining that we will limit here ourselves only to effective actions which are abelian, and we shall consider only terms dependent on the curvatures $H_B=dB,\;H_C=dC\;$ which can be treated as true perturbations. Namely, we shall avoid in the effective action $\left( \mathcal{S}_{top}+\mathcal{S}_{int}\right) $ the inclusion of a term of the Maxwell type $$\mathcal{S}_{Max}=\frac 1{m_B}\int_MH_BH_B+\frac 1{m_C}\int_MH_CH_C\,\;, \label{max}$$ where $m_B,$ $m_C$ are mass parameters. The presence of this term would completely modify the original properties of the model. In fact, being expression (\[max\]) quadratic in the gauge fields, it cannot be considered as a true perturbation term, as it will be responsible for the presence of massive excitations in the spectrum of the theory. Rather, the presence of the Maxwell term in the effective action $\left( \mathcal{S}_{top}+\mathcal{S}_{int}\right)$ will give rise to the existence of two distinct regimes corresponding to the long and short distance behaviors, respectively. For distances larger than the inverse of the mass parameters $m_B,$ $m_C\;$ (i.e., the low energy regime ), the topological term will prevail,* while the Maxwell term will become the relevant one at short distances (i.e.,* the high-energy regime). In general, the computation of the correlator (\[corr-top\]) for arbitrary surfaces in the presence of the Maxwell term is a very difficult task, mainly due to the metric dependence of the propagator. Indeed, in the abelian three-dimensional Maxwell-Chern-Simons case no closed analytic expression for the correlator (\[c-s-l\]) has been found so far, even in the simpler case in which the curves $\gamma _1,\gamma _2$ are two circles. The inclusion of the Maxwell term is beyond the aim of the present paper, being presently under investigation. We would like to remark that, in the low energy regime, a useful local gauge invariant field redefinition has been recently applied [[@slk]]{} for the Maxwell-Chern-Simons theory to compute the corrections to the correlator (\[c-s-l\]) for two coinciding curves $\gamma _1\equiv \gamma _2$ as power series in the inverse of the mass. This field redefinition can be also generalized to the present case and is expected to be suitable for the characterization of the Maxwell contributions in the low energy regime [[@w-p]]{}. Perturbative expansion and Feynman diagrams =========================================== In order to analyse the aforementioned nonrenormalization properties of the linking number, let us proceed by computing the correlator $$\left\langle \int_{\Sigma _p}B\int_{\Sigma _{n-p-1}^{\prime }}C\right\rangle _{\mathcal{S}eff}\;, \label{corr}$$ in the case in which the total action $\mathcal{S}$ is chosen to be $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{S}_{eff} &=&\mathcal{S}_{top}+\mathcal{S}_{int}\;, \nonumber \label{6} \\ \mathcal{S}_{int} &=&\tau \int_M:(H_BH_B)(H_CH_C):\; \label{action}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau $ is an arbitrary parameter with negative mass dimension, and $H_B=dB$, $H_C=dC$ are respectively the curvatures of the gauge fields $B$ and $C$. Notice that the normal ordering prescription has been adopted for the quartic interaction, allowing us to rule out tadpoles diagrams[^1]. The action $\mathcal{S}$ is invariant under the gauge transformations $$\begin{aligned} \delta B &=&d\omega _{p-1\;,} \nonumber \\ \delta C &=&d\eta _{n-p-2}\;. \label{g-t}\end{aligned}$$ Remark that the transformations $(\ref{g-t})$ are reducible and therefore the quantization procedure will require the introduction of ghosts for ghosts. In order to gauge fix the action $(\ref{action})$ we choose the linear Landau tansverse condition $$dB=dC=0\;, \label{g-f}$$ which implies that the whole set of ghosts for ghosts completely decouples, due to the abelian character of the theory. Thus, for the propagator we get $$\left\langle B_{\mu _1...\mu _p}(x)C_{\mu _{p+1}...\mu _{n-1}}(y)\right\rangle _{BC}= \varepsilon _{\mu _1......\mu _{n-1}\mu _n}\partial _x^{\mu _n}G(x-y)\;, \label{prop}$$ where $G(x-y)$ is the Green function of the laplacian $$\ast ddG(x-y)=\delta (x-y)\;.$$ Since the two surfaces $\Sigma ,\;\Sigma ^{\prime }$ must be homologically trivial [@hor] $$\Sigma _p=\partial \mathcal{\beta }_{p+1},\Sigma _{n-p-1}^{\prime }=\partial \mathcal{\beta }_{n-p}\;,$$ we can suppose that they are contained in a region of $M$ diffeomorphic to the flat euclidean space[^2] $R ^n$. In this case, the Green function is given by $$G(x-y)=\frac{\Gamma \left( n/2\right) }{\left[ \left( 2n-4\right) \pi ^{n/2}p!\left( n-p-1\right) !\right] }\frac{^1}{\left\| x-y\right\| ^{n-2}}\,,$$ where $\left\| x-y\right\| $ denotes the euclidean distance between $x$ and $y$. Let us now give the elementary Wick contractions which shall be needed for the evaluation of the Feynman diagrams. From $(\ref{prop})$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \left\langle B_{\mu _1...\mu _p}(x)\widetilde{H}_C^{\nu _1...\nu _p}(y)\right\rangle &=&\left( -1\right) ^{n+p}(p+1)\left( \delta _{\left[ \mu _1...\mu _p\right] }^{\nu _1...\nu _p}\delta (x-y)+\right. \nonumber \\ &&\left. +\,\,\,\,\delta _{[\mu _1,..,\mu _{i-1},\mu _{i+1},..,\mu _p}^{\nu _1,..,\nu _{i-1},\nu _{i+1},..,\nu _p}\partial _{\mu _i]}^x\partial _y^{\nu _i}G(x-y)\right), \nonumber \\ \label{bhcprop}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \left\langle C_{\mu _1...\mu _{n-p-1}}(x)\widetilde{H}_B^{\nu _1...\nu _{n-p-1}}(y)\right\rangle &=&\frac{p!}{(n-p-1)!}p\left( \delta _{\left[ \mu _1...\mu _{n-p-1}\right] }^{\nu _1...\nu _{n-p-1}}\delta (x-y)+\right. \nonumber \\&&\left. +\,\,\,\,\delta _{[\mu _1,..,\mu _{i-1},\mu _{i+1},..,\mu _{n-p-1}}^{\nu _1,..,\nu _{i-1},\nu _{i+1},..,\nu _{n-p-1}}\partial _{\mu _i]}^x\partial _y^{\nu _i}G(x-y)\right) , \nonumber \\ \label{chbprop}\end{aligned}$$ where the index $i$ runs from one to $p$, and $$\begin{aligned} \left\langle \widetilde{H}_{B\mu _1...\mu _{n-p-1}}(x)\widetilde{H}_{C\nu _1...\nu _p}(y)\right\rangle &=&\frac{(-1)^{p(n-p)+n-1}p(n-p)^2}{(p-1)!}\times \nonumber \\&& \times \left( \varepsilon _{\mu _1...\mu _{n-p-1}\nu _1...\nu _p\nu _{p+1}}^{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}\partial _y^{\nu _{p+1}}\delta \left( x-y\right) \right) . \nonumber \\ \label{hbhcprop}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the propagator $\left\langle C\widetilde{H}_B\right\rangle $ has the same structure of $\left\langle B\widetilde{H}_C\right\rangle $ in $(\ref{bhcprop})$. In the above equations $\widetilde{H}_C=H_C$ and $\widetilde{H}_B=H_B$ are respectively the Hodge duals of the curvatures $H_C $ and $H_B,$ and the symbol $[\mu _1,...,\mu _p]$ means complete antisymmetrization in the indices. Concerning now the perturbative expansion, it is easy to see that the first Feynman diagram which contributes to the correlation function $(\ref{corr})$ is of two-loop order. For the three-dimensional case, in which $\Sigma ,$ $\Sigma ^{\prime }$ are two smooth oriented nonintersecting curves, this diagram can be drawn as follows In the above figure, the dashed, the wavy and the double lines refer respectively to the Wick contractions $\left\langle B\widetilde{H}_C\right\rangle ,\left\langle C\widetilde{H}_B\right\rangle $ and $\left\langle \widetilde{H}_B\widetilde{H}_C\right\rangle $. Apart from an irrelevant global symmetry coefficient, the Feynman integral corresponding to the diagram of $Fig.1$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} I^{\left( 2\right) } &=&\int_\Sigma d\sigma \left( x\right) ^{\mu _1....\mu _p}\int_{\Sigma ^{\prime }}d\tau (y)^{\nu _1....\nu _{n-p-1}}\int d^nz_1\int d^nz_2 \label{i2} \nonumber \\ &&\left\langle B_{\mu _1....\mu _p}\left( x\right) \widetilde{H}_{C\beta _1....\beta _p}\left( z_1\right) \right\rangle \left\langle C_{\nu _1....\nu _{n-p-1}}(y)\widetilde{H}_{B\gamma _1....\gamma _{n-p-1}}\left( z_2\right) \right\rangle \nonumber \\ &&\left\langle \widetilde{H}_C^{\beta _1....\beta _p}\left( z_1\right) \widetilde{H}_B^{\gamma _1....\gamma _{n-p-1}}\left( z_2\right) \right\rangle \left\langle \widetilde{H}_B^{\lambda _1....\lambda _{n-p-1}}\left( z_1\right) \widetilde{H}_C^{\alpha _1....\alpha _p}\left( z_2\right) \right\rangle \nonumber \\ &&\left\langle \widetilde{H}_{B\lambda _1....\lambda _{n-p-1}}\left( z_1\right) \widetilde{H}_{C\alpha _1....\alpha _p}\left( z_2\right) \right\rangle \;\,. \end{aligned}$$ In the analysis of the above expression it is worth to observe that the two fields $B(x)$ and $C(y)$, lying on the hypersurfaces $\Sigma $ and $\Sigma ^{\prime }$, are respectively Wick-contracted with $\widetilde{H}_C$ and $\widetilde{H}_B$. From the explicit form of the propagator $\left\langle B\widetilde{H}_C\right\rangle $, we see that the term in the second line of $(\ref{bhcprop})$ yields a total derivative on the closed hypersurface $\Sigma $; implying that this term gives a vanishing contribution. The same result also holds for the contribution coming from the propagator $\left\langle C\widetilde{H}_B\right\rangle $ of $(\ref{chbprop})$. It is worth remarking that this argument relies only on the fact that the two surfaces $\Sigma $ and $\Sigma ^{\prime }$ are closed. Therefore, it applies to the higher-order contributions as well. As a consequence, all the Wick contractions entering the Feynman diagrams will lead to a product of delta functions. In particular, for the 2-loop diagram of $Fig.1$, the integral $(\ref{i2})$ reduces to $$\begin{aligned} I^{(2)} &=&\int d\sigma (x)^{\mu _1....\mu _p}\int d\tau (y)^{\nu _1....\nu _{n-p-1}}\int d^nz_1\int d^nz_2 \label{i22} \nonumber \\ &&\delta _{\left[ \nu _1....\nu _{n-p-1}\right] }^{\gamma _1....\gamma _{n-p-1}}\delta \left( y-z_2\right) \delta _{\left[ \mu _1....\mu _p\right] }^{\sigma _1....\sigma _p}\delta \left( x-z_1\right) \nonumber \\ &&\varepsilon ^{\sigma _1....\sigma _{p+1}\gamma _1....\gamma _{n-p-1}}\partial _{\sigma _{p+1}}\delta \left( z_1-z_2\right) \varepsilon ^{\alpha _1....\alpha _{p+1}\lambda _1....\lambda _{n-p-1}\,}\partial _{\alpha _{p+1}}\delta \left( z_1-z_2\right) \nonumber \\ &&\varepsilon _{\alpha _1....\alpha _p\widehat{\alpha }_{p+1}\lambda _1....\lambda _{n-p-1}}^{\,}\partial ^{\widehat{\alpha }_{p+1}}\delta \left( z_1-z_2\right) . \end{aligned}$$ In spite of the presence of products of delta functions with the same argument, the above expression is easily seen to vanish. We observe first of all that it is always possible to take an order of integration over the delta functions such that we end up with products of $\delta ^n(x-y)$ and not of $\delta ^n\left( 0\right) $. In the present case, this would amount to integrate out first the two delta functions with arguments $x-z_1$ and $y-z_2$, leading to $$\begin{aligned} I^{(2)} &=&\int d\sigma (x)^{\mu _1....\mu _p}\int d\tau (y)^{\nu _1....\nu _{n-p-1}}\delta _{\left[ \nu _1....\nu _{n-p-1}\right] }^{\gamma _1....\gamma _{n-p-1}}\delta _{\left[ \mu _1....\mu _p\right] }^{\sigma _1....\sigma _p} \nonumber \\ &&\varepsilon ^{\sigma _1....\sigma _{p+1}\gamma _1....\gamma _{n-p-1}}\varepsilon ^{\alpha _1....\alpha _{p+1}\lambda _1....\lambda }\varepsilon _{\alpha _1....\alpha _p\widehat{\alpha }_{p+1}\lambda _1....\lambda _{n-p-1}}^{\,} \nonumber \\ &&\partial _{\sigma _{p+1}}\delta \left( x-y\right) \partial _{\alpha _{p+1}}\delta \left( x-y\right) \partial ^{\widehat{\alpha }_{p+1}}\delta \left( x-y\right) ,\end{aligned}$$ which is zero owing to the fact that the two surfaces $\Sigma $ and $\Sigma ^{\prime }$ never intersect, so that $x-y$ never vanishes. Moreover, as done in $\cite{pert}$, we can adopt a more rigorous treatment by regularizing the $n$-dimensional delta functions with coinciding arguments through the point splitting procedure already used by Polyakov $\cite{pol}$$$\begin{aligned} \delta _\epsilon (z_1-z_2) &=&\frac 1{\left( 2\pi \epsilon \right) ^{n/2}}e^{-\left\| z_1-z_2\right\| ^2/2\epsilon } \nonumber \\ \stackunder{\epsilon \rightarrow 0}{\lim }\delta _\epsilon (z_1-z_2) &=&\delta (z_1-z_2) \label{reg} \end{aligned}$$ More precisely, whenever a product of $m$ delta functions with coinciding arguments occurs, it will be understood as $$\left[ \delta \left( z_1-z_2\right) \right] ^m=\left[ \delta _\epsilon \left( z_1-z_2\right) \right] ^{m-1}\delta \left( z_1-z_2\right) ,$$ where the limit $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ is meant to be taken at the end of all calculations. In this regularization scheme we then have $$\begin{aligned} I^{(2)} &=&\stackunder{\epsilon \rightarrow 0}{\lim }\int d\sigma (x)^{\mu _1....\mu _p}\int d\tau (y)^{\nu _1....\nu _{n-p-1}}\int d^nz_1\int d^nz_2 \nonumber \\ &&\delta _{\left[ \nu _1....\nu _{n-p-1}\right] }^{\gamma _1....\gamma _{n-p-1}}\delta (y-z_2)\delta _{\left[ \mu _1....\mu _p\right] }^{\sigma _1....\sigma _p}\delta \left( x-z_1\right) \nonumber \\ &&\varepsilon ^{\sigma _1....\sigma _{p+1}\gamma _1....\gamma _{n-p-1}}\partial _{\sigma _{p+1}}\delta _\epsilon \left( z_1-z_2\right) \varepsilon ^{\alpha _1....\alpha _{p+1}\lambda _1....\lambda _{n-p-1}\,}\partial _{\alpha _{p+1}}\delta _\epsilon \left( z_1-z_2\right) \nonumber \\ &&\varepsilon _{\alpha _1....\alpha _p\widehat{\alpha }_{p+1}\lambda _1....\lambda _{n-p-1}}^{\,}\partial ^{\widehat{\alpha }_{p+1}}\delta \left( z_1-z_2\right) , \label{i22reg} \end{aligned}$$ which is vanishing no matter the order of integration we take. Indeed, before taking the limit $\epsilon \rightarrow 0,$ we always obtain an expression containing $\delta \left( x-y\right) $, with $x-y\neq 0$. We can thus conclude that the two-loop diagram in $Fig.1$ does not contribute to the correlator $(\ref{corr})$. Similar arguments can be used to show that also the higher-order contributions vanish. Let us consider, for instance, the topologically distinct diagrams contributing to the 3 and 4-loop order, shown respectively in $Fig.2$ and $Figs.3,4$. Concerning the 3-loop contribution of $Fig.2$, a typical contraction is $$\begin{aligned} I^{(3)} &=&\int d\sigma \left( x\right) ^{\mu _1....\mu _p}\int d\tau (y)^{\nu _1....\nu _{n-p-1}}\int d^nz_1\int d^nz_2\int d^nz_3 \nonumber \\ &&\;\;\;\;\;\delta _{\left[ \nu _1....\nu _{n-p-1}\right] }^{\varphi _1....\varphi _{n-p-1}}\delta (y-z_2)\delta _{\left[ \mu _1....\mu _p\right] }^{\beta _1....\beta _p}\delta \left( x-z_1\right) \varepsilon _{\rho _1...\rho _{p+1}\alpha _1...\alpha _{n-p-1}}^{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}\partial ^{\rho _{p+1}}\delta \left( z_1-z_3\right) \nonumber \\ &&\;\;\;\;\;\varepsilon _{\sigma _1...\sigma _{p+1}\alpha _1...\alpha _{n-p-1}}^{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}\partial ^{\sigma _{p+1}}\delta \left( z_1-z_2\right) \varepsilon _{\beta _1....\beta _{p+1}\theta _1...\theta _{n-p-1}}^{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}\partial ^{\beta _{p+1}}\delta \left( z_1-z_3\right) \nonumber \\ &&\;\;\;\;\;\varepsilon ^{\sigma _1...\sigma _p\widehat{\sigma }_{p+1}\theta _1...\theta _{n-p-1}}\partial _{\widehat{\sigma }_{p+1}}\delta \left( z_3-z_2\right) \varepsilon _{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\varphi _1....\varphi _{n-p-1}}^{\rho _1...\rho _p\widehat{\rho }_{p+1}\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}\partial _{\widehat{\sigma }_{p+1}}\delta \left( z_2-z_3\right) \;. \nonumber \\ \label{13}\end{aligned}$$ Analogously, a typical term of the four-loop contribution of $Fig.3,$ turns out to be $$\begin{aligned} I^{\left( 4\right) } &=&\int d\sigma \left( x\right) ^{\mu _1....\mu _p}\int d\tau (y)^{\nu _1....\nu _{n-p-1}}\int d^nz_1\int d^nz_2\int d^nz_3\int d^nz_4 \nonumber \\ &&_{\left[ \mu _1....\mu _p\right] }^{\sigma _1....\sigma _p}\delta \left( x-z_1\right) \delta _{\left[ \nu _1....\nu _{n-p-1}\right] }^{\beta _1....\beta _{n-p-1}}\delta (y-z_2)\varepsilon ^{\theta _1...\theta _{p+1}\alpha _1...\alpha _{n-p-1}}\partial _{\theta _{p+1}}\delta \left( z_1-z_2\right) \nonumber \\ &&\varepsilon _{\theta _1...\theta _p\widehat{\theta }_{p+1}\alpha _1...\alpha _{n-p-1}}\partial ^{\widehat{\theta }_{p+1}}\delta \left( z_1-z_2\right) \varepsilon _{\sigma _1...\sigma _{p+1}\varphi _1...\varphi _{n-p-1}}^{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}\partial ^{\sigma _{p+1}}\delta \left( z_1-z_3\right) \nonumber \\ &&\varepsilon _{\xi _1...\xi _{p+1}\beta _1...\beta _{n-p-1}}^{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}\partial ^{\xi _{p+1}}\delta \left( z_2-z_4\right) \varepsilon _{\xi _1...\xi _p\widehat{\xi }_{p+1}\varphi _1...\varphi _{n-p-1}}^{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}\partial ^{\widehat{\xi }_{p+1}}\delta \left( z_3-z_4\right) \nonumber \\ &&\varepsilon ^{\eta _1...\eta _{p+1}\gamma _1...\gamma _{n-p-1}}\partial _{\eta _{p+1}}\delta \left( z_3-z_4\right) \varepsilon _{\eta _1...\eta _p\widehat{\eta }_{p+1}\gamma _1...\gamma _{n-p-1}}^{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}\partial ^{\widehat{\eta }_{p+1}}\delta \left( z_3-z_4\right) \;. \nonumber \\ \label{14} \end{aligned}$$ Integrating over $z_1$ and $z_2$, and after regularizing the product of delta functions with coinciding arguments, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} I^{(3)} &=&\int d\sigma \left( x\right) ^{\mu _1....\mu _p}\int d\tau (y)^{\nu _1....\nu _{n-p-1}}\int d^nz_3 \nonumber \\ &&\;\;\;\;\;\delta _{\left[ \nu _1....\nu _{n-p-1}\right] }^{\varphi _1....\varphi _{n-p-1}}\delta _{\left[ \mu _1....\mu _p\right] }^{\beta _1....\beta _p}\varepsilon _{\rho _1...\rho _{p+1}\alpha _1...\alpha _{n-p-1}}^{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}\partial ^{\rho _{p+1}}\delta \left( x-z_3\right) \nonumber \\ &&\;\;\;\;\;\varepsilon _{\sigma _1...\sigma _{p+1}\alpha _1...\alpha _{n-p-1}}^{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}\partial ^{\sigma _{p+1}}\delta \left( x-y\right) \varepsilon _{\beta _1....\beta _{p+1}\theta _1...\theta _{n-p-1}}^{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}\partial ^{\beta _{p+1}}\delta \left( x-z_3\right) \nonumber \\ &&\;\;\;\;\;\varepsilon ^{\sigma _1...\sigma _p\widehat{\sigma }_{p+1}\theta _1...\theta _{n-p-1}}\partial _{\widehat{\sigma }_{p+1}}\delta \left( z_3-y\right) \varepsilon _{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\varphi _1....\varphi _{n-p-1}}^{\rho _1...\rho _p\widehat{\rho }_{p+1}\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}\partial _{\widehat{\sigma }_{p+1}}\delta _\epsilon \left( y-z_3\right) \;, \nonumber \\ \label{13-reg}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} I^{\left( 4\right) } &=&\int d\sigma \left( x\right) ^{\mu _1....\mu _p}\int d\tau (y)^{\nu _1....\nu _{n-p-1}}\int d^nz_3\int d^nz_4 \nonumber \\ &&_{\left[ \mu _1....\mu _p\right] }^{\sigma _1....\sigma _p}\delta _{\left[ \nu _1....\nu _{n-p-1}\right] }^{\beta _1....\beta _{n-p-1}}\varepsilon ^{\theta _1...\theta _{p+1}\alpha _1...\alpha _{n-p-1}}\partial _{\theta _{p+1}}\delta \left( x-y\right) \nonumber \\ &&\varepsilon _{\theta _1...\theta _p\widehat{\theta }_{p+1}\alpha _1...\alpha _{n-p-1}}\partial ^{\widehat{\theta }_{p+1}}\delta \left( x-y\right) \varepsilon _{\sigma _1...\sigma _{p+1}\varphi _1...\varphi _{n-p-1}}^{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}\partial ^{\sigma _{p+1}}\delta \left( x-z_3\right) \nonumber \\ &&\varepsilon _{\xi _1...\xi _{p+1}\beta _1...\beta _{n-p-1}}^{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}\partial ^{\xi _{p+1}}\delta \left( y-z_4\right) \varepsilon _{\xi _1...\xi _p\widehat{\xi }_{p+1}\varphi _1...\varphi _{n-p-1}}^{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}\partial ^{\widehat{\xi }_{p+1}}\delta \left( z_3-z_4\right) \nonumber \\ &&\varepsilon ^{\eta _1...\eta _{p+1}\gamma _1...\gamma _{n-p-1}}\partial _{\eta _{p+1}}\delta _\epsilon \left( z_3-z_4\right) \varepsilon _{\eta _1...\eta _p\widehat{\eta }_{p+1}\gamma _1...\gamma _{n-p-1}}^{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}\partial ^{\widehat{\eta }_{p+1}}\delta _\epsilon \left( z_3-z_4\right) \;. \nonumber \\ \label{14-reg}\end{aligned}$$ All terms in all possible diagrams may then be seen to be proportional to the $n$-dimensional delta function $\delta \left( x-y\right) $ or its derivatives. One may easily convince oneself that this mechanism also applies to any order in perturbation theory. Since we always have $x\neq y$, these diagrams all amount to a null correction to the basic diagram, so that the correlation function $(\ref{corr})$ gives the generalized linking number of $\Sigma $ and $\Sigma ^{\prime }$ $$\left\langle \int_{\Sigma _p}B\int_{\Sigma _{n-p-1}^{\prime }}C\right\rangle _{\mathcal{S}_{eff}}=Link\left( \Sigma ,\Sigma ^{\prime }\right) \;. \label{15}$$ Conclusion ========== We have been able to prove that the correlator $(\ref{corr})$ is unaffected by radiative corrections to all orders, provided that $\Sigma $ and $\Sigma ^{\prime }$ are two smooth closed nonintersecting surfaces. Although we have carried out explicit computations for the interaction term $\int H_B^2H_C^2$, the same result may be achieved straightforwardly for any local interaction containing arbitrary powers of the curvatures $\int H_B^pH_C^q$. This result, which generalizes to arbitrary dimensions that obtained in the case of two nonintersecting curves $\cite{pert}$, may be interpreted as a kind of nonrenormalization property of the linking number in higher dimensions. [Acknowledgements]{} We are indebted to the Departamento de Campos e Part[í]{}culas (DCP) of the Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas F[í]{}sicas (CBPF) for kind hospitality. The Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento (CNPq/Brazil), the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (Faperj) and the SR2-UERJ are gratefully acknowledged for financial support. [99]{} A.S. Schwartz, Lett. Math. Phys. 2 (1978) 247; E. Witten, Comm. Math. Phys. 117 (1988) 353; Comm. Math. Phys. 118 (1988) 411; Comm. Math. Phys. 121 (1988) 351. D. Birmingham, M. Blau, M. Rakowski and G. Thompson, Phys. Rep. 209 (1991); E. Guadagnini, The Link Invariants of the Chern-Simons Field Theory, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1993; A.S. Cattaneo, P. Cotta-Ramusino and M. Martellini, Nucl. Phys. B436 (1995) 355; G.T. Horowitz and M. Srednicki, Commun. Math. Phys. 130 (1990) 83; M. Blau and G. Thompson. Ann. Phys. 205 (1991) 130; E. Fradkin, Field Theories of Condensed Matter Systens, Frontiers in Physics Series, Addson-Wesley, 1991; A.M.Polyakov, Mod. Phys. Letters A3 (1998) 325; M.C. Diamantini, P. Sodano and C.A. Trugenberger, Nucl. Phys. B448 \[FS\] (1995) 505; J. Frolich and A. Zee, Nucl. Phys. B364 (1991) 517;\ for a review, see A. Zee, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 107 (1992) 77; J. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231; E. Witten, JHEP 9812 (1998) 012; V.E.R. Lemes, C.A. Linhares, S.P.Sorella, L.C.Q. Vilar and D.G.G. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 065008; V.E.R. Lemes, C.A. Linhares, S.P. Sorella and L.C.Q. Vilar, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 32 (1999) 2469; Work in progress. [^1]: We remind the reader that, in the present abelian case, the normal-ordering prescription is compatible with the requirement of gauge invariance. This follows from the observation that the positive and negative-frequency parts of the field-strengths related to the gauge fields $C$ and $B$ are each gauge invariant. [^2]: Actually, there are some counterexamples of surfaces which are homologically trivial but cannot be contained in a region diffeomorphic to $R ^n$ [@hor], but we do not consider these particular cases here.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Combining the augmented space representation for phonons with a generalized version of Yonezawa-Matsubara diagrammatic technique, we have set up a formalism to seperate the coherent and incoherent part of the total intensity of thermal neutron scattering from disordered alloys. This is done [exacly]{} without taking any recourse to mean-field like approximation (as done previously). The formalism includes disorder in masses, force constants and scattering lengths. Implementation of the formalism to realistic situations is performed by an augmented space [Block recursion]{} which calculates entire Green matrix and self energy matrix which in turn is needed to evaluate the coherent and incoherent intensities. we apply the formalism to $Ni_{55}Pd_{45}$ and $Ni_{50}Pt_{50}$ alloys. Numerical results on coherent and incoherent scattering cross sections are presented along the highest symmetry directions. Finally the incoherent intensities are compared with the CPA and also with experiments.' author: - 'Aftab Alam [^1][^2] and Abhijit Mookerjee' title: 'Inelastic neutron scattering in random binary alloys : an augmented space approach' --- Introduction ============ Phonon excitations in alloys provide a particularly severe testing arena for any theory of elementary excitations in disordered systems. The dispersion relations, line widths etc. for phonons can be measured directly through [coherent inelastic neutron scattering]{}. Information about the phonon density of states can be extracted from the [incoherent inelastic neutron scattering cross sections]{}. Over the past few years, numerous experimental studies [@Tsunoda; @Svensson; @Smith; @kambrock; @Nicklow] of the lattice dynamics of disordered systems have been carried out providing deep insight into the nature of their elementary excitations. However the theoritical counter part is still unsatisfactory. The theory of scattering of thermal neutrons with perfect crystals has been set up on a rigorous basis [@vH; @sjo; @lm].However, we have to make the same statement for disordered alloys with more care. This is because the theory of neutron scattering in random alloys require two basic inputs : first is the formulation of the problem and the second it’s actual numerical implementation in realistic situations. As far as the formulation part is concerned, several authors have attempted the problem with different approaches. However their actual numerical implementation in realistic systems still remains sketchy beyond the simple single site mean field theories. Quite some time ago, Nowak and Dederichs [@nd] discussed the separation of the coherent and incoherent parts of the total inelastic scattering intensity by using the Yonezawa-Matsubara diagramatic technique within the single site coherent potential approximation (CPA).According to their approach the incoherent part of the total scattering intensity is the sum of all irreducible diagrams containing only short ranged correlations. The coherent part on the other hand may be expressed as a product of the usual configuration averaged Green function and the square of an effective scattering length, which is itself given by the irreducible diagrams closely related to those for the self energy.It has been known for some time that the single site CPA cannot adequately deal with intrinsic off-diagonal disorder of the force constants in the problem of phonon excitations in random alloys. This was evidenced in the inability of the single site CPA to explain experimental lifetime data on NiPt [@Tsunoda]. Nor can it adequately deal with the correlated diagonal and off-diagonal disorder induced by the force constant sum rule. Several successful attempts have been made to go beyond the CPA. These include, among others, approximations based on the augmented space formalism ([@Mookerjee]) : the travelling cluster approximation (TCA) [@kapmos; @kapgray; @mills; @KLGD], the Cluster-CPA [@mks; @msc], the itinerant cluster approximation (ICPA) [@glc] and the augmented space recursion (ASR) [@alam]. In this communication we shall tackle a two-fold problem : one of formulation and the other of implementation in real alloy systems. We shall use a scattering technique also based on the augmented space formalism [@mook75a; @mook75c] to suggest how to separate the coherent and incoherent parts of the total inelastic scattering cross-section for a disordered binary alloy in a way mirroring the ideas of Nowak and Dederichs, but this will be done without taking any recourse to mean-field like approximations. For implementation in real alloy systems, we shall suggest the ASR for the evaluation of scattering cross sections. But instead of doing an ordinary recursion, we shall perform a [Block recursion]{} in order to calculate the off diagonal entries of the Green matrix, since the expressions for the scattering cross sections in our formalism require the contribution of off-diagonal Green’s function. The approximation introduced within this formalism will maintain the essential analytic properties of the Green function, deal with off-diagonal disorder and the sum rule without any further simplifications or assumptions and encompass environmental effects over an extended neighbourhood. This is the major contribution of this work. The rest of the paper is organised as follows. In Sec. II, we describe the theory, introducing the augmented space representation and it’s use in constructing the generalized Yonezawa-Matsubara scattering diagrams for the averaged green function. In Sec. III we derive expressions for important physical quantities such as effective scattering length $W_{eff}({\bf q},w)$, inelastic coherent and incoherent scattering cross sections in terms of the configuration averaged Green matrix $\ll G({\bf q},w) \gg$ and self energy matrix $\Sigma ({\bf q},w)$ of the system. In Sec. IV, we briefly describe the method of [Block recursion]{} for the evaluation of full Green matrix and Self energy matrix. In Sec. V we present our results on $Ni_{55}Pd_{45}$ and $Ni_{50}Pt_{50}$ alloys as test cases and try to compare them with experimental data as far as applicable. Concluding remarks are presented in Sec. VI. Formalism ========= The augmented space representation for phonons ---------------------------------------------- The augmented space formalism (ASF) has been described in detail in several earlier papers (see [@tf]). We shall, for the sake of completeness, describe only those features which will be necessary for the implementation of our ideas in this communication. The basic problem in the theory of phonons is to solve a secular equation of the form : $$({\bf M}w^{2} - {\bf D})\ {\bf u}(R,w) = 0$$ where $u_{\alpha}(R,w)$ is the fourier transform of $u_{\alpha}(R,t)$, the displacement of an atom from its equilibrium position $R$ on the lattice, in the direction ${\alpha} $ at time $t$. [M]{} is the [mass operator]{}, diagonal in real-space and [D]{} is the [dynamical matrix operator]{} whose tight-binding representations are : $$\begin{aligned} {\bf M} &=& \sum_{R} m_{R}\ {\delta}_{\alpha \beta} \ P_R\\ {\bf D} &=& \sum_{R} \Phi_{RR}^{\alpha \beta}\ P_{R} + \sum_{R}\sum_{R^{\prime} \ne R} \Phi_{RR^{\prime}}^{\alpha \beta}\ T_{RR^{\prime}}\end{aligned}$$ along with the [sum rule]{}: $$\Phi_{RR}^{\alpha \beta} = -\sum_{R^{\prime}\ne R}\Phi_{RR^{\prime}}^{\alpha \beta}$$ Here $P_R$ is the projection operator $\vert R\rangle\langle R\vert$ and $T_{RR'}$ is the transfer operator $\vert R\rangle\langle R'\vert$ in the Hilbert space ${\cal H}$ spanned by the tight-binding basis $\{\vert R\rangle\}$. $R,R^{\prime}$ specify the lattice sites and $\alpha $,$ \beta $ the Cartesian directions. $m_{R}$ is the mass of an atom occupying the position $R$ and $\Phi_{RR^{\prime}}^{\alpha \beta}$ is the force constant tensor. We shall be interested in calculating the displacement-displacement Green matrix ${\mbf G} (R,R',w^2)$ : $${\mbf G}(R,R',w^2) = \langle R \| \left({\bf{M}}w^{2}-{\bf{D}}\right)^{-1} \| R' \rangle$$ Let us now consider a binary alloy $ A_{x}B_{y} $ consisting of two kinds of atoms A and B of masses $m_A$ and $m_B$ randomly occupying each lattice sites. We wish to calculate the configuration-averaged Green matrix $\ll {\bf G}({R,R'},w^2)\gg$. We shall use the augmented space formalism to do so and indicate the main operational results here. For further details we refer the reader to the above monograph [@tf]. The first operation is to represent the random parts of the secular equation in terms of a random set of local variables $\{ n_R\}$ which are 1 if the site $R$ is occupied by an A atom and 0 if it is occupied by B. The probability densities of these variables may be written as : $$\begin{aligned} Pr(n_R)& = & x\ \delta (n_{R}-1)\ +\ y\ \delta(n_{R})\nonumber\\ & = & (-1/{\pi})\ \Im m\langle {\uparrow}_{R} \|\ (n_{R}I-{\it {N_{R}}})^{-1}\ \| {\uparrow}_{R}\rangle \label{prob}\end{aligned}$$ where $x$ and $y$ are the concentrations of the constituents A and B with $x+y=1$. $N_{R}$ is an operator defined on the configuration-space $\phi_{R}$ of the variable $n_{R}$. This is of rank $2$ and is spanned by the states $\{\|{\uparrow_{R}}\rangle, \|{\downarrow_{R}}\rangle \}$. $\|{\uparrow_{R}}\rangle$ is a state which indicate that there is an atom A at the site R, while $\|{\downarrow_{R}}\rangle$ is for the atom B. $$N_{R} = xp_{R}^{\uparrow} + yp_{R}^{\downarrow} + \sqrt{xy}\ {\cal T}^{\uparrow\downarrow}_R \quad\mbox{;}\quad{\cal T}^{\uparrow\downarrow}_R\ =\ {\tau}^{\uparrow \downarrow}_{R} + {\tau}^{\downarrow \uparrow}_{R}$$ where $p_R^\uparrow =\vert\uparrow_R\rangle\langle\uparrow_R\vert$ and $p_R^\downarrow=\vert\downarrow_R\rangle\langle\downarrow_R\vert$ are projection operators and ${\tau}_R^{\uparrow\downarrow}=\vert\uparrow_R\rangle\langle\downarrow_R\vert$ and ${\tau}_R^{\downarrow\uparrow}=\vert\downarrow_R\rangle\langle\uparrow_R\vert$ are transfer operators in the configuration space $\phi_{R}$. In terms of random variables $n_{R}$, the mass operator can be written as : $${\bf M}\ =\ \sum_{R} \left[\rule{0mm}{4mm} m_{B}\ +\ n_{R}\ (\delta m) \right] \delta_{\alpha \beta} \ P_R \quad ;\quad \delta m=m_A-m_B$$ According to the augmented space theorem, in order to obtain the configuration-average we simply replace the random variables $n_R$ by the corresponding operators $N_R$ associated with its probability density, as in Eqn. (\[prob\]), and take the matrix element of the resulting operator between the [reference states]{}. For a full mathematical proof the reader is referred to [@Mookerjee]. $$n_{R}\longrightarrow N_{R} \ =\ x\ \tilde{I}\ +\ (y-x)\ p_{R}^{\downarrow} + \sqrt{xy}\ {\cal T}^{\uparrow \downarrow}_R$$ Using the above we get, $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{\bf M}&=& \A({\mbf m} )\ \widetilde{I}\otimes I + \B({\mbf m} )\ \sum_{R} p_{R}^\downarrow \otimes P_{R}\ldots \nonumber \\ & &\ldots+ \F({\mathbf m} )\ \sum_{R}\ {\cal T}^{\uparrow\downarrow}_R \otimes P_{R}\nonumber\\ \phantom{\widetilde{\bf M}} &=& \ll \widetilde{\mbf M}\gg\ +\ \widetilde{\mbf M}^\prime \label{mass}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\left. \begin{array}{ll} \A({\mathbf X}) = \ll {\mbf X} \gg\ =(x {\mathbf X}_A+y {\mathbf X}_B) \\ \B({\mathbf X}) = (y-x)\ ({\mathbf X}_A-{\mathbf X}_B) \\ \F({\mathbf X}) = \sqrt{xy} \ ({\mathbf X}_A-{\mathbf X}_B) \end{array} \right\}$$ Similarly the random off-diagonal force constants $\Phi_{RR^{\prime}}^{\alpha \beta}$ between the sites $R$ and $R^{\prime}$ can be written as : $$\begin{aligned} \Phi_{RR^{\prime}}^{\alpha \beta} &=& \Phi_{AA}^{\alpha \beta} n_{R} n_{R^{\prime}} + \Phi_{BB}^{\alpha \beta} (1-n_{R}) (1-n_{R^{\prime}})\ +\ \Phi_{AB}^{\alpha \beta} \left[\rule{0mm}{4mm}\ n_{R}(1-n_{R^{\prime}}) + n_{R^{\prime}}(1-n_{R})\ \right]\nonumber\\ \phantom{x} \nonumber\\ &=& \Phi_{BB}^{\alpha \beta}\ +\ \left(\rule{0mm}{4mm}\Phi_{AA}^{\alpha \beta} + \Phi_{BB}^{\alpha \beta} - 2 \Phi_{AB}^{\alpha \beta}\right)\ n_{R} n_{R^{\prime}}\ +\ \left(\rule{0mm}{4mm}\Phi_{AB}^{\alpha \beta} - \Phi_{BB}^{\alpha \beta})\ (n_{R} + n_{R^{\prime}}\right) \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ Let us define the following : $$\begin{aligned} \Phi^{\alpha\beta}_{(1)} &=& x\ \Phi_{AA}^{\alpha \beta} - y\ \Phi_{BB}^{\alpha \beta} + (y-x) \Phi_{AB}^{\alpha\beta}\\ \Phi^{\alpha\beta}_{(2)} &=& \Phi_{AA}^{\alpha \beta} + \Phi_{BB}^{\alpha \beta} - 2 \Phi_{AB}^{\alpha \beta}\end{aligned}$$ In augmented space the off-diagonal force constant matrix becomes an operator : $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{\mbf D}^{\alpha\beta}_{(off)} &=& \sum_{RR'}\ \left[\rule{0mm}{5mm} \ll \Phi^{\alpha\beta}_{RR'}\gg\ \tilde{I} + \Phi^{\alpha\beta}_{(1)} \left\{ (y-x)\ (p^\downarrow_R +p^\downarrow_{R'}) \ +\ \sqrt{xy} ({\cal T}^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{R}+{\cal T}^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{R'})\right\}+\ldots\right.\\ & & \left.\ldots + \Phi^{\alpha\beta}_{(2)}\ \left\{ (y-x)^2\ p^\downarrow_R\ p^\downarrow_{R'} + \sqrt{xy}(y-x) \left(p^\downarrow_R\ {\cal T}^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{R'} + p^\downarrow_{R'}\ {\cal T}^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{R} \right) + xy\ {\cal T}^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{R}{\cal T}^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{R'} \right\}\rule{0mm}{5mm} \right]\otimes T_{RR'} \\ \phantom{x}\\ &=& \sum_{RR'} \ll \Phi^{\alpha\beta}_{RR'}\gg I\otimes T_{RR'} + \sum_{RR'}\ \Psi_{RR'}^{\alpha\beta}\otimes T_{RR'} \\\end{aligned}$$ The sum rule gives the diagonal element : $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{\mbf D}^{\alpha\beta}_{(dia)}& =& -\sum_{R}\left\{\rule{0mm}{1mm}\sum_{R'\ne R} \ll \Phi^{\alpha\beta}_{RR'}\gg \widetilde {I}\right\} \otimes P_R \ldots\\ & & - \sum_{R}\ \left\{ \sum_{R'\ne R} \Psi_{RR'}^{\alpha\beta}\right\}\otimes P_R\end{aligned}$$ The total dynamical matrix in the augmented space is : $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{\mathbf D} &\ =\ & \ll\widetilde{\mbf D}\gg - \sum_{R}\ \left\{ \sum_{R'\ne R} \Psi_{RR'}^{\alpha\beta}\right\}\otimes P_R \ \ldots\nonumber\\ & & \ldots \ +\ \sum_{RR'}\ \Psi_{RR'}^{\alpha\beta}\otimes T_{RR'} \nonumber\\ \phantom{\widetilde{\mathbf D}} &\ =\ & \ll\widetilde{\mbf D}\gg\ +\ \widetilde{\mbf D}^\prime \label{dm}\end{aligned}$$ The boldface operators are $3\times 3$ matrix representations in the three Cartesian directions. The augmented space theorem [@Mookerjee] now states that the configuration-average of the Green matrix $\ll~{\bf G}({R,R'},w^2)~\gg$ may be written as : $$\begin{aligned} \ll {\mbf G}\left({R,R'},w^{2}\right)\gg \phantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx}\nonumber\\ \phantom{xxx} = \int {\mbf G}\left({R,R'},w^2,\{n_{R}\}\right)\ \prod\ Pr(n_{R})\ dn_{R}\nonumber\\ \phantom{xxx} = \langle \{ \emptyset \}\otimes R\|\ \widetilde {\mbf G}(w^{2},\{N_{R}\})\| \{\emptyset\}\otimes R'\rangle\phantom{GxxG}\nonumber\\ \phantom{x}\nonumber\\ \phantom{xxx} = \langle \{ \emptyset \}\otimes R\|\ \left(\widetilde{\bf {M}}\ w^{2} - \widetilde{\bf {D}}\right)^{-1}\ \|\{\emptyset\} \otimes R'\rangle\phantom{xx} \label{g0}\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde{\bf{M}}$ and $\widetilde{\bf {D}}$ are the operators which are constructed out of ${\bf{M}}$ and ${\bf {D}}$ by replacing all the random variables $n_{R}$ (or $n_{R^{\prime}})$ by the corresponding operators $N_{R}$ (or $N_{R^{\prime}})$ as given by Eqn.(\[mass\]) and (\[dm\]). These are the operators in the augmented space $ \Omega = {\cal H} \otimes \Phi $. The state $\|{R} \otimes \{\emptyset\}\rangle$ is a state in the augmented space, which is the direct product of the real-space and the configuration-space bases.The configuration-space $ \Phi = \prod_{R}^{\otimes}\phi_{R} $ is of rank $2^{N}$ for a system of N-lattice sites with binary distribution. A basis in this space is denoted by the cardinality sequence $ \{{\cal C}\} = \{R_{1},R_{2},\ldots,R_{c}\} $ which gives us the positions where we have a $\vert\!\downarrow \rangle$ configuration. The configuration $\{\emptyset\}$ refers to a null cardinality sequence i.e. one in which we have $\vert\uparrow \rangle$ at all sites. The [virtual crystal ]{} (VCA) Green matrix is : $${\mbf g} ({R,R'},w^{2}) = \langle \{\emptyset\}\otimes R \vert\ ( \ll \widetilde{\mbf M}\gg \omega^{2} - \ll\widetilde{\bf D}\gg)^{-1}\ \vert \{\emptyset\} \otimes R'\rangle \label{vcgreen}$$ where $$\ll\widetilde{\mbf M}\gg = \ll m\gg \widetilde{I}\otimes I$$ Referring back to Equations (\[mass\]),(\[dm\]) and (\[g0\]) we get : $$\begin{aligned} \ll {\mbf G}(R,R',w^2)\gg &\ =\ & \langle \{\emptyset\}\otimes R \vert\ \left( \rule{0mm}{4mm} \ll \widetilde{\mbf M}\gg \omega^{2} - \ll\widetilde{\bf D}\gg +\widetilde{\mbf M}'\omega^2 - \widetilde{\mbf D}'\right)^{-1}\ \vert \{\emptyset\} \otimes R'\rangle \nonumber\\ & \ =\ & \langle\{\emptyset\}\otimes R\vert \left({\mbf g}^{-1}- \widetilde{\mbf D}_1\right)^{-1}\vert \{\emptyset\}\otimes R'\rangle \label{main}\end{aligned}$$ we define : $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{\mathbf D}_1 = \sum_R \ \left\{\rule{0mm}{5mm} {- \mbf \Upsilon}_R -\sum_{R'\ne R} {\mathbf\Psi}_{RR'}\right\}\ \otimes P_R\ +\ \sum_{R}\sum_{R'\ne R}\ {\mathbf\Psi}_{RR'}\otimes T_{RR'}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} {\mbf\Upsilon}_R & = & \B({\mbf m})\ w^2\ p^\downarrow_R \ +\ \F({\mbf m})\ w^2\ {\cal T}^{\uparrow\downarrow}_R \nonumber\\ \phantom{x}\nonumber\\ {\mathbf\Psi}_{RR'}& = & {\mathbf D}^{(1)}_{RR'}\ \left(p^\downarrow_R + p^\downarrow_{R'}\right) + {\mathbf D}^{(2)}_{RR'}\ \left({\cal T}^{\uparrow\downarrow}_R + {\cal T}^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{R'}\right) + {\mathbf D}^{(3)}_{RR'}\ p^\downarrow_R\ p^\downarrow_{R'}+\ldots \nonumber\\ \phantom{x}\nonumber\\ \phantom{xxxx} & & \ldots+ {\mathbf D}^{(4)}_{RR'}\ \left( p^\downarrow_R\ {\cal T}^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{R'} + {\cal T}^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{R}\ p^\downarrow_{R'}\right) + {\mathbf D}^{(5)}_{RR'}\ {\cal T}^{\uparrow\downarrow}_R \ {\cal T}^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{R'} \label{dyn}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbf D}^{(1)}&=&(y-x)\ \Phi_{(1)}^{\alpha\beta}\\ {\mathbf D}^{(2)}&=&\sqrt{xy}\ \Phi_{(1)}^{\alpha\beta}\\ {\mathbf D}^{(3)}&=&{(y-x)^{2}}\ \Phi_{(2)}^{\alpha\beta}\\ {\mathbf D}^{(4)}&=&\sqrt{xy}\ (y-x)\ \Phi_{(2)}^{\alpha\beta}\\ {\mathbf D}^{(5)}&=& xy\ \Phi_{(2)}^{\alpha\beta}\\\end{aligned}$$ Generalized Yonezawa-Matsubara scattering diagrams for the averaged Green function ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![image](fig1.eps){width="13cm" height="8cm"} In this section we shall start from Eqn. (\[main\]) and develop a multiple scattering picture based on this. The idea is very similar to that of Yonezawa and Matsubara [@ym] in the context of purely diagonal disorder. We shall first expand Eqn.(\[main\]) as follows : $$\begin{aligned} \ll {\mbf G}(R,R',w^2)\gg = \langle \{\emptyset\}\otimes R \vert \left(\rule{0mm}{5mm} \g + \g\ \widetilde{\mbf D}_1\ \g + \g\ \widetilde{\mbf D}_1\ \g\ \widetilde{\mbf D}_1\ \g + \ldots \right) \vert \{\emptyset\}\otimes R'\rangle \nonumber\\ \label{series}\end{aligned}$$ Let us discuss very briefly how one generates the scattering diagrams. The first term in Equation (\[series\]) gives : {}R {}R’ = [g]{} (R,R’,w\^[2]{}) \[ym1\] The second term yields zero since $\langle \{\emptyset\}\otimes R \vert \widetilde{\mbf D}_1 \vert \{\emptyset\}\otimes R' \rangle = 0 $. The third term gives : $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{S'S''}\sum_{S''' S''''}\sum_{\{\cal C\}}\sum_{\{\cal C'\}}\ \langle \{\emptyset\}\otimes R\vert\ \g\ \vert \{\emptyset\}\otimes S'\rangle\ \langle \{\emptyset\}\otimes S'\vert\ \wt{\mbf D}_1\ \vert \{{\cal C}\}\otimes S^{\prime\prime}\rangle\ \ldots\\ \ldots \langle \{{\cal C}\}\otimes S^{\prime\prime}\vert \ \g\ \vert \{{\cal C}'\}\otimes S^{\prime\prime\prime}\rangle\ \langle \{{\cal C}'\}\otimes S^{\prime\prime\prime}\vert \ \wt{\mbf D}_1\ \vert \{\emptyset\}\otimes S'''' \rangle\ \langle \{\emptyset\}\otimes S''''\vert\ \g\ \vert \{\emptyset\}\otimes R'\rangle \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{S_1S_2}\ \g(R,S_1,w^2)\ (\F w^2)\ \g(S_1,S_2,w^2)\ \delta(S_1-S_2)\ (\F w^2)\ \g(S_2,R',w^2) + \ldots \nonumber\\ \sum_{S_1S_2}\sum_{S_3S_4}\ \g(R,S_1,w^2)\ \D^{(2)}_{S_1S_2}\ \g(S_2,S_3,w^2)\ \delta(S_1-S_3)\ \D^{(2)}_{S_3S_4}\ \g(S_4,R',w^2) +\ldots \nonumber\\ \sum_{S_1S_2}\sum_{S_3S_4}\ \g(R,S_1,w^2)\ \D^{(2)}_{S_1S_2}\ \g(S_2,S_3,w^2)\ \delta(S_2-S_3)\ \D^{(2)}_{S_3S_4}\ \g(S_4,R',w^2) +\ldots \nonumber\\ \sum_{S_1S_2}\sum_{S_3S_4}\ \g(R,S_1,w^2)\ \D^{(2)}_{S_1S_2}\ \g(S_2,S_3,w^2)\ \delta(S_1-S_4)\ \D^{(2)}_{S_3S_4}\ \g(S_4,R',w^2) +\ldots \nonumber\\ \sum_{S_1S_2}\sum_{S_3S_4}\ \g(R,S_1,w^2)\ \D^{(2)}_{S_1S_2}\ \g(S_2,S_3,w^2)\ \delta(S_2-S_4)\ \D^{(2)}_{S_3S_4}\ \g(S_4,R',w^2) +\ldots \nonumber\\ \sum_{S_1S_2}\sum_{S_3S_4}\ \g(R,S_1,w^2)\ \D^{(5)}_{S_1S_2}\ \g(S_2,S_3,w^2)\ \delta(S_2-S_4)\delta(S_1-S_3)\ \D^{(5)}_{S_3S_4}\ \g(S_4,R',w^2) +\ldots \nonumber\\ \sum_{S_1S_2}\sum_{S_3S_4}\ \g(R,S_1,w^2)\ \D^{(5)}_{S_1S_2}\ \g(S_2,S_3,w^2)\ \delta(S_1-S_4)\delta(S_2-S_3)\ \D^{(5)}_{S_3S_4}\ \g(S_4,R',w^2) +\ldots \nonumber\\ \label{ym3}\end{aligned}$$ Referring to Eqns. (\[ym1\])and (\[ym3\]) we shall now build up the Yonezawa-Matsubara type diagrams. First we shall associate scattering vertices with the terms in $\widetilde{\bf M}'$ and $\widetilde{\bf D}'$. The Fig. \[fig1\] shows the seven different type of scattering vertices. The dashed lines are associated with the delta functions. ![The scattering diagrams for n=2. The top four lines \[ fig (i) to fig (vii) \] show all possible diagrams. The bottom line is a schematic representation of the the topologically distinct classes of diagrams[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2a.eps){height="7cm" width="8cm"} With each factor [g]{} we shall associate a propagator represented by a horizontal arrow. The connected diagrams to order $n$ are then built up by stringing together $n+1$ propagators connected by $n$ vertices with all dashed [fluctuation lines]{} connected in pairs. The algebraic terms in Eqn. (\[ym3\]) are then represented by the diagram shown in Fig.\[fig2\]. The Yonezawa-Matsubara diagrams were originally developed only for diagonal disorder. The diagrams shown in Fig. \[fig2\] involve off-diagonal scattering terms and the associated diagrams are generalized Yonezawa-Matsubara diagrams. ![The topologically distinct scattering diagrams for n=3.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.eps){height="6.5cm" width="8cm"} Fig. \[fig3\] shows the topologically distinct classes of diagrams for n=3. Note that it involves terms with contributions from [D]{}$^{(1)}$, [D]{}$^{(3)}$ and [D]{}$^{(4)}$ . These scattering vertices cannot sit either in the leftmost or in the rightmost positions, because one of the associated pseudo-fermion Green function line vanishes. ![The topologically distinct scattering diagrams for n=4. (i) A separable diagram involving only [D]{}$^{(2)}$ vertices. (ii) A non-separable, non-skeleton diagram involving [D]{}$^{(2)}$ vertices. (iii) A skeleton diagram involving [D]{}$^{(2)}$ vertices. (iv)-(vi) Skeleton diagrams involving various combination of vertices.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.eps){height="7cm" width="8cm"} For n=4, there are various classes of diagrams involving [D]{}$^{(2)}$ vertices as shown in Fig. \[fig4\]. In this figure, (i) shows a separable double tent diagram [^3]. The second tent goes to renormalize the rightmost phonon Green function from $\g(x,y)$ to $\ll {\bf G}(x,y\gg$. (ii) shows a double tent non-separable diagram and (iii) a non-separable crossed-tent diagram. Of these, the inner tent in the double tent diagram (ii) goes on to renormalize the interior Green function. As such, the crossed tent diagram (iii) is a [skeleton]{} diagram of this class. The diagrams (iv)-(vi) are a few more examples of skeleton diagrams in this order involving other types of vertices. If we club together the contribution of [all]{} the skeleton diagrams calling this the self-energy, and allow [all]{} phonon Green functions except the left-most to be renormalized by the separable and non-separable, non-skeleton diagrams, we get the Dyson equation : $$\ll {\mbf G}\gg \eq \g + \g\ {\mathbf \Sigma} \ll {\mbf G}\gg$$ For homogeneous disorder we have shown earlier that we have translational symmetry in the full augmented space [@gdma]. We can then take Fourier transform of the above equation to get : $$\ll\mbf{G}(\q,E)\gg \eq \mbf{g}(\q,E) + \mbf{g}(\q,E)\ \mbf{\Sigma}(\q,E)\ \ll\mbf{G}(\q,E)\gg \label{dys1}$$ The diagrams for the self-energy are skeleton diagrams [all]{} of which have the structure as shown in Fig. \[fig5\]. ![Structure of the skeleton diagrams for the self-energy[]{data-label="fig5"}](fig5.eps){height="8cm" width="8cm"} IMPORTANT PHYSICAL QUANTITIES ============================= In this section we shall derive results for important physical quantities such as the effective scattering length, [inelastic coherent and incoherent scattering cross sections.]{} All of these are derived based on the arguments of Nowak and Dederichs for the various kinds of scattering diagrams and it turns out that the numerical evaluation of these quantities require the entire configuration averaged Green matrices $\ll {\mbf G} ({\bf q},w)\gg$ and self energy matrices $\Sigma ({\bf q},w)$ in the reciprocal space representation. The inelastic neutron scattering cross-section ---------------------------------------------- The formal expression for the inelastic cross-section for the scattering of thermal neutrons from an initial state labelled by [k]{} to a final state [k]{}$^\prime$ with a change of energy, $$E = \hbar w = \frac{\hbar^2}{2M_n} (k^2-k'^2)$$ and a change of wave-vector ${\bf q} = {\bf k}-{\bf k'}+{\bf Q}$ , where [Q]{} is a reciprocal lattice vector is : $$\begin{aligned} \frac{d^2\sigma}{d\Omega dE}\ =\ \frac{1}{2N\hbar} \frac{k'}{k} \sum_R\sum_{R'}\sum_{\alpha\beta}\ q^\alpha q^\beta\ \left(\rule{0mm}{4mm} W_R\ \Im m\ G_{RR'}^{\alpha\beta}(w)\ W_{R'}\right)\ n(w)\ \exp{\{i{\mathbf q}\cdot(R-R')\}}\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ here : $W_R = w_R\left\{\exp[-(1/2)\langle({\bf q}\cdot{\bf u}_R)^2\rangle_{th}]\right\}$ : $w_R$ is the scattering length of the nucleus of the atom sitting at $R$, its equilibrium position, and [u]{}$_R$(t) is its deviation from equilibrium at the time $t$. $n(w)$ is the Bose distribution function. For a random alloy, $w_R$, the Debye-Waller factor, the atomic mass and the force constants are all random variables and dependent on one another via the random occupation variables $\{n_R\}$. Carrying out averaging over nuclear spins as well as over all the random configurations : $$\begin{aligned} \left[\frac{d^2\sigma}{d\Omega dE}\right]_{av}\ =\ \frac{1}{2N\hbar} \frac{k'}{k} \sum_R\sum_{R'}\sum_{\alpha\beta}\ q^\alpha q^\beta\ \Im m\ \left[\rule{0mm}{4mm} W_R\ G_{RR'}^{\alpha\beta}(w)\ W_{R'}\right]_{av}\ n(w)\ \exp{\{i{\mathbf q}\cdot(R-R')\}}\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ Given homogeneity of disorder, we may rewrite the above configuration-average as : $$\left[\frac{d^2\sigma}{d\Omega dE}\right]_{av} = \frac{1}{2\hbar} \frac{k'}{k} \sum_{\alpha\beta}\ q^\alpha q^\beta\ \Im m\ {\cal G}^{\alpha\beta}({\mathbf q},w)\ n(w)\ \nonumber\\$$ $$\begin{aligned} \left[W_R\ G^{\alpha\beta}_{RR'}(w)\ W_{R'}\right]_{av} =& \hspace{-0.75in} {\cal G}^{\alpha\beta}(R-R',w) \nonumber\\ {\cal G}^{\alpha\beta}({\mathbf q},w) =& \sum_{R}\ {\cal G}^{\alpha\beta}(R,w)\ \exp{\{ i{\mathbf q}\cdot R\}}\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ ![The scattering vertices related to the fluctuations in $W$[]{data-label="fig6"}](fig6.eps){height="3cm" width="5cm"} Since $W_{R}$ is a random variable taking two values $W_{A}$ and $W_{B}$ depending on which kind of atom sits at the site labeled ’R’, So we can write $W_R = W_A\ n_R + W_B\ (1-n_R)$. Augmented space theorem then leads to the $W$ factor being replaced by an operator in configuration-space as: $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{\mbf W}& =& \A(W) \tilde{I} + {\mbf B(W)} \sum_R P_R\otimes p^\downarrow_R + \F(W) \sum_R P_R\otimes {\cal T}^{\uparrow\downarrow}_R \nonumber\\ & =& {\mbf W}_0 \tilde{I} + {\mbf W}_1 \sum_R P_R\otimes p^\downarrow_R + {\mathbf W}_2 \sum_R P_R\otimes {\cal T}^{\uparrow\downarrow}_R \nonumber\\ \label{w1}\end{aligned}$$ Since, like the mass, $W$ is a scalar, mode independent quantity, [A]{}(W) = $A(W)\ \delta_{\alpha\beta}$, [B]{}(W) = $B(W)\ \delta_{\alpha\beta}$, [F]{}(W) = $F(W)\ \delta_{\alpha\beta}$ and $\widetilde{\bf W}$ = $\widetilde{W}\ \delta_{\alpha\beta}$. The scattering vertices arising out of Eqn.(\[w1\]) are shown in Fig.\[fig6\]. The augmented space theorem then gives : $$\begin{aligned} \ll {\mbf W}_R {\mathbf G}_{RR'} {\mathbf W}_{R'}\gg =\langle R\otimes \{\emptyset\}\vert \widetilde{\mbf W}\ \left(\rule{0mm}{4mm}{\mbf g} + {\mbf g} \widetilde{\mbf D}_1 {\mbf g} + {\mbf g} \widetilde{\mbf D}_1 {\mbf g} \ \widetilde{\mbf D}_1\ {\mbf g}+\ldots \right)\widetilde{\mbf W}\vert R'\otimes \{\emptyset\}\rangle \nonumber\\ \label{fd}\end{aligned}$$ ![image](fig7.eps){height="13cm" width="15cm"} The Fig. \[fig7\] shows the scattering diagrams produced from Eqn.(\[fd\]) for the scattering cross-section. We have grouped them into four categories : 1. In the category (i) are reducible diagrams whose end vertices are $\W_0$ or the averaged value $\ll W\gg\ \delta_{\alpha\beta} $. The central decorations are all the diagrams we have already seen for the configuration-averaged Green function. The contribution of these diagrams are therefore : $$\W_0\ \ll {\mathbf G}(w)\gg \W_0$$ 2. The second set of diagrams (ii) are also reducible diagrams. Inspection of the diagrams immediately show us that their contribution may be written as : $$\begin{aligned} \W'(w) \ll {\mbf G}(w)\gg \W_0 +\ldots\\ \ldots \W_0\ \ll {\mbf G}(w)\gg\ \W^{\prime\prime}(w) \end{aligned}$$ The contribution of the ’vertex’ $\W'(w)$ and $\W^{\prime\prime}(w)$ are closely related to the self-energy, with the initial and final vertices being different : $\W_2$ rather than [D]{}$_2$ or [D]{}$_5$. We shall discuss this relationship subsequently. 3. The third set of diagrams (iii) are reducible diagrams with contribution : $$\W'(w)\ \ll {\mbf G}(w)\gg\ \W^{\prime\prime}(w)$$ The contribution of these three sets of reducible diagrams may be added together to give : $$\W_{eff}(w)\ \ll {\mbf G}(w)\gg\ \widehat{\W}_{eff}(w)$$ where $$\W_{eff}(w)=\W_0+\W'(w)$$ and $$\widehat{\W}_{eff}(w)=\W_0+\W^{\prime\prime}(w)$$ 4. The last class of diagrams (iv) are irreducible diagrams. Their contribution is also related to the self-energy with both the initial and final vertices being $\W_2$ rather than [D]{}$^{(2)}$ or [D]{}$^{(5)}$. We shall discuss these diagrams in detail subsequently. Because of the disorder renormalization, the $\W_{eff}$ is diagonal neither in real nor mode space and becomes frequency dependent and complex. The reducible diagrams contributes to an expression : $${\cal G}^{\alpha\beta}_{red}({\mbf q},w)\ =\ \sum_{\mu\nu}\ W_{eff}^{\alpha\mu}({\mbf q},w)\ \ll G^{\mu\nu}({\mbf q},w)\gg\ \widehat{W}_{eff}^{\nu\beta}({\mbf q},w) \label{coh_red}$$ If we now examine the structure of the self-energy diagrams in Fig. \[fig5\], we note that the vertex [D]{}$_2$ creates one configuration fluctuation at a site if it is an initial vertex and annihilates a configuration fluctuation if it is a final vertex. On the other hand, the [D]{}$_5$ vertex creates [two]{} configuration fluctuations at two sites if it is an initial vertex and annihilates [two]{} configuration fluctuations at two sites if it is a final vertex. The diagrams for both $\W_{eff}(w)$ and the irreducible diagrams in Fig. \[fig7\] have vertices which create or annihilate only one configuration fluctuation at both the initial and final vertices. If we denote the part of the self-energy contributed by the diagrams in the first two lines of Fig. \[fig5\] by ${\bf \Sigma}(w)$, then it follows that : $$\begin{aligned} {\mbf W}_{eff}({\mbf q},w)\ =\ {\mbf W}_0\ +\ {\mbf W}_2\ [{\mbf \Delta}({\mbf q})]^{-1}\ {\mbf \Sigma}({\mbf q},w)\nonumber\\ \widehat{\mbf W}_{eff}({\mbf q},w)\ =\ {\mbf W}_0\ +\ {\mbf \Sigma}({\mbf q},w) [{\mbf \Delta}({\mbf q})]^{-1}\ {\mbf W}_2 \label{length}\end{aligned}$$ where $${\mbf \Delta }({\bf q}) = {\mbf F}({\mbf m}) + {\mbf D}^{(2)}({\bf q}) + {\mbf D}^{(5)}({\bf q})\nonumber$$ The expression (\[coh\_red\]) is long-ranged in real-space. Following the argument of Nowak and Dederichs [@nd] within the CPA and Mookerjee and Yussouff [@my] in a more general context of a cluster-CPA, we identify contribution of the reducible part as the coherent part of the inelastic scattering : $$\begin{aligned} \left[\frac{d^2\sigma}{d\Omega dE}\right]_{av}^{coh}\ =\ \frac{1}{2\hbar} \frac{k'}{k} \sum_{\alpha\beta}\ q^\alpha q^\beta\ \Im m\ \left[\rule{0mm}{4mm} {\mbf W}_{eff}({\mbf q},w) \ll {\mbf G}({\mbf q},w)\gg\ \widehat{\mbf W}_{eff}({\mbf q},w)\right]^{\alpha\beta}\ n(w)\nonumber\\ \label{coh}\end{aligned}$$ If we now look back at the irreducible diagrams in class (iv) of Fig. \[fig7\], we note that the diagrams in the top row of (iv) are both short ranged : the leftmost one is totally diagonal in real-space and the rightmost one has the same range as the dynamical matrices, which are reasonably short ranged. The bottom diagram is longer ranged. However, this and [all]{} long ranged diagrams in this class involve crossed-tent diagrams. If we look at the diagrams for the self-energy exactly the same kind of structure is seen. The only diagrams which can lead to a long-ranged self-energy are crossed-tent diagrams like (iii) of Fig. \[fig4\]. These diagrams belong to correlated scattering from configuration fluctuations at different sites. The contributions of such diagrams are dominated by those which are short-ranged. Within the single site coherent potential approximation (CPA) such diagrams are neglected altogether and the self-energy (and therefore the irreducible diagrams for the cross-section) is diagonal in real-space. Beyond the CPA, dominant contributions arise from correlated scattering of the smaller clusters and the contribution of the irreducible diagrams is also short-ranged : being between sites within the smaller clusters. The range of the self-energy and the irreducible diagrams are therefore as large as the size of the largest cluster whose correlated scattering is significant. The [Locality principle]{} of Heine [@heine] convinces us that electronic structure is insensitive of far-off environment and, although the self-energy is not diagonal in real-space (except in the single-site CP approximation), its range is nevertheless short. This is behind the reasonable success of the CPA in any cases. Again, following the arguments of Nowak and Dederichs [@nd] and Mookerjee and Yussouff [@my], this contribution can be related to the incoherent part of the inelastic scattering. The incoherent intensity is given by : $$\begin{aligned} \left[\frac{d^2\sigma}{d\Omega dE}\right]_{av}^{incoh}\ =\ \frac{1}{2\hbar} \frac{k'}{k} \sum_{\alpha\beta}\ q^\alpha q^\beta\ \Im m\ \left[\rule{0mm}{4mm} {\mbf \Gamma}({\mbf q},w)\right]^{\alpha\beta}\ n(w)\nonumber\\ \label{incoh}\end{aligned}$$ where $${\mbf \Gamma}({\mbf q},w) \ =\ \W_2\ [{\mbf\Delta}({\mbf q})]^{-1}\ {\mbf \Sigma}({\mbf q},w) \ [{\mbf \Delta}({\mbf q})]^{-1}\ \W_2$$ Block recursion and the self-energy matrix ========================================== The augmented space recursion (ASR) has been proposed earlier by us [@kasr; @alam] as technique for the incorporation of the effects of configuration fluctuations for random substitutionally disordered alloys. This can be achieved without the usual problems of violation of the herglotz analytic properties [@alam] of the approximated configuration averaged Green functions for phonon problems in realistic random alloys. Although our initial focus was on spectral functions and complex dispersion relations and lifetimes, in this communication we propose to study inealstic neutron scattering cross-sections. These calculations require the full Green matrices and not only their diagonal elements. We propose here the use of a generalization of the recursion method of Haydock [et.al.]{} [@rec]. The block recursion technique had been introduced earlier by Godin and Haydock [@godin1; @godin2] in the very different context for obtaining the scattering S-matrix for finite scatterers attached to perfect leads. We shall borrow their ideas and set up a block recursion in the space of vibrational modes (rather than the lead space, as in Godin and Haydock’s work) in order to obtain the Green matrices directly. The recursion method essentially starts from a denumerably infinite basis and changes the basis to one in which the dynamical matrix (or the Hamiltonian, in electronic problems) is tri-diagonal. In the block recursion we start from a matrix basis of the form : $\{\Phi^{(n)}_{J,\alpha\beta}\}$, where $J$ is the discrete labelling of the augmented space states and the $\alpha,\beta$ labels Cartesian directions (i.e. the modes of vibration). The inner product of such basis is defined by : $$\left( \Phi^{(n)}, \Phi^{(m)}\right) \ =\ \sum_J\sum_{\beta'}\ \Phi^{(n)\dagger}_{\alpha\beta',J}\ \Phi^{(m)}_{J,\beta'\beta}\ =\ N^{nm}_{\alpha\beta}$$ For a real-space calculations on a lattice with Z-nearest neighbours, we start the recursion with : $$\Phi^{(1)}_{J,\alpha\beta}\ =\ U_{\alpha\beta}^{(1)} \ \delta_{J,1} + U_{\alpha\beta}^{(2)} \ \delta_{J,Z+1}$$ while for a reciprocal space calculation we start with : $$\Phi^{(1)}_{J,\alpha\beta}\ =\ U_{\alpha\beta}^{(1)} \ \delta_{J,1} + U_{\alpha\beta}^{(2)} \ \delta_{J,2}$$ where $U_{\alpha\beta}^{(1)}=\frac{A(m^{-1/2})}{\left[\rule{0mm}{2mm}A(m^{-1})\right]^{1/2}}\ \delta_{\alpha\beta}\ \ \ ;\ \ \ U_{\alpha\beta}^{(2)}=\frac{F(m^{-1/2})}{\left[\rule{0mm}{2mm}A(m^{-1})\right]^{1/2}}\ \delta_{\alpha\beta}$ The remaining terms in the basis are recursively obtained from : $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{\beta'}\Phi^{(2)}_{J,\alpha\beta'} B^{(2)\dagger}_{\beta'\beta}& = &\sum_{J'}\sum_{\beta'} \widetilde{H}_{J\alpha,J'\beta '} \Phi^{(1)}_{J',\beta'\beta} - \sum_{\beta'}\Phi^{(1)}_{J,\alpha\beta '} A^{(1)}_{\beta '\beta}\nonumber\\ \sum_{\beta '} \Phi^{(n+1)}_{J,\alpha\beta '} B^{(n+1)\dagger}_{\beta '\beta}& = &\sum_{J'}\sum_{\beta'} \widetilde{H}_{J\alpha,J'\beta '} \Phi^{(n)}_{J',\beta '\beta}- \sum_{\beta '}\Phi^{(n)}_{J,\alpha\beta '} A^{(n)}_{\beta '\beta} - \sum_{\beta '}\Phi^{(n-1)}_{J,\alpha\beta '} B^{(n)}_{\beta '\beta}\nonumber\\ \label{eqn24}\end{aligned}$$ where, $ \widetilde{\mathbf H}\ =\ \widetilde{\mbf M}^{-1/2}\ \widetilde{\mbf D}\ \widetilde{\mbf M}^{-1/2} $ with $\widetilde{\mbf M}$ and $\widetilde{\mbf D}$ given by Eqns.(\[mass\]) and (\[dm\]). Orthogonalization of the basis gives : $$\sum_{J}\sum_{\beta '}\sum_{J'}\sum_{\beta ''}\Phi^{(n)\dagger}_{\alpha\beta ',J}\ \widetilde{H}_{J\beta', J'\beta ''} \Phi^{(n)}_{J',\beta''\beta '}=\sum_{\beta'}\ N^{nn}_{\alpha\beta'}\ A^{(n)}_{\beta '\beta}\nonumber$$ In matrix notation, where matrices are in the vibrational mode ($\alpha\beta$) space : $${\mathbf A}^{(n)} \ =\ \left({\mathbf N}^{nn}\rule{0mm}{4mm}\right)^{-1}\ \sum_{J}\sum_{J'}\ {\mathbf \Phi}^{(n)\dagger}_J\ \widetilde{\mathbf H}_{JJ'}\ {\mathbf \Phi}^{(n)}_{J'}$$ Next, we note that we had started with a orthogonal basis set of rank $J_{max}\times \alpha_{max}$ . The above procedure merely gives $J_{max}$ basis sets. We still have orthogonality conditions among the various columns of $\Phi^{(n)}_{J,\alpha\beta}$. In order to impose these conditions, consider $$\begin{aligned} \Psi_{J,\alpha\beta} = \sum_{J'}\sum_{\beta '} \widetilde{H}_{J\alpha,J'\beta '} \Phi^{(n)}_{J',\beta '\beta} - \sum_{\beta '}\Phi^{(n)}_{J,\alpha\beta '}\ A^{(n)}_{\beta '\beta}-\ldots\\ - \sum_{\beta '}\Phi^{(n-1)}_{J,\alpha\beta '}\ B^{(n)}_{\beta '\beta}\end{aligned}$$ Construct three column vectors $\psi_{J\alpha}^{(\beta)}$ out of the three columns of $\Psi_{J,\alpha\beta}$ and set about to Gram-Schimidt orthonormalizing the set : $$\begin{aligned} \psi^{(1)}_{\alpha J} &=& \phi^{(1)}_{\alpha J}\ B_{11} \quad\Rightarrow\quad B_{11}^2 \ =\ \sum_{\alpha J}{\psi^{(1)}_{J\alpha}}^{} \psi^{(1)}_{\alpha J}\nonumber\\ \psi^{(2)}_{\alpha J} &=& \phi^{(1)}_{\alpha J}\ B_{12} + \phi^{(2)}_{\alpha J}\ B_{22} \quad\Rightarrow\quad B_{12} \ =\ \sum_{\alpha J} {\phi^{(1)}_{J\alpha }}^{}\psi^{(2)}_{\alpha J} \quad ;\quad B_{22}^2 = \sum_{\alpha J}{\psi^{(2)}_{J\alpha}}^{} \psi^{(2)}_{\alpha J} - B_{12}^2\nonumber\\ & &\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\nonumber\\ & &\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\nonumber\\ & &\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\nonumber\\ \psi^{(m)}_{\alpha J} &=& \sum_{k=1}^{m}\ \phi^{(k)}_{\alpha J} B_{km} \quad\Rightarrow\quad B_{km} = \sum_{\alpha J} {\phi^{(k)}_{J\alpha}}^{}\psi^{(m)}_{\alpha J} \quad (k < m) \quad ;\quad B_{mm}^2 = \sum_{\alpha J} \psi^{(m)}_{J\alpha} \psi^{(m)}_{\alpha J} - \sum_{k=1}^{m-1} B_{km}^{2}\nonumber\\ \label{eqn26}\end{aligned}$$ where m stands for the total number of vibrational modes. We may now construct $\Phi^{(n+1)}_{J,\alpha\beta}$ out of $\phi_{J\alpha}^{\beta}$ and note that $B_{km}$ is indeed the matrix ${{\bf B}^{(n+1)}}^{\dagger}$ we are looking for. The Eqns.(\[eqn24\])-(\[eqn26\]) show that we may calculate the matrices $\{{\bf A}^{(n)}, {\bf B}^{(n+1)}\}$ recursively, noting that ${\bf B}^{(1)}={\bf I}$ and ${\bf B}^{(0)}={\bf 0}$. In this new basis, the Hamiltonian is [block tri-diagonal]{} and the Green matrix can be written as follows : $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbf G}^{(n)}&=& \left[\rule{0mm}{4mm} w^2\ {\mathbf I}- {\mathbf A}^{(n)}- {\mathbf B}^{(n+1)\dagger}\ {\mathbf G}^{(n+1)}\ {\mathbf B}^{(n+1)}\right]^{-1} \nonumber\\ & \phantom{x}& \nonumber\\ \ll {\mathbf G}\gg &=& {\mathbf G}^{(1)}\end{aligned}$$ The terminator which replaces the asymptotic part of the matrix continued fraction is that which is used by Godin and Haydock [@godin2]. We calculate the matrix coefficients upto a $n=N_0$ and approximate at coefficients $> N_0$ by [A]{} and [B]{}. We then write for a $N \gg N_0$ : $${\mathbf G}^{(N)}\ =\ \left[\rule{0mm}{4mm} (w^2 - i\delta){\mathbf I}\right]^{-1}$$ and then iterate : $$\begin{aligned} G^{(n)} = \left[\rule{0mm}{4mm} w^2{\mathbf I}\ -\ {\mathbf A}\ -\ {\mathbf B}^\dagger\ {\mathbf G}^{(n+1)}\ {\mathbf B}\right]^{-1}& \\ & \mbox{ for } n > N_0 \end{aligned}$$ A judicious choice of $\delta$ (0.001) and $N$ (5000) gives a smooth density of states from the diagonal part of the Green matrix. The self-energy follows from the Dyson equation : $${\mathbf \Sigma}\ =\ {\mathbf g}^{-1}\ -\ {\mathbf G}^{-1}$$ ![The coherent scattering cross section in different directions for $Ni_{55}Pd_{45}$. In each of the different directions, the various curves indicate the cross sections for various $\zeta$ values starting from the lowest value to the edge of the Brillouin zone. The y-axis is in an arbitrary scale with heights scaled to the maximum height. Different curves for different $\zeta$ values are shifted along the x-axis in order to facilitate vision.[]{data-label="fig8"}](fig8a.eps){width="8.5cm" height="15cm"} Results and Discussion ====================== In the next two subsection, we explore the relative importance of mass and force constant disorder in the inelastic neutron scattering for two specific random alloys $Ni_{55}Pd_{45}$ and $Ni_{50}Pt_{50}$. In a recent publication [@alam], we have already studied the advantages of Augmented space recursion (ASR) over the simple CPA for understanding the dispersion and life time of phonons in random binary alloys. The present work is an extension of that work from the implementation point of view, since now we need to apply the Block recursion technique to calculate the full Green matrix. ${\bf Ni_{55}Pd_{45}}$ alloy : Strong mass and weak force constant disorder --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The mass disorder in this alloy is much larger than the force constant disorder. We refer the reader to a previous article [@alam] by us, for some of the basic properties of fcc Ni and Pd, which is relevant for our present calculation. This particular alloy has already been studied experimentally by Kamitakahara and Brockhouse [@kambrock] using Inelastic neutron scattering. The properties associated with the neutron scattering of Ni and Pd are reasonably favorable. The incoherent scattering cross section of Ni is fairly high, which was at first thought to be a potentially serious disadvantage, but in practice, this did not turn out to be much of a problem. it has been found that the scattered neutron distributions are always dominated by the coherent scattering even for high frequency made with large widths. Experimental investigation shows that significant difference between the coherent scattering lengths of Ni and Pd (The coherent scattering length for Ni is 1.03 while that of Pd is 0.6 in units of $10^{-12}$cm ) produces additional incoherent scattering in $Ni_{55}Pd_{45}$, but this is much smaller than the incoherence produced by the Ni-atom itself in the alloy. In Fig.(\[fig8\]), we display the inelastic coherent scattering cross sections \[calculated from Eqn. (\[coh\])\] obtained from our Block recursion calculation along the highest symmetry directions $ ( [\zeta 0 0],[\zeta \zeta 0],[\zeta \zeta \zeta]\ ,\ \zeta = \|\vec q\|/\|\vec {q}_{max}\| ) $. For a particular direction, different curves indicate the cross sections at various $\zeta$-points starting from the lowest value ($\zeta=0$) to the edge of the Brillouin zone ($\zeta=1$ in units of 2$\pi$/a). The first thing to note is that the scattering cross sections are often asymmetric near the resonances. This property was also reflected in the phonon line shapes shown in the previous communication [@alam] by us. However the amount of asymmetries in the cross section is more than that in the usual lorentzian phonon line. That should be obvious because if we see the paper of Nowak and Dederichs [@nd] ; there they have derived an expression for the coherent scattering cross section in the single site CPA framework, this expression contains in addition to the usual lorentzian phonon line contribution \[ obtained from $\Im m \ll G(\mbf {q},w)\gg$ \], a second term which will have zero contribution only if the scattering length do not fluctuate ( which is not the case in our formulation ). They have also argued that this extra term leads to an asymmetry (rather small contribution) of the phonon line. One can also notice that the nature of asymmetry in the cross section is not the same as in the line shapes. This is due to the contribution of off-diagonal elements of the Green’s matrix and self energy matrix in the coherent scattering cross section \[ as obvious from expression (\[coh\]) \]. This difference in the nature of asymmetry is more pronounced in the $[\zeta \zeta 0]$ and $[\zeta \zeta \zeta]$ symmetry directions, because the Green’s matrix \[ and self energy matrix \] comes out to be completely diagonal in the $[\zeta 0 0]$ direction. The occurence of such a structure of the cross section may also be due to the calculation in the mixed mode frame work. One should notice from the Block recursion technique described in section (IV) that, unlike the ordinary recursion where one extracts results for specific modes, the Block recursion requires a mixed mode starting state and hence does the calculation in that frame work to evaluate the entire Green matrix. The asymmetries can be described as a tendency of more scattering to occur near the resonance frequencies. It is important to note that the coherent scatteirng cross sections have a pronounced ${\mbf {q}}$-dependence in all the three symmetry directions. Because of the short range properties, the self energy ( and $[\mbf {\Delta(q)}]^{-1}$ ) depends only rather weakly on ${\mbf{q}}$ and does not show any strong structure as a function of the same. The same applies for the effective scattering length $\W_{eff}$. Thus the only strong ${\mbf q}$-dependence in the coherent cross section arises from the average Green’s matrix $\ll \mbf {G(q,w)}\gg$ which is a long range matrix due to it’s dependence on reducible diagrams. ![The incoherent scattering cross sections in different directions for $Ni_{55}Pd_{45}$ alloy with $\Phi_{Ni-Pd}=0.7\ \Phi_{Ni-Ni}\ $. In each of the different directions, the various curves indicate the cross sections for various $\zeta$ values starting from the lowest value to the edge of the Brillouin zone.[]{data-label="fig9"}](fig8b.eps){width="8.5cm" height="14cm"} ![The incoherent scattering cross sections in different directions for $Ni_{55}Pd_{45}$ alloy with $\Phi_{Ni-Pd}=0.9\ \Phi_{Ni-Ni}\ $. In each of the different directions, the various curves indicate the cross sections for various $\zeta$ values starting from the lowest value to the edge of the Brillouin zone.[]{data-label="fig10"}](fig8c.eps){width="8.5cm" height="14cm"} In Fig.(\[fig9\]) we display the incoherent scattering cross sections \[ calculated from Eqn.(\[incoh\]) \] along the highest symmetry directions. In a particular direction, the different curves indicate the cross sections for various $\zeta$-points starting from $\zeta =0$ to $\zeta =1$ (in units of $2\pi/a$). A look at fig.(\[fig9\]) immediately shows that the incoherent cross sections are very weakly dependent on ${\mbf q}$. It is the “$q^{\alpha}q^{\beta}$” factor in Eqn.(\[incoh\]) which weights up the cross sections as we go on increasing ${\mbf q}$-points. These results are in accordance with the arguments of Nowak and Dederichs [@nd] and Yussouf and Mookerjee [@my]. They have also mentioned in their paper that, the weak ${\mbf q}$-dependence of incoherent scattering cross section arises because of it’s strong similarities with the self energy diagram which is itself a short range matrix due to it’s dependence on irreducible diagrams and hence vary rather weakly with ${\mbf q}$. Kamitakahara and Brockhouse also found a similar qualitative features for the coherent and incoherent cross sections in their Inelastic neutron scattering measurment. Fig.(\[fig10\]) shows the same Incoherent scattering cross sections for $Ni_{55}Pd_{45}$ alloy but with a different parametrization of force constants. Here we keep $\Phi_{Ni-Ni}^{\alpha\beta}$ and $\Phi_{Pd-Pd}^{\alpha\beta}$ the same as those of the pure materials (same as in Fig.\[fig9\]) and reduced the $\Phi_{Ni-Pd}^{\alpha\beta}$ below the $\Phi_{Ni-Ni}^{\alpha\beta}$ by an $\alpha\beta$-independent factor as $\Phi_{Ni-Pd}^{\alpha\beta}~=~0.9\ \Phi_{Ni-Ni}^{\alpha\beta}$. However in Fig.(\[fig9\]) it was $\Phi_{Ni-Pd}^{\alpha\beta}~=~0.7\ \Phi_{Ni-Ni}^{\alpha\beta}$. One can easily see the variation in shape of the cross section as the input parameter varies. It is because of this reason a prior information about the species dependence of the force constants is very important. Our approach here made no attempt to obtain the input parameters themselves from first principles, but rather resorted, as others did earlier, because the aim of this work is to establish the augmented space block recursion as a computationally fast and accurate method for the cross section calculation in context of phonon excitations in random alloys. Our future endeavor would be to rectify this, and attempt to obtain the dynamical matrix itself from more microscopic theories, so that we can have a unique shape of the cross sections unlike the present case. ${\bf Ni_{50}Pt_{50}}$ alloy : Strong mass and force constant disorder ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ![The coherent scattering cross section in different directions for $Ni_{50}Pt_{50}$. In each of the different directions, the various curves indicate the cross sections for various $\zeta$ values starting from the lowest value to the edge of the Brillouin zone.[]{data-label="fig11"}](fig9a.eps){width="8.5cm" height="15cm"} In this section we shall apply our formulation to NiPt alloys where both kinds of disorders are predominant. The mass ratio $m_{Pt}/m_{Ni}$ is 3.3 (quite large compared to that in NiPd system) and the force constants of Pt are on an average 55% larger than those in Ni. For a list of general properties of fcc Ni and Pt, we refer the reader to article [@alam]. Tsunoda [et.al.]{} [@Tsunoda] investigated $Ni_{1-x}Pt_{x}$ by Inelastic neutron scattering and compared their observations with the CPA. Here for illustration, we have considered $x=0.5$ only because that makes it a concentrated alloy and the failure of the CPA was, qualitatively more prominent at this concentration. Because of the large mass and force constant differences, the effect of disorder in NiPt alloy is dramatic, such as the appearence of sharp discontinuities (or split bands) observed in the dispersion and line width [@alam]. The present theoritical investigation also found this kind of peculiar behaviour in the inelastic scattering cross sections. In Fig.(\[fig11\]), we display the inelastic coherent scattering cross sections along the highest symmetry direction.As before, In a particular direction the different curves indicate the cross sections for various $\zeta$-values. For the sake of simplicity, we have used the same parametrization of masses and force constants as used in our previous paper [@alam]. In $Ni_{50}Pt_{50}$ alloy, the coherent scattering cross sections show few extra features. Even in the $[\zeta 0 0]$ direction, the cross section becomes well seperated double peaks along with weakly defined peak in between in the region from $\zeta = 0.68$ to the zone boundary. The occurence of such a weakly defined peak is due to the inclusion of force constant disorder explicitly in our formulation. It is also clear from Fig.(\[fig11\]) that there exists no appreciable peak intensity below 3.7 THz for $\zeta \ge 0.68$ in all the three symmetry directions. Tsunoda also found the same structure below 3.5THz for $\zeta \ge 0.7$. However CPA predicted the lower frequency peak to exist for all the $\zeta$-values. For smaller $\zeta$-values, the lower frequency peaks are sharper than the high frequency ones, but the intensity of former decreases significantly with increasing wave vector however the latter gets sharper, in all the three symmetry directions. The phonon peaks are well defined for smaller ($\zeta \le 0.38$) and higher $\zeta$-values, but no well defined peaks were observed for intermediate values of $\zeta$, presumably due to extreme line broadening. This kind of qualitative features has also been observed experimentally by Tsunoda [et. al.]{} for longitudnal branches. This feature is more transparent in the $[\zeta \zeta 0]$ direction \[ fig.(\[fig11\])\] where the low frequency peak gets broadened and becomes more asymmetric in the region between $\zeta = 0.4$ to $\zeta = 0.78$. ![The incoherent scattering cross section in different directions for $Ni_{50}Pt_{50}$. In each of the different directions, the various curves indicate the cross sections for various $\zeta$ values starting from the lowest value to the edge of the Brillouin zone.[]{data-label="fig12"}](fig9b.eps){width="8.5cm" height="14cm"} The incoherent scattering cross sections (given by Eqn.\[incoh\]) for $Ni_{50}Pt_{50}$ alloy along the highest symmetry directions are shown in Fig.\[fig12\]. The weak $\mbf q$-dependence of the cross section is obvious from the figure. The intensities for various ${\mbf q}$’s in a particular direction have nearly an approximate $q^{2}$ dependence because of the factor ’$q^{\alpha}q^{\beta}$’ in Eqn.(\[incoh\]). ![image](fig10.eps){width="17.0cm" height="6cm"} In Fig.(\[fig13\]), we compare our results for the incoherent scattering cross section with those of the CPA and the experiment [@Tsunoda]. Here the left, middle and right panel displays the augmented space block recursion (ASBR) result, experimental curve and the CPA result respectively. In the CPA result we can observe a dip at the frequency corresponding to the phonon band gap observed in the dispersion curves. This suggests a split band behaviour which clearly seperates the Pt-contribution in the low frequency region from the Ni-contribution in the high frequency region, because the low frequency region is dominated by the Pt-atom (heavier atom) having much lower incoherent scattering length than Ni \[ the incoherent scattering length for Pt is 0.1 while that of Ni is 4.5 \]. This kind of spurious gap however is not observed in the recursion result, because the CPA results are based on the mass fluctuations alone, ignoring the off-diagonal and environmental disorder arising out of the dynamical matrix. On the other hand, by incorporating the force constant disorder as is done in the bolck recursion, we get rid of this spurious gap and obtain rather a good agreement with the experimental results. The overall qualitative behaviour is similar. In addition the phonon band edges in the recursion results are very close to the experimental ones. The recursion finds the right band-edge at $\simeq 7.91THz $, Tsunoda finds this band-edge experimentally at $\simeq 7.93 THz $ while the CPA gives a rather higher value of $\simeq 8.267$ THz. Conclusions =========== We have presented a straightforward and tractable formulation for the seperation of total intensity of thermal neutron scattering from disordered alloys into a coherent and an incoherent part. The use of the augmented space to keep track of the configuration of the system has made the formalism simple yet powerful. In essence, the splitting is identical to that introduced by Nowak and Dederichs [@nd] within a Yonezawa-Matsubara diagram technique except that it has been done [exactly]{} without taking any recourse to mean-field like approximation. Unlike the method proposed by Yussouff an Mookerjee [@my], where the diagram technique was exceedingly difficult to generalize into even a small cluster CPA, the augmented space block recursion proved to be simpler to apply the formalism on realistic random alloys. The technique takes into account fluctuations in masses, force constants and scattering lengths of the individual nuclei. The environmental disorder arising out of the force constant sum rule has also been incorporated before averaging. The approximation involving termination of matrix continued fraction expansion of the Green matrix retains the essential Herglotz analytic properties of the diagonal Green’s function. We have applied the method to NiPd and NiPt alloys. In $Ni_{55}Pd_{45}$, we have demonstrated that mass disorder plays the prominent role. In addition our coherent scattering cross section enable us to understand the effect of small contribution of the off-diagonal elements of Green matrix. The results on $Ni_{50}Pt_{50}$ alloy however demonstrate the prominence of force disorder even in a case where the mass ratio is $\simeq$ 3. Our results agree well both with the coherent and the incoherent scattering experiments, where as the CPA fails both qualitatively and quantitatively. We propose the technique as a computationally fast and efficient method for the study of inelastic neutron scattering in disordered systems. Our approach here had no prior information about the species dependence of the force constants, but rather choose a set of force constants intutively as others did earlier. A better understanding of the role of disorder in the lattice dynamics of random alloys could be achieved with prior information about the force constants. These could be obtained from more microscopic theories ( e.g. the first principles calculation on a set of ordered alloys.) [99]{} Y. Tsunoda , N. Kunitomi, N. Wakabayashi, R.M. Nicklow and H.G. Smith , [B 19]{}, 2876 (1979). E.C. Svensson and B.N. Brockhouse, Lett. [18]{}, 858 (1967) ; N. Wakbayashi, [B 8]{}, 6015(1973) ; B. Mozer, K. Otnes and C. Thaper, [152]{}, 535(1966). R.M. Nicklow, P.R. Vijayaraghavan, H.G. Smith and M.K. Wilkinson, Lett. [20]{}, 1245 (1968) ; J.W. Lynn, H.G. Smith and R.M. Nicklow, [B 8]{}, 3493(1973) ; B. Mozer, K. Otnes and V.M. Myers , Lett. [8]{}, 278(1962). W.A. Kamitakahara and B.N. Brockhouse, [B 10]{}, 1200 (1974). R.M. Nicklow, Methods of experimental physics (Academic Press, New York, 1983), Vol. 23 , p. 172. L. Van Hove, [95]{}, 249 (1954). A. Sjölander , [Phonons and Phonon Interactions]{}, ed. Bak T.A. (Benjamin, New York) (1964). S.W. Lovesey and W. Marshall, [Theory of Thermal Neutron Scarrering]{} (Oxford University Press, London) (1971). E. Nowak and P.H.Dederichs, [B 25]{}, 875 (1982). A. Mookerjee , [6]{}, L205 (1973). T. Kaplan and M. Mostoller , [B 9]{}, 353 (1974). T. Kaplan and L.J. Gray, [B 14]{}, 3462 (1976) ; [B 24]{}, 1872 (1981). R. Mills and R. Ratanavaraksa, [B 18]{}, 5291 (1978). T. Kaplan, P.L. Leath, L.J. Gray and H.W. Diehl, [B 10]{}, 1200 (1980). V. Kumar, A. Mookerjee and V.K. Srivastava, [15]{}, 1939 (1982). A. Mookerjee, V.K. Srivastava and V. Choudhry, [16]{}, 4555 (1983). S. Ghosh, P.L. Leath and M.H. Cohen, [B 66]{}, 214206 (2002). A. Alam and A. Mookerjee, [B 69]{}, 024205 (2004). A. Mookerjee, [8]{}, 1524 (1975) A. Mookerjee, [9]{}, 1225 (1976) A. Mookerjee, [Electronic Structure of Alloys, Surfaces and Clusters]{}, ed. A. Mookerjee and D.D. Sarma. (Taylor $\&$ Francis, London) (2003) T.D. Schultz and D. Shapero, [181]{}, 1062 (1973) S. Ghosh, N. Das and A. Mookerjee, 1999 [Int. J. Mod. Phys.]{} [B 21]{}, 723 (1999) A. Mookerjee and M. Yussouff, [B 33]{}, 5414 (1986) V. Heine, [Solid State Physics]{} (Academic Press, New York) (1980) K.K. Saha and A. Mookerjee, Cond-Mat/0405175 (2004) ; P. Biswas, B. Sanyal, M. Fakhruddin, A. Halder, A. Mookerjee and M. Ahmed, [7]{}, 8569 (1995) ; P. Biswas, B. Sanyal, A. Mookerjee, A. Huda, N. Chowdhury, M. Ahmed and A. Halder, [Int. J. Mod. Phys.]{} [B 11]{}, 3703 (1997) F. Yonezawa and T. Matsubara, Prog. Theor. Phys. [35]{}, 357 (1966); [35]{}, 759 (1966) R. Haydock, V. Heine and M.J. Kelly, [5]{}, 2845 (1972) T.J. Godin and R. Haydock, [B 38]{}, 5237 (1988) T.J. Godin and R. Haydock, [B 46]{}, 1528 (1992) [^1]: corresponding author [^2]: email : [email protected] [^3]: a separable diagram is one that can be broken into two along a electron line without also breaking a pseudo-fermion line	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Space-time coded massive (STCM) multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) system provides superior bit error rate (BER) performance compared with the conventional space-time coding and massive MIMO techniques. The transmitter of the STCM-MIMO system consists of a large antenna array. In a practical system, the self-interference created by the signals transmitted by the elements of this antenna array, known as mutual coupling (MC), degrades the performance of the system. The MC effect is pronounced in communication systems with a large antenna array. On the other hand, increasing the number of transmitting antennas results in improved BER performance. Hence, there is a trade off in selecting the optimum number of transmitting antennas in an STCM-MIMO system. In order to take the impact of MC into account, we have derived an analytical expression for the received signal to accurately model the STCM-MIMO system under the existence of the MC effect. We present an algorithm to select the optimal number of antennas to minimize mutual coupling and the system bit error rate (BER). Through computer simulations, we investigate the BER performance of the STCM-MIMO system for different numbers of array elements.' author: - 'Fatemeh Asghari Azhiri, Reza Abdolee, and Behzad Mozaffari Tazehkand[^1][^2]' bibliography: - 'ref.bib' title: 'Effect of Mutual Coupling on the Performance of STCM-MIMO Systems' --- at (current page.south) ; massive MIMO, 5G, mutual coupling effect, STCM-MIMO, space-time coding. Introduction ============ massive multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) technology has been introduced to meet the growing demands of bandwidth hungry applications and multiuser communications in next generation wireless systems such as fifth generation (5G) cellular networks [@bjornson2016massive]. The base station (BS) of a massive MIMO system is able to encode and send data to multiple users simultaneously and in the same frequency band, using a large number of antennas. Therefore, incorporating massive MIMO technology results in robust and highly reliable communications for upcoming ultra dense wireless communication networks [@marzetta2016]. In order to further improve the performance of massive MIMO systems, Ice et al. [@ice2017] introduced ingenious space-time coded massive MIMO (STCM-MIMO) technique that benefits from the advantages of both massive MIMO and space-time coding technologies. The data symbols in a STCM-MIMO system are coded by a space-time code technique in the transmitter. Then, each of the coded symbols is transmitted by a subset of the antenna array in the BS. Using antenna arrays in STCM-MIMO for transmitting the space-time coded symbols significantly improves the overall system performance compared to the space-time coded MIMO and conventional massive MIMO system [@ice2018]. The transmitter of the STCM-MIMO system contains a large number of antennas that must be located close to each other in order to achieve an appropriate size of the base station. This compactness leads to an increase in the mutual coupling (MC) effect between elements of the antenna arrays. The effect of the MC should be considered in the design and implementation of the communication systems specifically massive MIMO based systems due to the deployment of large antenna arrays in their structure. The impact of MC and the spatial correlation have been studied on various types of systems with array antennas in their structure. The effect of MC in BER performance of Alamouti space-time coded systems has been investigated in [@abouda2006effect] and a performance degradation in low correlated channels has been indicated. In [@RaoBERAO] an antenna selection algorithm is used in the receiver side in the presence of mutual coupling to achieve best BER performance for an Alamouti coding scheme. The authors in [@wallace2004mutual] proposed a rigorous network-theory framework for the analysis of mutual coupling in MIMO wireless communications. This method attains an upper bound for the capacity expression in the presence of mutual coupling in the studied system. The growing application of massive MIMO technology in the new generations of communication networks such as 5G systems has attracted increasing attention to study its hardware performance. In [@artiga2012mutual], signal to noise and interference ratio of a massive MIMO system for various types of antenna arrays are calculated. The mutual coupling model of antenna arrays is applied to the 3GPP 3D channel model in [@pratschner2017mutual] and by a matching network, the coupling effect has been partly compensated. Most articles in the literature assume that the antenna arrays have a regular structure such as uniform linear or uniform planar arrays. The antenna arrays may have irregular structures as shown in [@ge2016multi]. It is indicated that in some specific cases, the irregular arrays outperform the regular antenna arrays in the achievable rate. Since STCM-MIMO systems are introduced recently, their hardware implementation has not been investigated thoroughly. It has been shown that increasing the number of antenna elements in the transmitter of an STCM-MIMO system results in better BER performance, while the destructive effect of MC of the antenna array is not considered [@ice2018]. However, the effect of MC is not negligible in practice, especially for large antenna arrays. In this paper, we study the performance of STCM-MIMO system in the presence of the MC effect. We derive the analytical expression of the received signal vector by considering the MC effect of the antenna elements in the transmitter. The BER performance of an STCM-MIMO system which consists of a uniform linear array (ULA) antenna is investigated. The simulation results determined the amount of the performance degradation of the STCM-MIMO system with different number of antenna elements and element distances in the presence of the coupling effect. In order to design a proper array structure for the transmitter of an STCM-MIMO system, we compare the performance of the system with various number of antennas within identically sized arrays and different styles of sub-array selection in the transmitter. The simulation results confirm that we face a trade off in specifying the optimum number of elements of the antenna array to achieve appropriate system performance. Even though increasing the number of antennas in STCM-MIMO transmitter improves the BER in ideal systems, it ends in increasing the destructive effect of mutual coupling when the MC effect is taken into account. We investigate this trade off and determine the optimum number of elements for the inspected antenna arrays. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In the system model is discussed and the received signal vector is formulated. The simulation results are discussed in section \[sec3\] followed by concluding remarks in section \[sec4\]. System Model {#sec2} ============ We consider an STCM-MIMO system with a base station equipped with $M$ antennas and $K$ single antenna mobile users. We divide the base station array into two sub-arrays each having $N=M/2$ elements. Two information symbols with a certain modulation scheme such as M-ary QAM or PSK modulation are transmitted by two transmit antenna sub-arrays in each time slot. This system applies the Alamouti space-time codes and uses Hermitian pre-coding scheme [@ice2017]. At time $t$, the first sub-array sends the symbol $s_{0}$ and the second sub-array sends $s_{1}$. At time $t+T$, the symbols $-s_{1}^{}$ and $s_{0}^{}$ are sent by first and second sub-arrays, respectively. The Hermitian pre-coding is applied on each symbol before transmitting (see Figure \[sysmod\]). The weight vector $w_{0}$ ($w_{1}$) is the Hermitian pre-coding vector according to the channel vector of the first (second) sub-array and the receiver. The received signals can be expressed as [@ice2017] $$\label{eq1} \begin{split} \tilde{r}_{0}^{nc}=&\tilde{r}^{nc}(t)=\boldsymbol{w}_{0}^{H}\boldsymbol{h}_{0}s_{0}+\boldsymbol{w}_{1}^{H}\boldsymbol{h}_{1}s_{1}\\ &+\sum_{j\neq0}^{K-1}(\boldsymbol{w}_{2j}^{H}\boldsymbol{h}_{0}s_{2j}+\boldsymbol{w}_{(2j+1)}^{H}\boldsymbol{h}_{1}s_{(2j+1)})+\tilde{n_{0}} \\ \\ \tilde{r}_{1}^{nc}=&\tilde{r}^{nc}(t+T)=-\boldsymbol{w}_{0}^{H}\boldsymbol{h}_{0}s_{1}^{}+\boldsymbol{w}_{1}^{H}\boldsymbol{h}_{1}s_{0}^{}\\ &+\sum_{j\neq0}^{K-1}(-\boldsymbol{w}_{2j}^{H}\boldsymbol{h}_{0}s_{2j+1}^{}+\boldsymbol{w}_{(2j+1)}^{H}\boldsymbol{h}_{1}s_{(2j)}^{})+\tilde{n_{1}} \end{split}$$ where $\tilde{r}_{0}^{nc}$ is the received signal at time slot $t$ without MC effect, $\tilde{r}_{1}^{nc}$ is the received signal at time slot $t+T$ without MC effect, $K$ is the number of users, $(.)^{H}$ and $(.)^{}$ indicate Hermitian transform and complex conjugate respectively. The coefficient vector of the channel between the antenna array at the transmitter and the single antenna receiver is expressed as $\boldsymbol{h}=[\boldsymbol{h}_{0}; \boldsymbol{h}_{1}]$, where $\boldsymbol{h}_{0}$ and $\boldsymbol{h}_{1}$ are $N \times 1$ vectors which exhibit the channel coefficients through first and second sub-arrays to the receiver, respectively. The massive MIMO Hermitian pre-coding vector, $\boldsymbol{w}_{j}$, is defined as $$\boldsymbol{w}_{j}=\frac{1}{N}\boldsymbol{h}_{j}$$ The receiver combining scheme for two branches of STCM-MIMO system can be expressed as $$\label{eqr} \begin{split} \tilde{s}_{0}&=\Vert \boldsymbol{h}_{0}\Vert^{2}\tilde{r}^{nc}_{0}+\Vert \boldsymbol{h}_{1}\Vert^{2}\tilde{r}^{nc}_{1}\\ \tilde{s}_{1}&=\Vert \boldsymbol{h}_{1}\Vert^{2}\tilde{r}_{0}^{nc}-\Vert \boldsymbol{h}_{0}\Vert^{2}\tilde{r}_{1}^{nc} \end{split}$$ where $\Vert\boldsymbol{v}\Vert ^{2}$ is the $L^{2}$-norm of the vector $\boldsymbol{v}$. Using the equation (\[eqr\]) the maximum likelihood detector can estimate the transmitted symbols. Equation (\[eq1\]) assumes that the antenna elements of the array do not interfere with each other. When antenna elements are close, the electromagnetic field produced by one antenna influences the output of its neighbor antennas. The interaction between two or more antennas, that affects coefficients of the antenna array is called mutual coupling. Assuming that a communication system consists of an antenna array with $M$ elements as a transmitter and a single antenna receiver, the received signal at the receiver can be written as $$\label{eq3} y^{nc}=\boldsymbol{gx}$$ where $y^{nc}$ is the received signal without MC effect, $\boldsymbol{x}$ is the transmitting signal vector and $\boldsymbol{g}$ is the wireless channel vector. Mutual coupling effect can be incorporated into (\[eq3\]) as follows $$y^{c}=\boldsymbol{Cgx}=\hat{\boldsymbol{g}}\boldsymbol{x}$$ where $\boldsymbol{C}$ represents the $M \times M$ coupling matrix and $\boldsymbol{\hat{g}}$ can be replaced as the channel vector in order to consider MC effect. ![$2N \times 1$ STCM-MIMO[]{data-label="sysmod"}](systemmodel1.eps){width="3.4"} Therefore, in the case of STCM-MIMO, the receiving signal including mutual coupling can be written as $$\label{eq6} \begin{split} \tilde{r}_{0}^{c}=&\tilde{r}^{c}(t)=\boldsymbol{w}_{0}^{H} \hat{\boldsymbol{h}}_{0}s_{0}+\boldsymbol{w}_{1}^{H} \hat{\boldsymbol{h}}_{1}s_{1}\\ &+\sum_{j\neq0}^{K-1}(\boldsymbol{w}_{2j}^{H} \hat{\boldsymbol{h}}_{0}s_{2j}+\boldsymbol{w}_{(2j+1)}^{H} \hat{\boldsymbol{h}}_{1}s_{(2j+1)})+\tilde{n_{0}} \\ \\ \tilde{r}_{1}^{c}=&\tilde{r}^{c}(t+T)=-\boldsymbol{w}_{0}^{H} \hat{\boldsymbol{h}}_{0}s_{1}^{}+\boldsymbol{w}_{1}^{H} \hat{\boldsymbol{h}}_{1}s_{0}^{}\\ &+\sum_{j\neq0}^{K-1}(-\boldsymbol{w}_{2j}^{H} \hat{\boldsymbol{h}}_{0}s_{2j+1}^{}+\boldsymbol{w}_{(2j+1)}^{H} \hat{\boldsymbol{h}}_{1}s_{(2j)}^{})+\tilde{n_{1}} \end{split}$$ where the wireless channel between the transmitter array and the receiver of the system including the MC effect is defined as $$\hat{\boldsymbol{h}}= \boldsymbol{Ch}= \boldsymbol{C} \begin{bmatrix} \boldsymbol{h}_{0} \\ \boldsymbol{h}_{1} \end{bmatrix}= \begin{bmatrix} \hat{\boldsymbol{h}}_{0} \\ \hat{\boldsymbol{h}}_{1} \end{bmatrix}$$ The mutual coupling matrix, $\boldsymbol{C}$ can be acquired from electromagnetics analysis and measurement. The antennas have the reciprocity property which means that the receive and transmit properties of an antenna are identical [@Balanis]. Therefore, in the case that the receiver uses an antenna array, the mutual coupling effect will be the same. For a uniform linear array consisting of $M$ dipole elements, $\boldsymbol{C}$ can be written as [@cuiwei2016effect] $$\label{eq8} \boldsymbol{C}=(Z_{A}+Z_{L})(\boldsymbol{Z}+Z_{L}\boldsymbol{I})^{-1}$$ where $\boldsymbol{I}$ is the identity matrix of size $M \times M$ and $Z_{A}$ and $Z_{L}$ are the antenna impedance and load impedance, respectively. The elements of matrix $\boldsymbol{Z}$ can be calculated as follows [@masouros2013large] $$Z_{mn}=\left\lbrace \begin{array}{ll} \begin{split} \frac{\eta_{0}}{4\pi}&[0.577+ln(2\pi)-Ci(2\pi)\\ &+jSi(2\pi)]\end{split} & m=n\\ \begin{split} \frac{\eta_{0}}{4\pi}&\{[2Ci(\beta d)-Ci(\beta u_{1})-Ci(\beta u_{2})]\\ &-j[2Si(\beta d)-Si(\beta u_{1})-Si(\beta u_{2})]\} \end{split} & m \neq n \end{array}\right.$$ where $\eta_{0}= \sqrt{\mu_{0}/ \epsilon_{0}}\approx 120\pi$ is the intrinsic impedance and $\beta=2\pi/\lambda$ is the wave number, $\lambda$ is the wavelength and $$\left\lbrace \begin{array}{ll} u_{1}=\sqrt{d^{2}+L^{2}}+L \\ u_{2}=\sqrt{d^{2}+L^{2}}-L \end{array}\right.$$ where $d$ is the distance between array elements and $L$ is the length of the dipole antenna. $Ci(x)$ and $Si(x)$ are the cosine and sine integrals defined as $$\begin{split} &Ci(x)=\int^{x}_{- \infty} \frac{\cos(x)}{x} dx \\ &Si(x)=\int^{x}_{- \infty} \frac{\sin(x)}{x} dx \end{split}$$ Computer Experiment Results {#sec3} =========================== In order to investigate the effect of MC on the performance of STCM-MIMO systems, it is essential to calculate the coupling matrix which depends on the array structure. In this section, we analyze an STCM-MIMO communication system with a ULA as its transmitter and following assumptions and parameters. A $2N \times 1$ STCM-MIMO system with one base station is assumed which contains a transmitting antenna array with $M$ elements. The antenna array is a ULA consisting of dipole antennas with length $L$ and element spacing $d$. The carrier frequency is assumed to be 2 GHz. Data symbols are chosen from QPSK modulation constellation. The full channel state information (CSI) is available at the transmitter for calculating pre-coding weights and at the receiver for decoding the data. The STCM-MIMO system utilizes $2 \times 1$ Alamouti code, so two consecutive time slots are required for detecting two transmitted symbols. The transmission environment is assumed to be dispersive such that the channel coefficients follow i.i.d. complex Gaussian distribution; also, there exists additive white complex Gaussian noise at the receiver. All the results are achieved by 20000 times Monte-Carlo simulations. Figure \[fig2\] represents the MC effect on the BER performance of STCM-MIMO system. In this simulation, the transmitting array consists of 100 antenna elements with various distances. The antenna impedance is $Z_{A}=73+42j$ and the load impedance is assumed to be $Z_{L}=Z_{A}^{}$ in order to provide full matching. The simulation results show that, decreasing the distances between array elements increases the MC effect between array antennas. Hence, the bit error rate increases for the same SNR value. ![BER performance of STCM-MIMO with MC effect, $M=100$[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2n){width="3"} In a STCM-MIMO system as long as the MC effect of the antenna elements is negligible, it’s straightforward to increase the number of elements of the antenna array in the transmitter to improve the BER performance. However, by increasing the number of elements in the antenna array of the transmitter or decreasing the distances between them, the MC effect become significant. Figure \[fig3\] demonstrates the BER performances of the STCM-MIMO systems with different numbers of antenna elements in the presence of MC effect. ![BER performance of STCM-MIMO with MC effect for different number of array elements, $d=0.2\lambda,d=0.6\lambda$[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3n){width="2.87"} To achieve the optimum performance in a system with compact transmitter, it is important to utilize the appropriate number of antenna elements with specific distances in its base station. In a STCM-MIMO system without considering the MC effect, increasing the number of transmitting antennas improves the BER performance [[@ice2018]]{}. Figure [\[fig4\]]{} compares the BER performance of a STCM-MIMO system with and without considering the MC effect at an SNR of 10dB. Our simulation results demonstrate a trade-off to select the optimum number of antenna elements. Increasing the number of elements may improve the performance of STCM-MIMO, however to keep the size of the transmitter constant, the distances between elements have to be decreased, which increases MC effect and degrades BER performance. The antenna array of the transmitter is considered to be a uniform linear array consisting of $M$ elements with uniform spacing. The analytical formulation of mutual coupling effect presented in facilitates determining the optimal number of antennas in a STCM MIMO system. We propose a heuristic search algorithm inspired by Newton-Raphson method to achieve the optimum number of antennas (Algorithm [\[alg\]]{}). We first divide the searching interval by the arbitrarily chosen ’step’ size which gives us sample numbers of antennas, $n_{i}$. The sample numbers must be even numbers in a $2 \times 1$ STCM-MIMO system. Then we calculate the MC matrix for $n_{i}$s using . In the next step, the BER of the STCM-MIMO system is calculated utilizing the and by simulation for the intended SNR values. Then $n_{j}=\arg \min(average(BER)), n_{1}\leq n_{j}\leq n_{m}$ is selected. The searching is continued among $n_{j}$, $2\lceil \frac{n_{j-1}+n_{j}}{4} \rceil$ and $2\lceil\frac{n_{j}+n_{j+1}}{4}\rceil$ where $\lceil.\rceil$ denotes the ceil function. The number with $\min(average(BER))$ is selected to be the middle sample and the searching continues in the adjacency of this number. The rest of searching process continues until reaching the optimal number of antennas with minimum $average(BER)$. Figures [\[fig6\]]{} and [\[fig7\]]{} show the BER performance of STCM-MIMO system for $total \: length=30\lambda$ and $60\lambda$ at various SNR values. In Table [\[table\]]{} we provide the optimum number of transmitting antennas in a $2\times 1$ STCM-MIMO system for the antenna arrays with specified total lengths. The required information for the search algorithm have been considered as $search \: interval=(50,250)$ and $step=50$. ![BER performance of 2$\times$1 STCM-MIMO versus total number of antennas determined for fixed array size at SNR=10 dB[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4_10dB){width="3"} ![BER performance of STCM-MIMO with MC effect versus total number of antennas determined for array size of $30\lambda$ at different SNR conditions[]{data-label="fig6"}](fig5n){width="3"} ![BER performance of STCM-MIMO with MC effect versus total number of antennas determined for array size of $60\lambda$ at different SNR conditions[]{data-label="fig7"}](fig6n){width="3"} ![Antenna selection effect on BER performance, M=200[]{data-label="fig5"}](fig7n){width="3"} In the previous simulations, the antenna sub-arrays of first and second branches have been selected as shown in Figure \[sysmod\] (style 1). Simulation results don’t show significant performance differences with the case that the sub-arrays were chosen one in between (style 2). Figure \[fig5\] demonstrates the results of this comparison for an antenna array with 200 elements. Total length of array Optimum number of antennas ----------------------- ---------------------------- $30\lambda$ 80 $40\lambda$ 112 $50\lambda$ 136 $60\lambda$ 166 $70\lambda$ 188 : Optimal number of antennas in the transmitter of STCM-MIMO systems[]{data-label="table"} Conclusion {#sec4} ========== In this paper, the STCM-MIMO system has been modeled considering the MC effect using an analytical expression derived for the received signal of the system. The simulation results indicated a performance degradation in the presence of MC. The existence of a trade-off has been demonstrated for determining the appropriate number of antennas in the transmitters with predefined physical sizes. Increasing the number of array elements improves the BER performance due to the increment of the number of antennas in STCM-MIMO transmitter, on the other hand it increases the destructive effect of mutual coupling and causes degradation in system performance. We proposed an algorithm to calculate the optimal number of antennas to achieve the minimum bit error rate of STCM-MIMO systems. [^1]: F. Asghari Azhiri and B. Mozaffari Tazehkand are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran e-mail: (f.asghari, mozaffary)@tabrizu.ac.ir [^2]: R. Abdolee is with Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, California State University, Bakersfield, USA e-mail: [email protected]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - 'A. Asensio Ramos, I. S. Requerey, N. Vitas' date: 'Received September 15, 1996; accepted March 16, 1997' title: \| `DeepVel`: deep learning for the estimation of horizontal\ velocities at the solar surface --- Introduction ============ Motions in the solar photosphere are fundamentally controlled by convection in a magnetized plasma. The magnetic field topology is controlled by the plasma motions because the gas pressure is much higher than the magnetic pressure. As a consequence, many of the phenomena taking place in the photosphere are dominated by large-, medium- and small-scale plasma motions. Among these phenomena, an incomplete list would include: emergence of magnetic field thanks to convection, tangling of magnetic field lines which eventually produces reconnection, convective collapse, cancellation of magnetic fields, etc. Remotely sensing these three-dimensional velocities is important for the analysis of these events, ideally in combination with spectropolarimetric measurements to infer the magnetic field. The component along the line of sight (LOS) of the velocity can be extracted from spectroscopic observations thanks to the Doppler effect. However, the components of the velocity field in the plane perpendicular to the LOS cannot be diagnosed spectroscopically. Different algorithms have been used to trace horizontal flows at the solar surface from continuum images [@november_simon88; @strous95; @roudier99; @potts04] and also magnetograms [@kusano02; @welsch04; @longcope04; @schuck05; @schuck06; @georgoulis06]. Among these methods the local correlation tracking [LCT; @november_simon88] is the most used one because of its simplicity and speed. LCT is a powerful cross-correlation technique for measuring the proper motions of granules. It correlates small local windows in several consecutive images to find the best-match displacement. The tracking window is defined by a Gaussian function whose full width at half maximum (FWHM) is roughly the size of the features to be tracked. In addition, the spatially localized cross correlation is commonly averaged in time to smooth the transition between consecutive images and reduce the noise induced by atmospheric distortion. All these methods can be considered to give estimations of the so-called optical flow, the vector field that needs to be applied to an image to be transformed into a different one. As such, they might be not strictly representative of the inherent horizontal velocity fields. Given its widespread use, there have been some efforts to compare the horizontal velocity fields retrieved through LCT with simulated plasma velocities [@rieutord01; @matloch10; @verma13; @yelles14; @louis15]. Current three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamical simulations are able to very well reproduce convection in a magnetized plasma, so one expects that the simulated velocities are a good representation of the real ones in the Sun. These studies revealed that granules are good tracers for large-scale persistent horizontal flows such as meso- and supergranular flows [e.g., @simon88; @muller92; @derosa04; @yelles11; @langfellner15] or photospheric vortex flows [@brandt88; @bonet10; @vargas11; @requerey17]. The instantaneous velocity fields—obtained by correlating two consecutive frames—also recover the overall morphological features of the flow, but they lack the fine structure observed in the simulated velocities [@louis15; @yelles14]. The correlation increases with the time average [@rieutord01; @matloch10] while the LCT-determined horizontal velocities keep being underestimated roughly by a factor of three [@verma13]. In this paper we propose an end-to-end deep learning approach for the estimation of horizontal velocity fields in the solar atmosphere based on a deep fully convolutional neural network. The neural network is trained on a set of simulated velocity fields. Our approach displays a number of benefits that clearly overcome existing algorithms by a large margin: it is very fast, uses only two consecutive frames and returns the velocity field in every pixel and for every time step. This is done at the expense of a time consuming training that needs to be done only once. Deep Neural Networks ==================== Machine learning is a branch of computer science in which models are directly extracted from data and not imposed by the researcher. In essence, the majority of machine learning techniques can be considered to be nonparametric regression techniques which automatically adapt to the existing data and also adapt when new data is added. If these models are sufficiently general, one can apply them to solve complicated inference problems that cannot be easily solved otherwise. One of the first milestones of machine learning was the conception of the perceptron [@rosenblatt57], a very simple artificial neural network (ANN). Afterwards, ANNs have served many purposes in machine learning. Specially during the 80’s and 90’s and thanks to several theoretical developments, ANN were able to solve problems of increasingly difficulty in supervised and unsupervised regression and classification. The discovery that ANN with a single hidden layer are a universal approximant to any nonlinear function [@jones90; @blum91] allowed them to be used as a fast substitute on complex inference problems. This was, in large part, facilitated by the development of the backpropagation algorithm [@backpropagation86], that allowed to train neural networks using training examples and computing the effect of the difference between the prediction of the ANN and the training set on the parameters of the network. ANN had a difficult time during the start of the 21st century because of several reasons. First, other techniques with stronger theoretical grounds (for instance, support vector machines, Gaussian processes, etc.) allowed the researchers to understand how the methods were fitting the data and how they can be generalized. Second, shallow ANN only allowed to solve relatively simple problems, and once the networks were made very deep, backpropagation was not able to correctly train them. The reason was that the gradients with respect to the neural network parameters vanish in deep topologies, so that training using conjugate gradient stalls. Fortunately, this has radically changed in the last 5 years thanks to some breakthroughs. First, it was realized that one of the causes for the failure of backpropagation in deep architectures was the usage of activation functions (like the usual hyperbolic tangent), that produced vanishing gradients during backpropagation. This was solved by using activation functions like the Rectified Linear Unit [ReLU; @relu10] that we use in this work, which do not produce such stalls. Second, fully connected layers were substituted by convolutional layers, that apply a set of small kernels to the input and give as output the convolution of the input and the kernels. This induced a reduction in the number of free parameters of the networks without sacrificing any predictive power. Finally, the appearance of Graphical Processing Units (GPU) on the scene allowed researchers to train neural networks much faster than it was possible before. This also opened the possibility to train the networks using huge training sets. This last point can arguably be considered the main reason for success of deep learning. Conceptually, deep learning is a set of machine learning techniques based on learning multiple levels of abstraction of the data. If these multiple levels are learnt well, deep learning is supposed to generalize well. ![Upper panel: residual block. Lower panel: full architecture of the neural network, made of the concatenation of many residual blocks and a skip connection from the input to the output. We choose $N=20$ for `DeepVel`.\[fig:architecture\]](residual_block.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} In this paper we consider the problem of inferring the horizontal velocity field in the solar surface from two consecutive continuum images. The case of only two images represents the worst case scenario and we could have used more frames for the prediction. However, according to the results we present in the following, we consider that two frames gives surprisingly good results. The end-to-end solution given in this paper, that we term `DeepVel`, is a deep neural network whose topology is described in the following and is trained using velocities extracted from MHD simulations. The network assumes as input two continuum images of size $\mathrm{N}_x \times \mathrm{N}_y$, separated by 30 s. The outputs are maps of $v_x$ and $v_y$ at all locations and at three heights in the atmosphere, corresponding to $\tau_{500}=1, 0.1, 0.01$, with $\tau_{500}$ being the optical depth at 500 nm. Only the results at $\tau_{500}=1$ can be compared with other algorithms like LCT. Deep Neural Network topology ---------------------------- The deep network that we use has a fully convolutional architecture, that applies a series of convolutions with several small kernels (to be inferred during the training) to the input of every layer. The architecture is graphically represented in Fig. \[fig:architecture\]. Each colored rectangle in the figure represents a different layer, that we describe in the following: - Input (red): this layer represents the two input images of size $\mathrm{N}_x \times \mathrm{N}_y$. Consequently, this layer represents tensors of size $2 \times \mathrm{N}_x \times \mathrm{N}_y$. - Conv 3$\times$3 (blue): these layers represent three-dimensional convolutions with a set of 64 kernels (channels) of size $N_\mathrm{input} \times 3 \times 3$. We keep the number of kernels and their size fixed because they give very good results, with the advantage that convolutions with $3 \times 3$ kernels can be made very fast in GPUs. The output tensors of these layers have size $64 \times N_x \times N_y$. - ReLU (yellow): these layers represent rectified linear units, which apply the following operation to every pixel and channel of the input: $\mathrm{ReLU}(x)=x$ if $x \geq 0$ and zero elsewhere. - BN (orange): this layer represents batch normalization [@batch_normalization15], a trick used to increase the convergence speed of the training. It is based on normalizing the input so that it has zero mean and unit variance, which has been verified to greatly accelerate the training. - Sum (green): this layer describes pixelwise addition between the two inputs. - Conv 1$\times$1 (grey): this layer defines three-dimensional convolution with six $64\times 1 \times 1$ kernels, which is just a very convenient way to collapse the 64 channels of the last Sum layer of the neural network into the six velocities that we want to predict. The output tensor of this layer has size $6 \times N_x \times N_y$. As seen from the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:architecture\], the network is made of the concatenation of N so-called residual blocks [@residual_network16]. We choose $N=20$ for our implementation and did not carry out any hyperparameter optimization, that we leave for the future with the aim of optimizing the network. The internal description of each residual block is displayed in the upper panel of Fig. \[fig:architecture\]. It is essentially made of two convolution layers, each one followed by batch normalization layers and only the first one containing a ReLU activation. Finally, the input of the block is added pixelwise at the end. The main advantage of the residual blocks is that it accelerates the training thanks to the skip connection between the input and the output. The output of the set of residual blocks is then transferred through an additional convolutional layer with 64 kernels of 3$\times$3 and a batch normalization layer. The output is then obtained after convolution with 6 kernels of size $1 \times 1$. The total number of free parameters of the network is $\sim$1.6$\times$10$^6$. Training data and training process ---------------------------------- The network is trained using synthetic continuum images from the magneto-convection simulations described by [@stein12_b] and [@stein12_a]. This simulation box is $\sim$48Mm wide in both directions and 20.5Mm deep, extending from the temperature minimum down to 20Mm below the visible surface. The simulated solar time spans more than an hour in steps of 30 s. The horizontal resolution turns out to be 48km, with a total size of 1008$\times$1008 pixels. This simulation displays an appropriate balance between the amount of solar surface simulated and the horizontal resolution. The `mhd48-1` snapshots that we use are obtained by advecting a uniform field at the bottom boundary. This field is increased until it reaches 1kG at the bottom boundary and then kept constant. The synthetic images are then treated to simulate a real observation. We choose the Imaging Magnetograph eXperiment [IMaX; @imax11] on board the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sunrise</span> balloon borne observatory [@sunrise10; @sunrise11] as a target. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sunrise</span> has a telescope of 1 m diameter and the images that IMaX provides have a spatial sampling of 39.9km. It is interesting to note that the spatial sampling of the simulated images used in the training and those of IMaX do not exactly coincide (48km vs. 39.9km). However, we demonstrate later than an appropriately trained network will generalize correctly independently of the size of the structures. Given that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sunrise</span> was a balloon mission that observed at a height of $\sim$ 40 km above the Earth surface, the observations are barely affected by the atmosphere. One of the reasons to choose IMaX in our tests is that the instrument has provided long time series of very high-quality diffraction-limited images in both flights [e.g., @lagg_imax10; @marian11; @sunrise17], which have been used often for LCT studies [e.g., @bonet10; @yelles11; @requerey14; @requerey17]. We simulate the effect of IMaX following the approach of [@asensio_phasediv_imax12], which is based on the detailed analysis of [@santiago_vargas09]. We consider telescope aberrations up to 45 Zernike modes. The amplitudes are considered to be normally distributed with diagonal covariance and a total rms wavefront error (WFE) amounting to $\lambda/9$. These telescope aberrations can be considered to be constant during an observation, so we keep them fixed. The remaining atmosphere is accounted for by considering a wavefront with turbulent Kolmogorov statistics [@noll76] with a rms WFE of $\lambda/9$. Although these perturbations are very specific for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sunrise</span>/IMaX, we think that the neural network trained with these images can be safely applied (or perhaps easily re-trained for different instrumental configurations). From the available three-dimensional volume of 1008$\times$1008 continuum images for all timesteps, we randomly extract two patches of 50$\times$50 pixels in the same spatial position and separated by 30 s in time. A total of 30000 such pairs are randomly selected as input for the training. The outputs are the six 50$\times$50 images containing $v_x$ and $v_y$ at $\tau_{500}=1,0.1$ and 0.01, respectively, for each timestep. We also generate another set of 1000 samples using the same strategy, which is used as a validation set to avoid overfitting. These are used during training to check that the deep network generalizes correctly and is not memorizing the training set. The neural network has been developed using the `Keras` Python library, with the `Tensorflow` backend for the computations. All the training is compiled by `Tensorflow` to be run in the NVIDIA Tesla K40 and Titan X GPUs[^1]. The training is carried out by minimizing the squared difference between the output of the network and the velocities in the training set. It is known that optimizing the $\ell_2$ norm of the difference might lead to too smooth predictions, which is not appropriate for typical uses of deep networks for machine vision in natural images. In the last few years, improvements in this direction have been performed using a second deep network that is used to measure the quality of the prediction. Both networks are trained as a generative adversarial network [GAN; @goodfellow14], which results in impressive results [@ledig16]. We know from the simulations that the horizontal velocity fields are relatively smooth, so we stick with the simpler $\ell_2$ norm for our case. We leave the analysis of using GANs for the training for the future. All inputs are normalized to the median intensity of the quiet Sun (which also needs to be done once the network is applied to real observations) and velocities are normalized to the interval $[0,1]$ using the minimum and maximum velocities in the training set. The optimization is done with the Adam stochastic first-order gradient-based optimization algorithm [@adam14] with a learning rate $\epsilon=10^{-4}$. As in any stochastic optimization method, the gradient is estimated from subsets of the input samples, also known as batches. We use batches of 32 samples and train the network for 30 epochs, where an epoch is finished once all training samples have been used. Therefore, the number of iterations is then 900000. ![image](Sim_DeepVel.pdf){width="\textwidth"} Validation ---------- In absence of a technique similar to `DeepVel` that can be applied to observations, we validate the method using 3D magneto-convection simulations carried out with the `MANCHA` code [@felipe10; @khomenko17]. The extent of the simulation domain is 24 Mm $\times$ 24 Mm in the horizontal plane and 1.4 Mm vertically, with 1152 grid cells in each horizontal direction and 102 uniformly spaced grid points in the vertical direction. The domain is open for the mass flows at the bottom boundary and closed at the top. The radiative transfer losses are computed assuming local thermodynamical equilibrium with precomputed opacities. The magnetic field is initiated through the Biermann battery and amplified by the local dynamo [similarly to @vogler07]. The snapshots used in this study were taken when the total magnetic field reached 10 G at the unit optical depth. The synthetic continuum maps are degraded so that the pixel size is equivalent to those of the training set. We use two consecutive continuum maps to infer the horizontal velocity field and compare it with the ones extracted from the simulations. The upper panels of Fig. \[fig:SimDeepVel\] display the velocity fields of the simulations at three different optical heights in the atmosphere. The underlying map is the divergence of the horizontal field, which is computed as $\nabla\,\mathbf{v}=\partial v_x/ \partial x+\partial v_y / \partial y$ for $\mathbf{v}=(v_x,v_y)$. Note that positive values indicate diverging flows, while negative values point to converging flows. The lower panels display the results of `DeepVel`, which very nicely reproduce the results from the simulation, specially for $\tau_{500}=1, 0.1$. The results for $\tau_{500}=0.01$ are slightly less similar although the general appearance is still valuable. Figure \[fig:SimDeepVel\] only shows a small field of view (FOV), but similar results are found for the rest of the simulated field. Specifically, the velocity field vectors of the whole simulated FOV have a Pearson linear correlation coefficient of 0.82, 0.85, and 0.76 for $\tau_{500}=1,$ 0.1, and 0.01, respectively. Additionally, $v_x$ displays correlation coefficients of 0.82, 0.84, and 0.75 for the same values of $\tau_{500}$, while the figures turn out to be 0.83, 0.86, and 0.78 for $v_y$ for the same $\tau_{500}$ heights. We consider that this experiment validates `DeepVel`. ![image](granule.pdf){width="\textwidth"} Results ======= Once the network is trained, we apply it to real IMaX observations from the first <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sunrise</span> flight. The observational data were obtained on 2009 June 9 from 01:30:54 to 02:02:29 UT, in a quiet-Sun region close to disk center. The 31.6min length dataset has a temporal cadence of 33.25s. We point out that the temporal cadence is larger than the one used in the training, so that the network might slightly overestimate the velocities[^2]. We also note that the spatial resolution of the observations is also slightly better than those of the simulations, but we do not expect large effects. Even though the training was done with images of size 50$\times$50, given the fully convolutional character of the network, we apply it seamlessly to the full FOV of the instrument, that amounts to 736$\times$736 pixels (29.3$\times$29.3Mm$^{2}$). The computing time is $\sim$2s per image using a Titan X GPU, and an order of magnitude larger if the computation is done in a CPU. Inferred velocity fields ------------------------ In Fig. \[fig:granule\] and the movie in the online material[^3], we display the inferred horizontal velocity field for a small portion of the FOV at four different time steps. The first column shows the continuum image, while the rest of columns display the divergence of the horizontal velocity field at the three different heights in the atmosphere, together with the instantaneous vector field. Note that the results displayed in Fig. \[fig:granule\] are impossible to be obtained using LCT due to the somehow large spatial and temporal smearing windows that need to be used to increase the correlation and produce robust results. In general, velocities in lower layers tend to be larger in absolute value and also with larger spatial complexity. Although horizontal diverging flows are similar at the three heights considered, stronger converging flows are seen in intergranular lanes in deeper layers. Additionally, the horizontal size of these zones of converging flows is much smaller in deep layers. ![image](fov.pdf){width="\textwidth"} ![image](vortex.pdf){width="\textwidth"} We find very interesting the behavior observed in some granules at $t=15$min, like the one at positions $(x,y)=(0.8,2.6)$Mm. This granule appear to be formed by the aggregation of two or more smaller portions. The continuum image of the granule shows a slightly dark lane separating bright regions. This structure is also clearly seen in the velocity field at $\tau_{500}=0.1$ and $\tau_{500}=0.01$, while it disappears for deeper layers. It looks like these dark lanes in the middle of granules are a consequence of a converging flow in upper layers that does not reach very deep. Interestingly, the velocity fields before ($t=13.3$ min) and after ($t=18.3$min) help us understand what is happening. We are witnessing a fragmenting granule that is being divided into two by a converging velocity field taking place at higher layers, which later propagates towards lower layers. Note that at $t=13.3$ min, the division is barely visible in the intensity image, but it is already present at $\tau_{500}=0.01$. Finally, at $t=18.3$min, the granule is divided in two parts, with a clear intergranule between them. Our observations seem to be compatible with the buoyancy-braking mechanism [@massaguer_zahn80; @ploner99]. In this model, the gas above large granules reduce their upward velocity because of the increase in the mass in upper layers. It looses buoyancy and catastrophically collapses forming a dark lane if energy losses cannot be compensated. According to our observations, it also develops strong converging velocity flows when eventually forming a new intergranular lane. The fact that `DeepVel` shows this behavior means that this mechanism has to be the predominant one in the simulations and that the behavior in upper layers is connected to what is going on at lower layers. Other instances of fragmenting granules and appearance of dark structures inside bright granules can be seen in the observations. They all appear to share a similar behavior, except for the specific details. For instance, the dark spot at $(x,y)=(1.6,1.4)$ Mm at $t=15$ min seems to reach lower layers slightly faster than the previous example. Comparison with LCT ------------------- In order to test the performance of `DeepVel`, we compare it with the well known LCT algorithm. The LCT technique recovers horizontal proper motions by tracking intensity features in continuum images. We use a Gaussian tracking window with an FWHM=600km and then average the cross-correlation function over 30min. We confront this velocity field with that obtained by `DeepVel` at $\tau_{500}=1$, temporally averaged over 30min. In addition, the vector field is spatially averaged with the LCT tracking window size. The top panels of Fig. \[fig:fov\] show the horizontal velocity arrows and the corresponding divergence maps obtained by `DeepVel` (Fig. \[fig:fov\]a) and LCT (Fig. \[fig:fov\]b) for the whole FOV of IMaX. We find that the `DeepVel` velocities are $1.15$ times larger in magnitude than the LCT ones, which almost perfectly coincides with the overestimation expected because measurements in IMaX are taken every 33.25 s, instead of the 30 s used in the training (the correction factor would be ($\times$1.11). The velocity fields have Pearson linear correlation coefficients of 0.81 and 0.84 for $v_x$ and $v_y$, respectively, while it goes down to 0.8 for the whole velocity vector. Additionally, the correlation coefficient for the divergence is $0.71$. This correlation is already evident from the visual inspection of the flow and divergence maps. The bottom panels of Fig. \[fig:fov\] display an enlarged view of a smaller region, marked by a black dashed rectangle in the upper panels. Even though there exist some morphological differences, both maps show the same flow features. In particular, they display an equivalent mesogranular pattern, which is revealed through positive divergence structures on scales between granulation and supergranulation. Such a cellular pattern is commonly found in both observations and hydrodynamical simulations when the LCT technique is applied to intensity images [@simon88; @muller92; @roudier98; @matloch10; @yelles11; @requerey17]. At the junction of mesogranular cells, smaller structures such as converging flows [@bonet10; @vargas11; @requerey17] are also observed. The locations of the convergence centers are marked by red circles in Fig. \[fig:fov\](c) and (d). Despite their small size, they are equally retrieved in both velocity fields. The time-averaging increases the correlation between the simulated plasma velocities and the LCT ones [@rieutord01; @matloch10]. The same applies for the correlation between the smoothed `DeepVel` velocities and the LCT flows. Specifically, we get correlation coefficients of 0.71, 0.75, 0.79, and 0.80 for averaging times of 5, 10, 20, and 30min, respectively. This results from the fact that the `DeepVel` velocities are a reliable representation of the instantaneous horizontal flow fields, while the LCT velocities are only comparable to plasma velocities typically at time scales longer than the average granule lifetime. Small-scale vortex flow ----------------------- Small-scale vortex flows have been first detected as swirling motions of bright points [@bonet08], and later through LCT [@bonet10; @vargas11; @requerey17]. They have a diameter of $\sim$1Mm [@bonet08; @bonet10; @vargas11], their lifetime varies from 5 to 20min [@bonet08; @bonet10], and they appear located at mesogranular junctions [@requerey17]. The spatial distribution and size of such vortices is shown by red circles in Fig. \[fig:fov\](d). The temporal and spatial scales are larger than those expected from simulations, where the vortices have lifetimes of only a few minutes ($\sim$3.5min) and diameters of $\sim$100km [@moll11]. This differences are likely due to the smoothing produced by the time and spatial average of the LCT technique. Figure \[fig:vortex\] shows the velocity fields for a close-up of the vortex flow marked in Fig. \[fig:granule\] by red circles. The underlying maps in the upper panels show the divergence, while the lower panels display the vertical vorticity of the horizontal velocity field, defined as $(\nabla \times \mathbf{v})_z=\partial v_y/ \partial x-\partial v_x / \partial y$. The vortex has a very small size, surely smaller than 300km in diameter (see red circle in Fig. \[fig:vortex\]), and lasts for a very short time, in the range 30-60 s, because it is only clearly visible in one time step, and can be guessed in the previous and next frames. The vortex flow has a central zone with a very strong negative divergence at $\tau_{500}=1$, reaching values up to $-0.03$ s$^{-1}$, which are more than an order of magnitude larger than the median value found by [@requerey17] as a consequence of the much smaller size. The same behavior is seen in the vorticity, with values that also reach $-0.03$ s$^{-1}$ at $\tau_{500}=1$, negative meaning clockwise rotation. This value of vorticity is an order of magnitude larger than that detected with LCT [@bonet10; @vargas11; @requerey17], but comparable to that found in simulations [e.g., @Kitiashvili11]. Interestingly, the `DeepVel` results show a different picture of the vortex flow at higher layers. First, material is still strongly advected towards the center of the vortex, with divergences that are still of the order of $-0.02$ s$^{-1}$, while the vorticity becomes much smaller in higher layers. This behavior resembles that of the “bathtub effect” [@Nordlund85], in which the circular velocity is amplified as the plasma contracts with depth. Conclusions =========== We have developed `DeepVel`, an end-to-end approach for the estimation of instantaneous and per-pixel horizontal velocity fields based on a deep network. The network is fully convolutional, so that it can be applied to input images of arbitrary size, providing outputs of exactly the same size. In addition, it is very fast, has no parameters to be tuned and is available to the community as open source. Concerning speed, we note that it can be improved with some architectural changes, but we think that it is already fast enough for our standards. We have checked that the spatially and temporally averaged horizontal velocity field provided by the network is very similar to that obtained with LCT. However, the power of `DeepVel` is that this same information can also be obtained instantaneously, contrary to LCT. Additionally, we provide the velocity field at three different heights in the atmosphere, something that might look counterintuitive at a first look. It is clear from the results presented here (both from simulations and observations) that the network is able to correctly generalize and is not overfitting. Similar to this application, we expect deep learning to be increasingly applied to Solar Physics as more high-quality data is obtained and needs to be analyzed. An incomplete list of possible potential applications in which we are already working on would include fast image deconvolution, fast 2D and 3D spectropolarimetric inversions, fast control of adaptive optics, etc. We thank B. Ruiz Cobo & F. J. de Cos Juez for very useful comments on an early version of the paper. We also thank R. Abreu for initial discussions on the subject of deep learning. Financial support by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness through projects AYA2014-60476-P Consolider-Ingenio 2010 CSD2009-00038 and ESP2014-56169-C6 are gratefully acknowledged. AAR also acknowledges financial support through the Ramón y Cajal fellowships. We also thank the NVIDIA Corporation for the donation of the Titan X GPU used in this research. We acknowledge PRACE for awarding us access to resource MareNostrum based in Barcelona/Spain. This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic Services. We acknowledge the community effort devoted to the development of the following open-source packages that were used in this work: `numpy` (`numpy.org`), `matplotlib` (`matplotlib.org`), `Keras` (`https://keras.io`), and `Tensorflow` [`http://www.tensorflow.org`]{}. [56]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{} , A., [Mart[í]{}nez Gonz[á]{}lez]{}, M. J., [Khomenko]{}, E., & [Mart[í]{}nez Pillet]{}, V. 2012, , 539, A42 , P., [Gandorfer]{}, A., [Solanki]{}, S. K., [et al.]{} 2011, , 268, 1 , E. K. & [Li]{}, L. K. 1991, Neural Networks, 4, 511 , J. A., [M[á]{}rquez]{}, I., [S[á]{}nchez Almeida]{}, J., [Cabello]{}, I., & [Domingo]{}, V. 2008, ApJL, 687, L131 , J. A., [M[á]{}rquez]{}, I., [S[á]{}nchez Almeida]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2010, , 723, L139 , P. N., [Scharmer]{}, G. B., [Ferguson]{}, S., [Shine]{}, R. A., & [Tarbell]{}, T. D. 1988, , 335, 238 , M. L. & [Toomre]{}, J. 2004, , 616, 1242 , T., [Khomenko]{}, E., & [Collados]{}, M. 2010, , 719, 357 , M. K. & [LaBonte]{}, B. J. 2006, , 636, 475 , I. J., [Pouget-Abadie]{}, J., [Mirza]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2014, ArXiv e-prints \[\] He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. 2016, in 2016 [IEEE]{} Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, [CVPR]{} 2016, Las Vegas, NV, USA, June 27-30, 2016, 770–778 Ioffe, S. & Szegedy, C. 2015, in Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-15), ed. D. Blei & F. Bach (JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings), 448–456 , L. K. 1990, in [Proceedings of the IEEE]{}, [78]{}, 1585 , E. V., [Vitas]{}, N., [Collados]{}, M., & [de Vicente]{}, A. 2017, submitted to A&A Kingma, D. P. & Ba, J. 2014, CoRR, abs/1412.6980 , I. N., [Kosovichev]{}, A. G., [Mansour]{}, N. N., & [Wray]{}, A. A. 2011, , 727, L50 , K., [Maeshiro]{}, T., [Yokoyama]{}, T., & [Sakurai]{}, T. 2002, , 577, 501 , A., [Solanki]{}, S. K., [Riethm[ü]{}ller]{}, T. L., [et al.]{} 2010, ApJl, 723, L164 , J., [Gizon]{}, L., & [Birch]{}, A. C. 2015, , 581, A67 Ledig, C., Theis, L., Huszar, F., [et al.]{} 2016, CoRR, abs/1609.04802 , D. W. 2004, , 612, 1181 , R. E., [Ravindra]{}, B., [Georgoulis]{}, M. K., & [K[ü]{}ker]{}, M. 2015, , 290, 1135 , M. J., [Asensio Ramos]{}, A., [Manso Sainz]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2011, ApJL, 730, L37+ , V., [Del Toro Iniesta]{}, J. C., [[Á]{}lvarez-Herrero]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2011, [Sol. Phys.]{}, 268, 57 , J. M. & [Zahn]{}, J.-P. 1980, , 87, 315 , [Ł]{}., [Cameron]{}, R., [Shelyag]{}, S., [Schmitt]{}, D., & [Sch[ü]{}ssler]{}, M. 2010, , 519, A52 , R., [Cameron]{}, R. H., & [Sch[ü]{}ssler]{}, M. 2011, , 533, A126 , R., [Auffret]{}, H., [Roudier]{}, T., [et al.]{} 1992, , 356, 322 Nair, V. & Hinton, G. E. 2010, in Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-10), June 21-24, 2010, Haifa, Israel, 807–814 , R. J. 1976, Journal of the Optical Society of America, 66, 207 , A. 1985, , 100, 209 , L. J. & [Simon]{}, G. W. 1988, , 333, 427 , S. R. O., [Solanki]{}, S. K., & [Gadun]{}, A. S. 1999, , 352, 679 , H. E., [Barrett]{}, R. K., & [Diver]{}, D. A. 2004, , 424, 253 , I. S., [Del Toro Iniesta]{}, J. C., [Bellot Rubio]{}, L. R., [et al.]{} 2014, , 789, 6 , I. S., [Del Toro Iniesta]{}, J. C., [Bellot Rubio]{}, L. R., [et al.]{} 2017, , 229, 14 , M., [Roudier]{}, T., [Ludwig]{}, H.-G., [Nordlund]{}, [Å]{}., & [Stein]{}, R. 2001, , 377, L14 , F. 1957, Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory Report, 85, 460 , T., [Malherbe]{}, J. M., [Vigneau]{}, J., & [Pfeiffer]{}, B. 1998, , 330, 1136 , T., [Rieutord]{}, M., [Malherbe]{}, J. M., & [Vigneau]{}, J. 1999, , 349, 301 , D. E., [Hinton]{}, G. E., & [Williams]{}, R. J. 1986, Nature, 323, 533 , P. W. 2005, , 632, L53 , P. W. 2006, , 646, 1358 , G. W., [Title]{}, A. M., [Topka]{}, K. P., [et al.]{} 1988, , 327, 964 , S. K., [Barthol]{}, P., [Danilovic]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2010, ApJL, 723, L127 , S. K., [Riethm[ü]{}ller]{}, T. L., [Barthol]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2017, ArXiv e-prints \[\] , R. F. 2012, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 9, 4 , R. F. & [Nordlund]{}, [Å]{}. 2012, , 753, L13 , L. H. 1995, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 376, Helioseismology, 213 , S. 2009, PhD thesis, Universidad de La Laguna, La Laguna , S., [Palacios]{}, J., [Balmaceda]{}, L., [Cabello]{}, I., & [Domingo]{}, V. 2011, , 416, 148 , M., [Steffen]{}, M., & [Denker]{}, C. 2013, , 555, A136 , A. & [Sch[ü]{}ssler]{}, M. 2007, , 465, L43 , B. T., [Fisher]{}, G. H., [Abbett]{}, W. P., & [Regnier]{}, S. 2004, , 610, 1148 , L., [Moreno-Insertis]{}, F., & [Bonet]{}, J. A. 2014, , 563, A93 , L., [Moreno-Insertis]{}, F., [Mart[í]{}nez Pillet]{}, V., [et al.]{} 2011, , 727, L30 [^1]: The trained neural network ready to be applied to solar images, together with the infrastructure to train it with different simulations can be found in `https://github.com/aasensio/deepvel`. [^2]: This could have been alleviated if the simulated snapshots would have been obtained with the IMaX temporal cadence. We did not follow this path because we wanted to work with public simulations that are available for anyone willing to re-train `DeepVel`. [^3]: The movie can also be obtained from the code repository	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The abstract goes here.' author: - - - title: 'Bare Demo of IEEEtran.cls for Conferences' --- Introduction ============ This demo file is intended to serve as a “starter file” for IEEE conference papers produced under LaTeX using IEEEtran.cls version 1.7 and later. I wish you the best of success. mds January 11, 2007 Subsection Heading Here ----------------------- Subsection text here. ### Subsubsection Heading Here Subsubsection text here. Conclusion ========== The conclusion goes here. Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered} ============== The authors would like to thank... [1]{} H. Kopka and P. W. Daly, A Guide to LaTeX, 3rd ed.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emHarlow, England: Addison-Wesley, 1999.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We present a comprehensive multi-wavelength study of the star-forming region NGC 1893 to explore the effects of massive stars on low-mass star formation. Using near-infrared colours, slitless spectroscopy and narrow-band $H\alpha$ photometry in the cluster region we have identified candidate young stellar objects (YSOs) distributed in a pattern from the cluster to one of the nearby nebulae Sim 129. The $V, (V-I)$ colour-magnitude diagram of the YSOs indicates that majority of these objects have ages between 1 to 5 Myr. The spread in the ages of the YSOs may indicate a non-coeval star formation in the cluster. The slope of the KLF for the cluster is estimated to be $0.34\pm0.07$, which agrees well with the average value ($\sim 0.4$) reported for young clusters. For the entire observed mass range $0.6 < M/M_\odot \le 17.7$ the value of the slope of the initial mass function, $`\Gamma$’, comes out to be $-1.27\pm0.08$, which is in agreement with the Salpeter value of -1.35 in the solar neighborhood. However, the value of $`\Gamma$’ for PMS phase stars (mass range $0.6 < M/M_\odot \le 2.0$) is found to be $-0.88\pm0.09$ which is shallower than the value ($-1.71\pm0.20$) obtained for MS stars having mass range $2.5 < M/M_\odot \le 17.7$ indicating a break in the slope of the mass function at $\sim 2 M_\odot$. Estimated $`\Gamma$’ values indicate an effect of mass segregation for main-sequence stars, in the sense that massive stars are preferentially located towards the cluster center. The estimated dynamical evolution time is found to be greater than the age of the cluster, therefore the observed mass segregation in the cluster may be the imprint of the star formation process. There is evidence for triggered star formation in the region, which seems to govern initial morphology of the cluster.' date: 'Accepted ...... Received .....' title: Star formation in young star cluster NGC 1893 --- \[firstpage\] open clusters and associations: individual: NGC 1893 - stars: formation - stars: luminosity function, mass function - stars: pre-main-sequence INTRODUCTION ============ Young open clusters provide important information relating to star formation process and stellar evolution, because such clusters contain massive stars as well as low mass pre-main sequence (PMS) stars. The age spread in a young open cluster represents the cluster formation timescale which can be studied from the analysis of the colour-magnitude diagrams of very young open clusters. To understand the star formation process, it is necessary to know how the star formation proceeds in star clusters and whether the stellar mass distribution that arises from the fragmentation of molecular clouds is universal or depends on the local environments. Among various tools, the initial mass function (IMF) is one of the most important tools to study the above mentioned questions (cf. Pandey et al. 2005 and references therein). An important study to explore the star formation history and IMF of young open clusters was by Phelps & Janes (1994), who observed 23 open clusters in the Cassiopeia region and estimated IMFs for eight young clusters (Phelps & Janes 1993). The slope of the upper mass part of the IMF was also systematically investigated by Massey and collaborators using the UBV CCD photometry and MK classification (Massey et al. 1995a; Massey et al. 1995b). They determined the IMF for various associations in the Galaxy and the Magellanic Clouds in a homogeneous manner and found no statistically significant difference in IMF slopes, with an average value of $\Gamma = -1.1\pm0.1$ for stars having masses $\gtrsim 7 M_\odot$. Sagar et al. (1986) and Sagar & Richtler (1991) also made similar conclusions. High-mass stars have strong influence on their nearby surroundings and can significantly affect the formation of low mass stars. Recently a relatively large number of low mass stars have been detected in a few OB associations, e.g. Upper Scorpios, the $\sigma$ and $\lambda$ Ori regions (Preibisch & Zinnecker 1999, Dolan & Mathieu 2002). Since this realization, surveys have demonstrated that the IMFs must be essentially the same in all star forming regions (e.g. Preibisch & Zinneker 1999, Hillenbrand 1997, Massey et al. 1995a). The apparent difference is due mainly to the inherent low percentage of high mass stars and the incomplete survey of low mass stars in high-mass star forming regions. Advancement in detectors along with various surveys such as the 2MASS, DENIS and ISO have permitted detailed studies of low-mass stellar population in regions of high mass star formation. The very young open cluster NGC 1893 (Massey et al. 1995a) is considered to be the center of the Aur OB2 association. NGC 1893 can be recognized as an extended region of loosely grouped early-type stars, associated with the H II region IC 410 with two pennant nebulae, Sim 129 and Sim 130 (Gaze & Shajn 1952) and obscured by several conspicuous dust clouds. NGC 1893 contains at least five O-type stars, two of which, HD 242908 and LS V $+33^\circ16$ (S3R2N15) are main-sequence O5 stars, and therefore younger than $\sim 3$ Myr (Marco & Negueruela 2002). $UBV$ photometry of NGC 1893 has been presented by Hoag et al. (1961), Cuffey (1973), Moffat & Vogt (1974) and Massey et al. (1995a). Tapia et al. (1991) performed near-infrared and Strömgren photometry for 47 stars in the field of the cluster. They estimated the age of the cluster as 4 Myr and derived a distance modulus $(m-M)_0 = 13.18\pm0.11$ mag (4.3 kpc) and an extinction $A_V$ = 1.68 mag towards the cluster region. Strömgren photometry for 50 stars in the field of NGC 1893 has also been reported by Fitzsimmons (1993), who confirmed the distance and age found by Tapia et al. (1991). Vallenari et al. (1999) performed near-infrared photometry of the cluster and came to the conclusion that there could be many pre-main sequence candidates in NGC 1893, although their method did not allow clear discrimination from field interlopers. Cuffey (1973) derived $E(B-V)=0.4$ mag and distance = 3.6 kpc for the cluster. Marco et al. (2001) derived an average distance modulus $V_0 - M_V = 13.9\pm0.2$ mag (6 kpc) and $A_V = 1.42\pm0.13$ mag for the cluster, and also identified five emission-line stars as likely PMS members of NGC 1893. Recently they identified 18 emission-line PMS stars in NGC 1893 region (Negueruela et al. 2007). The detection of PMS objects in NGC 1893 is interesting because it is one of the youngest known open cluster and has a moderately large population of O-type stars, representing thus a good laboratory for the study of massive star formation and the impact of massive stars on the formation of lower-mass stars (Marco & Negueruela 2002). In this paper, we present a multi-wavelength study of the NGC 1893 to make a comprehensive exploration of the effects of massive stars on low mass star formation. Deep optical $UBVRI$ and narrow band $H\alpha$ photometric data, slitless spectroscopy along with archival data from the surveys such as 2MASS, MSX, IRAS and NVSS are used to understand the global scenario of star formation in the NGC 1893 region. OBSERVATIONS AND DATA REDUCTION =============================== ![image](fig01.eps){height="15cm" width="16cm"} Optical data ------------ The CCD $UBV{(RI)}_c$ and $H\alpha$+continuum photometric data were acquired on 06 and 18 January 2005 respectively using the $2048\times 2048$ pixel$^2$ CCD camera mounted on the f/13 Cassegrain focus of the 104-cm Sampurnanand telescope of Aryabhatta Research Institute of Observational Sciences (ARIES), Nainital. In this set up, each pixel of the CCD corresponds to $0.37$ arcsec and the entire chip covers a field of $\sim 13\times13$ arcmin$^2$ on the sky. To improve the signal to noise ratio, the observations were carried out in the binning mode of $2\times2$ pixel. The FWHMs of the star images were $\sim2$ arcsec. The read-out noise and gain of the CCD are 5.3 $e^-$ and 10 $e^-$/ADU respectively. The broad-band $UBV{(RI)}_c$ observations were standardized by observing stars in the SA98 field (Landolt 1992) on 07 January 2005. The observed region of NGC 1893 is shown in Fig. 1 as the black square box and the log of the observations is given in Table 1. A blank field of $\sim 13\times13$ arcmin$^2$ located at a distance of about $1^\circ$ away towards east of the cluster was also observed to estimate the contamination due to foreground/background field stars. [@rr@]{} Date of observation/Filter& Exp. (sec)$\times$ No. of frames\ &Sampurnanand telescope, ARIES\ 06 January 2005\ $U$ & $1200\times3,900\times1,300\times1,120\times3$\ $B$ & $600\times4,30\times3$\ $V$ & $600\times4,30\times4$\ $R_c$ & $300\times4,30\times1,10\times4$\ $I_c$ & $300\times4,30\times1,10\times4$\ \ 18 January 2005\ $H\alpha$ &$1200\times2,300\times3,60\times3$\ $Continuum$&$1200\times2,300\times3,60\times3$\ \ &Himalayan Chandra Telescope, IIA\ 24 January 2006\ Slitless spectra & $300\times9$\ Direct Frames & $60\times3$\ ![The daophot errors in magnitude & colours, image parameter $\chi$ and sharpness as a function of $V$ magnitude. ](fig02.eps){height="7cm" width="8.5cm"} The CCD data frames were reduced using computing facilities available at ARIES, Nainital. Initial processing of the data frames were done using the IRAF[^1] and ESO-MIDAS[^2] data reduction packages. Photometry of cleaned frames was carried out using DAOPHOT-II software (Stetson 1987). The PSF was obtained for each frame using several uncontaminated stars. Magnitudes obtained from different frames were averaged. When brighter stars were saturated on deep exposure frames, their magnitudes have been taken from short exposure frames. We used DAOGROW program for construction of an aperture growth curve required for determining the difference between aperture and profile fitting magnitude. Calibration of the instrumental magnitude to the standard system was done by using procedures outlined by Stetson (1992). For translating the instrumental magnitude to the standard magnitude, the calibration equations derived using least-squares linear regression are as follows:\ $u= U + (7.004\pm0.004) -(0.005\pm0.006)(U-B) + (0.431\pm0.005)X$, $b= B + (4.742\pm0.005) -(0.035\pm0.004)(B-V) + (0.219\pm0.004)X$, $v= V + (4.298\pm0.002) -(0.038\pm0.002)(V-I) + (0.128\pm0.002)X$, $r= R + (4.202\pm0.004) -(0.046\pm0.007)(V-R) + (0.078\pm0.003)X$, $i= I + (4.701\pm0.004) -(0.059\pm0.003)(V-I) + (0.044\pm0.003)X$\ where $U,B,V,R$ and $I$ are the standard magnitudes and $u,b,v,r$ and $i$ are the instrumental aperture magnitudes normalized for 1 second of exposure time and $X$ is the airmass. We have ignored the second-order colour correction terms as they are generally small in comparison to other errors present in the photometric data reduction. The typical DAOPHOT errors in magnitude and colour as a function of $V$ magnitude, are shown in Fig. 2 and statistical results are given in Table 2. The parameter $\chi$ and sharpness are also shown in Fig. 2 as a function of $V$ magnitude. It can be seen that the errors become large ($\ge$0.1 mag) for stars fainter than $V\simeq22$ mag, so the measurements beyond this magnitude are not reliable. The standard deviations in the standardization residual, $\Delta$, between standard and transformed V magnitude and $(U-B),(B-V),(V-R)$ and $(V-I)$ colours of standard stars are 0.006, 0.025, 0.015, 0.010, 0.015 mag respectively. --------------- ------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ $V$ Magnitude $\sigma_V$ $\sigma_{(U-B)}$ $\sigma_{(B-V)}$ $\sigma_{(V-R)}$ $\sigma_{(V-I)}$ Range 10 - 11 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 11 - 12 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 12 - 13 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 13 - 14 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 14 - 15 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 15 - 16 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 16 - 17 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 17 - 18 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 18 - 19 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 19 - 20 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.02 20 - 21 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.04 21 - 22 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.06 --------------- ------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ : Average photometric errors $\sigma$ as a function of brightness. Grism slitless spectroscopy --------------------------- ![One of the slitless spectra of the cluster region. The $H\alpha$ emission line sources have been marked by circles. ](fig03.eps){height="7cm" width="8.5cm"} Three regions of the cluster (marked with white square boxes in Fig. 1) were also observed in the slitless mode with a grism as the dispersing element using the Himalayan Faint Object Spectrograph Camera (HFOSC) instrument on 24 January 2006. This yields an image where the stars are replaced by their spectra. A combination of a ‘wide H$\alpha$’ interference filter (6300 - 6740 Å) and Grism 5 (5200 - 10300 Å) of HFOSC was used without any slit. The resolution of grism is 870. The central $2K\times2K$ pixels of the $2K\times4K$ CCD were used for imaging. The pixel size is 15 micron with an image scale of 0.297 arcsec/pixel. For each region we secured three spectroscopic frames of 5 min exposure each with the grism in, and one direct frame of 1 min exposure with the grism out. Emission line stars with enhancement over the continuum at H$\alpha$ wavelength are visually identified. Fig. 3 shows the slitless spectra of stars in one of the cluster regions. Positions of the H$\alpha$ emission stars are given in Table 3. Recently Negueruela et al. (2007) have reported detection of 18 $H\alpha$ emission stars, of which 12 lies in the region surveyed by us. However only 9 stars are common in both the surveys. H$\alpha$ photometry -------------------- The excess $H\alpha$ emission stars may also be detected by imaging the cluster region in $H\alpha$ line and a nearby continuum (see e.g. Sung et al. 2000). We calculated the difference $\Delta$ =($H\alpha_{instrumental} - Continuum_{instrumental}$) and designated a star having excess emission if $\Delta$ is greater than three sigma from the mean value of the distribution in the $H\alpha / Cont.$ diagram. In Fig. 4, we have plotted $H\alpha/Cont.$, $(H\alpha-Cont.)/(V-I)$ and $V/(H\alpha-Cont.)$ diagrams. Probable $H\alpha$ emission stars are shown by open circles. Information about photometrically detected $H\alpha$ emission stars is given in Table 3. Only 3 probable photometrically detected $H\alpha$ emission stars are common with those detected by the slitless spectroscopy. Here it is worthwhile to point out that some late-type dwarfs show strong chromospheric $H\alpha$ in emission. Huang et al. (2006) have pointed out that, even if a late-type star does not show $H\alpha$ emission, such a star generally has a series of strong metal oxide absorption lines, such as TiO in its spectrum. This may lead to an underestimation of their continuum, hence making the star as a $H\alpha$ emitter. ---- ------------- ------------- ------- ------------- ------------- -- -- ID RA(2000) DEC(2000) ID RA(2000) DEC(2000) (h:m:s) (d:m:s) (h:m:s) (d:m:s) A 05:22:43.02 +33:25:05.4 a 05:22:19.86 +33:22:14.2 B 05:22:43.78 +33:25:25.8 b 05:22:19.90 +33:21:32.5 C 05:22:45.78 +33:28:16.2 c 05:22:22.41 +33:20:18.0 D 05:22:46.08 +33:24:57.8 d 05:22:27.64 +33:20:13.5 E 05:22:49.57 +33:30:01.5 e 05:22:30.67 +33:19:27.1 F 05:22:51.04 +33:25:47.1 f 05:22:31.14 +33:22:58.9 G 05:22:51.90 +33:23:59.3 g 05:22:31.92 +33:29:05.7 H 05:22:52.23 +33:29:58.0 h$^$ 05:22:43.02 +33:25:05.4 I 05:22:52.30 +33:24:07.4 i$^$ 05:22:43.78 +33:25:25.8 J 05:22:56.42 +33:26:47.7 j 05:22:46.84 +33:29:28.1 K 05:22:58.10 +33:30:41.0 k$^$ 05:22:49.57 +33:30:01.5 L 05:22:58.85 +33:28:34.6 l 05:22:51.23 +33:20:35.5 M 05:22:59.57 +33:27:32.5 N 05:23:00.07 +33:30:39.0 O 05:23:02.87 +33:28:17.8 P 05:23:04.26 +33:28:46.4 ---- ------------- ------------- ------- ------------- ------------- -- -- : Position of all the $H\alpha$ emission stars. $^$: also detected in slitless spectroscopy\ Other available data sets ========================= Near-IR (NIR) ($JHK_s$) data for point sources around the cluster region have been obtained from the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) Point source Catalog (PSC). The 2MASS data base provides photometry in the near infrared $J(1.25\mu$m), $H(1.65 \mu$m) and $K_s (2.17 \mu$m) bands to a limiting magnitude of 15.8, 15.1 and 14.3 respectively, with a signal to noise ratio (S/N) greater than 10. We retain only those sources for which the error in each band is less than 0.1 mag to ensure good photometric accuracy. The Midcourse Space experiment (MSX) surveyed the Galactic plane in four mid-infrared bands - A ($8.28~ \mu$m), C ($12.13~ \mu$m), D ($14.65~ \mu$m) and E ($21.34~ \mu$m) at a spatial resolution of $\sim18^{\prime \prime}$ (Price et al. 2001). Two of these bands (A and C) with ${\it \lambda(\Delta \lambda)}$ corresponding to 8.28(3.36) and 12.13(1.71) include several Unidentified Infrared emission Bands (UIBs) at 6.2, 7.7, 8.7 11.3, and 12.7 $\mu$m. MSX images in these four bands around the cluster region were used to study the emission from the UIBs and to estimate the spatial distribution of temperature and optical depth of warm interstellar dust. The data from the IRAS survey around the cluster region in the four bands (12, 25, 60, 100 $\mu$m) were HIRES processed (Aumann et al. 1990) to obtain high angular resolution maps. These maps were used to determine the spatial distribution of dust colour temperature and optical depth. Six IRAS point sources have also been identified in the cluster region and their details are given in Table 4. ------------ ----------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -- IRAS PSC RA(2000) DEC(2000) $F_{12}$ $F_{25}$ $F_{60}$ $F_{100}$ (degrees) (degrees) (Jy) (Jy) (Jy) (Jy) 05186+3326 80.4944 33.4943 1.47 2.12 22.95 146.60 05189+3327 80.5674 33.5059 1.31 2.06 46.35 120.50 05194+3322 80.6848 33.4240 1.16 1.38 2.29 29.48 05196+3329 80.7390 33.5326 1.08 2.39 28.30 163.40 05198+3325 80.7844 33.4771 8.33 26.16 145.70 163.40 05200+3329 80.8315 33.5299 1.39 1.91 145.70 163.40 ------------ ----------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -- COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS STUDIES ================================= We have carried out a comparison of the present photometric data with those available in the literature. The difference $\Delta$ (literature - present data) as a function of $V$ magnitude is shown in Fig. 5 and the statistical results are given in Table 5. The comparison indicates that the present photometry is in agreement with the CCD photometry by Massey et al. (1995a) and photoelectric photometry by Hoag et al. (1961). The $(B-V)$ and $(U-B)$ colours by Cuffey (1973) are in agreement with the present photometry whereas the $\Delta V$ shows some variation. ------------------------------- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- --------------------- ----- $V$ range $\Delta(V)$ $\Delta(B-V)$ $\Delta(U-B)$ ($Mean\pm \sigma$) (N) ($Mean\pm \sigma$) (N) ( $Mean\pm \sigma$) (N) Massey P. et al. (1995a, ccd) 10-11 $ 0.033\pm0.010$ 2 $ -0.012\pm0.016$ 2 $ 0.006\pm0.022$ 2 11-12 $ 0.042\pm0.020$ 6 $ -0.010\pm0.010$ 6 $ -0.045\pm0.022$ 6 12-13 $ 0.036\pm0.027$ 16 $ -0.003\pm0.021$ 16 $ -0.022\pm0.033$ 16 13-14 $ 0.035\pm0.040$ 16 $ 0.001\pm0.022$ 16 $ -0.012\pm0.051$ 16 14-15 $ 0.020\pm0.075$ 43 $ 0.029\pm0.077$ 43 $ -0.010\pm0.030$ 43 15-16 $ 0.003\pm0.092$ 55 $ 0.024\pm0.070$ 54 $ 0.015\pm0.038$ 53 16-17 $ -0.003\pm0.074$ 109 $ 0.032\pm0.087$ 109 $ 0.015\pm0.103$ 106 17-18 $ 0.004\pm0.010$ 73 $ 0.015\pm0.136$ 73 $ 0.023\pm0.189$ 71 Cuffey J. (1973, pe) 10-11 $ 0.043\pm0.004$ 2 $ 0.002\pm0.020$ 2 $ 0.017\pm0.021$ 2 11-12 $ 0.120\pm0.024$ 3 $ -0.023\pm0.034$ 3 $ -0.005\pm0.006$ 3 12-13 $ 0.095\pm0.052$ 10 $ -0.036\pm0.036$ 10 $ -0.005\pm0.036$ 10 13-14 $ -0.064\pm0.244$ 5 $ -0.004\pm0.151$ 5 $ -0.033\pm0.038$ 5 14-15 $ -0.066\pm0.014$ 3 $ 0.049\pm0.062$ 3 $ -0.042\pm0.043$ 3 15-16 $ -0.035\pm0.023$ 2 $ 0.063\pm0.019$ 2 $ 0.049\pm0.066$ 2 Hoag et al. (1961, pe) 10-11 $ 0.013\pm0.010$ 2 $ 0.007\pm0.016$ 2 $ -0.008\pm0.001$ 2 11-12 $ 0.047\pm - $ 1 $ 0.006\pm - $ 1 $ -0.037\pm - $ 1 12-13 $ 0.033\pm0.042$ 7 $ 0.004\pm0.032$ 7 $ -0.036\pm0.044$ 7 13-14 $ 0.020\pm0.048$ 6 $ 0.030\pm0.022$ 6 $ -0.018\pm0.070$ 6 14-15 $ -0.017\pm0.047$ 3 $ 0.002\pm0.011$ 3 $ 0.003\pm0.032$ 3 ------------------------------- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- --------------------- ----- COMPLETENESS OF THE DATA ======================== To study the luminosity function (LF)/ mass function (MF) it is very important to make necessary corrections in data sample to take into account the incompleteness that may occur for various reasons (e.g. crowding of the stars). We used the ADDSTAR routine of DAOPHOT II to determine the completeness factor (CF). The procedures have been outlined in detail in our earlier work (Sagar & Richtler 1991, Pandey et al. 2001, 2005). In the case of optical CCD photometry the incompleteness of the data increases with increasing magnitude as expected. The completeness factor (CF) as a function of $V$ magnitude is given in Table 6. In the case of 2MASS the data is found to be almost complete up to 14 mag in the $K_{\rm s}$ band. ![Comparison of present data with those given in literature. The difference ($\Delta$ = present study - literature) is plotted as a function of $V$ magnitude.](fig05.eps){height="4cm" width="8cm"} --------- ---------------- ------------------------- ------ V range Field region (mag) $r\le2^\prime$ $2^\prime<r\le6^\prime$ 10 - 11 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 - 12 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 - 13 1.00 1.00 1.00 13 - 14 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 - 15 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 - 16 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 - 17 1.00 1.00 1.00 17 - 18 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 - 19 0.95 1.00 1.00 19 - 20 0.96 0.93 0.96 20 - 21 0.68 0.65 0.68 --------- ---------------- ------------------------- ------ : Completeness Factor (CF) of photometric data in the cluster and field regions. STRUCTURE OF THE CLUSTER ======================== Isodensity contours ------------------- The initial stellar distribution in star clusters may be governed by the structure of parental molecular cloud and also how star formation proceeds in the cloud (Chen et al. 2004, Sharma et al. 2006). Later evolution of the cluster may be governed by internal gravitational interaction among member stars and external tidal forces due to the Galactic disk or giant molecular clouds. To study the morphology of the cluster, we have generated isodensity contours (Fig. 6) for stars from optical ($V\le18$) as well as from NIR 2MASS data. The contours are plotted above the 3-sigma value of the background level as estimated from the control field. The filled square and circle marked in Fig. 6 represent the location of the nebula Sim 129 and cluster center (as estimated in next section) respectively. The isodensity contours indicate that the cluster has elongated morphology. Radial density profile ---------------------- To estimate the radial extent of the cluster we assume a spherical symmetry for the cluster. The center of the cluster is determined using the stellar density distribution of stars having $V \leq 20$ mag, in a $\pm$ 100 pixels wide strip along both X and Y directions around an initially eye estimated center. The point of maximum density obtained by fitting a Gaussian curve, is considered as the center of the cluster. The (X, Y) pixel coordinates of the cluster center are found to be (585, 394) which corresponds to $\alpha_{2000} = {05^h} {22^m} {49^s}$, $\delta_{2000} = 33^{\circ} 25^{'} 35^{''}$. To determine the radial surface density we divided the cluster into a number of concentric circles. Projected radial stellar density in each concentric annulus was obtained by dividing the number of stars in each annulus by its area and the same are plotted in Fig. 7 for various magnitude levels. The error bars are derived assuming that the number of stars in a concentric annulus follow the Poisson statistics. The horizontal dashed line in the plot indicates the density of contaminating field stars, which is obtained from the region $\sim 1^\circ$ away towards east of the cluster center. To check whether the density distribution shown in the left panel of Fig. 7 is affected by contamination due to field stars, we selected a sample of stars near a well defined main sequence (MS) in the colour-magnitude diagram (CMD) as mentioned by Pandey et al. (2001). The radial density distribution of the MS sample is also shown in the right panel of Fig. 7. Both the samples in general show almost similar radial density profiles. We have also used 2MASS data to obtain the radial density profile of the cluster and the same is shown in Fig. 7 (bottom panels), which also shows a similar radial density profile. We have used these profiles to calculate the extent of cluster $`r_{cl}$’ which is defined as the point at which the radial density becomes constant and merges with the field density. The radial distribution of stars shown in Fig. 7 indicates that in general the extent of NGC 1893 cluster is $\sim 6^{\prime}$ (5.7 pc). To parametrize the radial density profiles we follow the approach by Kaluzny & Udalski (1992). Because of the low S/N ratio in the star counts of open clusters, it is not an easy task to constrain the tidal radius of cluster using the empirical model of King (1962). We describe radial density $\rho (r)$ as $$\rho (r) \propto {fo\over \displaystyle{1+\left({r\over r_c}\right)^2}}\,;$$ where $r_c$ is the core radius (the radius at which the surface density falls to half of the central density $f_o$). We fit above function to the observed radial density profile of stars. The best fit is obtained by $\chi^2$ minimization technique. The fit was performed for the data within the radii of 10$^{\prime}$. The core radius for various magnitude levels (14 $\le V \le$ 20) varies from $1.^{\prime}1\pm0.^{\prime}2$ ($\sim 1.0\pm0.2$ pc) to $2.^{\prime}6 \pm 0.^{\prime}7$ ($\sim 2.5\pm0.7$ pc), whereas for main sequence stars it varies from $1.^{\prime}0 \pm 0.^{\prime}2$ ($\sim 1.0\pm0.2$ pc) to $2.^{\prime}8 \pm 0.^{\prime}6$ ($\sim 2.6\pm0.6$ pc). The 2MASS data gives a core radius as $1.^{\prime}6 \pm 0.^{\prime}6$ ($\sim 1.5\pm0.6$ pc) for both the samples. To study the colour-magnitude diagrams (CMDs), MF etc., in detail we divided the cluster into two subregions as the inner region ($r< 2^{\prime} $, 1.9 pc), and the outer region (2$^{\prime} \leq r \leq 6^{\prime}$, 1.9 pc$\leq r \leq$ 5.7 pc). Interstellar Extinction ======================= Reddening --------- The extinction towards the cluster region is estimated using the $(U-B)/(B-V)$ two-color diagram (TCD) shown in Fig. 8, where the MS (Schmidt-Kaler, 1982) is shifted along the reddening vector having an adopted slope of $E(U-B)/E(B-V)$ = 0.72 to match the observations. The TCD shows a spread in the observed sequence indicating the presence of differential reddening which is an indication of the youth of the cluster. Fig. 8 yields a spread in reddening between $E(B-V)$ = 0.4 to 0.6 mag. It has already been noticed that the extinction towards the anticenter direction of the Galaxy is relatively low (cf. Pandey et al. 1989, Joshi 2005). Recent work by Joshi (2005) yields an average value of $E(B-V) \sim 0.45$ mag which is in agreement with the values ($E(B-V) = 0.4 - 0.6$ mag) obtained in the present work. The reddening of individual stars ($V_{error}< 0.1$) having spectral type earlier than A0, has been derived using the $Q$ method (Johnson & Morgan 1953). The distribution of reddening as a function of radial distance is shown in Fig. 9 which indicates a deficiency of reddening material in the central region of the cluster. ![The $(U-B)/(B-V)$ colour-colour diagram for the stars lying within the cluster region ($r<r_{cl}$). The continuous curve represents intrinsic MS by Schmidt Kaler (1982) shifted along the reddening vector of 0.72 for $E(B-V)_{min}$ = 0.4 and $E(B-V)_{max}$ = 0.6. ](fig08.eps){height="8cm" width="9cm"} The contour maps of reddening in the cluster region are shown in Fig. 10, which indicates that reddening toward the west of the cluster is higher. Individual enhancements of reddening can be seen around some regions including the nebulae Sim 129 and Sim 130 (marked by crosses). The center of NGC 1893 (marked by asterisk) is less reddened and seems to be devoid of reddening material. Reddening law ------------- The interstellar extinction and the ratio of total-to-selective extinction $R = A_V / E(B-V)$ towards the cluster are important quantities that must be accurately known to determine the distance of the cluster photometrically. To study the nature of the extinction law in the cluster region, we used TCDs as described by Pandey et al. (2003). The TCDs of the form of ($V-\lambda$) vs. ($B-V$), where $\lambda$ is one of the wavelengths of the broad-band filters ($R,I,J,H,K,L$) provide an effective method for separating the influence of the normal extinction produced by the diffuse interstellar medium from that of the abnormal extinction arising within regions having a peculiar distribution of dust sizes (cf. Chini & Wargau 1990, Pandey et al. 2000). The TCDs for the cluster’s region ($r<r_{cl}$) are shown in Fig. 11, where NIR data have been taken from the 2MASS. The ${E(V-\lambda)}\over {E(B-V)}$ values in the cluster region are estimated as described by Pandey et al. (2003). The slope of the distributions $m_{cluster}$ (cf. Pandey et al. 2003) is found to be $1.21\pm0.01, 2.00\pm0.03,2.39\pm0.04, 2.47\pm0.05$ for $(V-I), (V-J), (V-H), (V-K)$ vs $(B-V)$ diagrams respectively. The ratio of total-to-selective extinction in the cluster region, $R_{cluster}$, is derived using the procedure given by Pandey et al. (2003). The ratios ${E(V-\lambda)}\over {E(B-V)}$ $(\lambda \ge \lambda_I)$ yield $R_{cluster} = 3.06 \pm 0.07$ which indicates a normal grain size in the cluster region. Tapia et al. (1991) also concluded that the interstellar extinction law in the direction of this cluster appears to be similar to the average Galactic law. Recently Negueruela et al. (2007) have also supported a normal reddening law in the cluster region. Optical Color Magnitude Diagrams ================================ Distance and age of the cluster ------------------------------- ![image](fig12.eps){height="16cm" width="18cm"} Colour-magnitude diagrams (CMDs) for stars in two subregions and for whole cluster region are shown in Fig. 12. A broad MS, due to variable reddening in the cluster region, extending up to $V \sim$ 15 mag can be noticed in the inner region of the cluster. Distribution of stars fainter than $V \sim$ 15 mag deviates towards red side of MS indicating presence of PMS stars in the cluster region. The effect of field star contamination increases as we move towards outer region of the cluster. Using $E(B-V)_{min} =0.40$ mag and following relations $E(U-B)/E(B-V)$=0.72, $A_V=3.1\times E(B-V)$, $E(V-R)=0.60\times E(B-V)$, $E(V-I)=1.25\times E(B-V)$, we visually fit theoretical isochrone for log age = 6.6 (4 Myr) and $Z=0.02$ by Bertelli et al. (1994) to the blue envelope of the observed MS and found a distance modulus $(m-M)_V = 13.8 \pm 0.15$ corresponding to a distance of $3.25 \pm 0.20$ kpc. The reported values of the distance for the cluster NGC 1893 lie in the range of 3.6 to 4.3 kpc barring the distance (6 kpc) reported by Marco et al. (2001). Probable members of the cluster ------------------------------- To study the LF/MF, it is necessary to remove field star contamination from the sample of stars in the cluster region. Membership determination is also crucial for assessing the presence of PMS stars, because PMS stars and dwarf foreground stars both occupy similar positions above the zero-age main sequence (ZAMS) in the CMD. In the absence of proper motion study, we used statistical criterion to estimate the number of probable member stars in the cluster region. Figs 13 a and b show $V, (V-I)$ CMDs for the cluster region and field region respectively. The contamination due to background field population is clearly visible in the cluster region CMD. The background population may belong to Norma-Cygnus (outer) arm (cf. Carraro et al. 2005, Pandey et al. 2006). The thick line on the cluster CMDs demarcates the contamination due to background population. The stars to the left of the line in the cluster CMD are considered as field stars and have not been further considered in the analysis. The cluster CMD shows a significant number of stars towards the right of the line. Majority of these stars should be PMS stars. To remove contamination of field stars from the MS and PMS sample, we statistically subtracted the contribution of field stars from the CMD of the cluster region using the following procedure. For a randomly selected star in the $V, (V-I)$ CMD of the field region, the nearest star in the cluster’s $V,(V-I)$ CMD within $V\pm0.125$ and $(V-I)\pm0.065$ of the field star was removed. While removing stars from the cluster CMD, necessary corrections for incompleteness of the data samples were taken into account. The statistically cleaned $V, (V-I)$ CMD of the cluster region is shown in Fig. 13 c which clearly shows the presence of PMS stars in the cluster. ![$V/(V-I)$ CMD for (a) stars in the cluster region, (b) stars in the field region and (c) statistically cleaned CMD. Thick line demarcates the contribution background field star contamination.](fig13.eps){height="6cm" width="8cm"} Fig. 14 shows statistically cleaned unreddened $V_0/(V-I)_0$ CMD where stars having spectral type earlier than $A0$ were individually unreddened (cf. §7.1), whereas mean reddening of the region, estimated from available individual reddening values in that region, was used for other stars. In Fig. 14 we have plotted the isochrone for 4 Myr by Bertelli (1994) and PMS isochrones by Siess et al. (2000). Evolutionary tracks by Siess et al. (2000) for various masses are also plotted. Fig. 14 manifests that PMS population has an age spread of about 1-5 Myr. To check the reality of the age spread of PMS population, we plotted $V/(V-I)$ CMD for $H\alpha$ emission stars and NIR excess stars (see §9.1) in Fig. 15, which also indicates an age spread of about 1-5 Myr for the probable PMS stars. ![Statistically cleaned $V_0/(V-I)_0$ CMD for stars lying in the cluster region. The isochrone for 4 Myr age by Bertelli et al. (1994) and PMS isochrones of 1,2,5,10 Myr along with evolutionary tracks of different mass stars by Siess et al. (2000) are also shown. All the isochrones are corrected for a distance of 3.25 kpc.](fig14.eps){height="8cm" width="7cm"} ![$V,(V-I)$ CMD for $H\alpha$ emission stars (stars and open circles, cf. Sec 9.1) and NIR excess stars (triangles, cf. Sec 9.1). Isochrone for 4 Myr by Bertelli et al. (1994, continuous line) and PMS isochrones for 1,2,5,10 Myr by Siess et al. (2000) (dashed lines) are also shown. All the isochrones are corrected for distance of 3.25 kpc and reddening $E(B-V)=0.4$. CPM16 and probable HBe stars (cf. Sect 9.1) are also marked by their ID numbers as given in Table 3. The straight line indicates reddening vector for A$_V$= 5 mag. ](fig15.eps){height="8cm" width="8cm"} Near Infrared colour-colour and colour-magnitude diagrams ========================================================= NIR observations are very effective for investigating the nature of obscured clusters and the populations of YSOs which are embedded in molecular clouds (Lada & Adams 1992). Colour-colour diagram --------------------- In Fig. 16, we have plotted $(J-H)/(H-K)$ colour-colour diagram for the cluster region ($r<r_{cl}$) and a nearby reference field. The solid and thick dashed curves represent the unreddened main-sequence and giant branch (Bessell & Brett 1988). The parallel dashed lines are the reddening vectors for early- and late-type stars (drawn from the base and tip of the two branches). The dotted line indicates the locus of T Tauri stars (Meyer et al. 1997). The extinction ratio $A_J/A_V = 0.265, A_H/A_V = 0.155$ and $A_{K_s}/A_V=0.090$ have been taken from Cohen et al. (1981). All the 2MASS magnitudes and colours as well as the curves are in the CIT system. We classified sources into three regions in the CC diagram (cf. Ojha et al. 2004a and references therein). ‘F’ sources are located between the reddening vectors projected from the intrinsic color of main-sequence stars and giants and are considered to be field stars (main-sequence stars, giants) or Class III /Class II sources with small NIR excesses. ‘T’ sources are located redward of region ‘F’ but blueward of the reddening line projected from the red end of the T Tauri locus of Meyer et al. (1997). These sources are considered to be mostly classical T Tauri stars (Class II objects) with large NIR excesses. There may be an overlap in NIR colours of Herbig Ae/ Be stars and T Tauri stars in the ‘T’ region (Hillenbrand et al. 1992). ‘P’ sources are those located in the region redward of region ‘T’ and are most likely Class I objects (protostar-like objects; Ojha et al. 2004b). Comparison of Fig. 16 (a) and (b) shows that the stars in cluster region are distributed in a much wider range as compared to those in reference field. A significant number of sources in the cluster region exhibit NIR excess emission, a characteristics of young stars with circumstellar material. Fig. 16 (a) also shows a distribution of $H\alpha$ emission stars. $H\alpha$ emission stars detected from slitless spectroscopy (star symbols) are distributed in Herbig Ae/Be region as well as in ‘F’ region. whereas $H\alpha$ emission stars from narrow-band photometry (open circles) are distributed only in the region ‘F’ of the colour-colour diagram. The $H\alpha$ emission star B (Table 3) is relatively more extincted and shows a large NIR excess. This star lies near to $H\alpha$ emission star A, which has been assigned as an HBe star (S3R1N3) by Marco & Negueruela, 2002. The $V, (V-I)$ CMD (Fig. 15) indicates that the star B is more extincted by $\sim 4.0$ mag in comparison to star A. A correction of $A_V \sim 4.0$ mag puts star B in the HAeBe region in Fig. 16. Colour-magnitude diagram ------------------------ The CMDs are useful tool for studying the nature of the stellar population within star-forming regions. In Fig. 17 (a), we have plotted $J/(J-H)$ colour magnitude diagram for the stars within cluster region. Using the relation ${{A_J}\over {A_V}}=0.265$, ${{A_{J-H}}\over{ A_V}}=0.110$ (Cohen et al. 1981) and $A_V=3.1\times E(B-V)$, the isochrones for age 4 Myr and PMS isochrones for ages 1, 10 Myr by Bertelli et al. (1994) and Siess et al. (2000) respectively have been plotted assuming the distance of 3.25 kpc and extinction $E(B-V)_{min}=0.4$ as obtained from the optical data. Probable YSOs (T-Tauri type stars) obtained from the colour-colour diagram and $H\alpha$ emission stars, are shown by open triangles and star symbols/open circles respectively. Most of the probable T Tauri and $H\alpha$ emission stars have age $\le$ 1 Myr. Fig. 17 (b) shows $K/(H-K)$ CMD for the stars lying within the cluster region. The symbols are the same as in Fig 16. The nearly vertical lines represent the ZAMS at a distance of 3.25 kpc reddened by $A_V$ = 0, 1.24 and 15 mag respectively. The intrinsic colours are taken from Koorneef (1983). The parallel slanted lines trace the reddening zones for each spectral type. Fig. 18 represents $J/(J-H)$ diagram for probable YSO candidates identified in Fig 16. The symbols are same as in Fig 16. The mass of the probable YSO candidates can be estimated by comparing their location on the CMD with the evolutionary models of PMS stars. The solid curve, taken from Siess et al. (2000) denotes the locus of 1 Myr old PMS stars having masses in the range of 0.1 to 3.5 $M_\odot$. To estimate the stellar masses, the $J$ luminosity is recommended rather than that of $H$ or $K$, as the $J$ band is less affected by the emission from circumstellar material (Bertout et al. 1988). The majority of the YSOs have masses in the range 3.0 to 1.0 $M_\odot$ indicating that these may be T Tauri stars. A few stars having mass greater that 3.0 $M_\odot$ may be candidates for Herbig Ae/Be stars. Initial mass function ===================== The distribution of stellar masses that form in a star-formation event in a given volume of space is called Initial Mass Function (IMF) and together with star formation rate, the IMF dictates the evolution and fate of galaxies and star clusters (Kroupa 2002). The mass function (MF) is often expressed by the power law, $N (\log m) \propto m^{\Gamma}$ and the slope of the MF is given as: $$\Gamma = d \log N (\log m)/d \log m$$ where $N (\log m)$ is the number of star per unit logarithmic mass interval. In the solar neighborhood the classical value derived by Salpeter (1955) is $\Gamma = -1.35$. With the help of statistically cleaned CMD, shown in Fig. 14, we can derive the MF using the theoretical evolutionary model of Bertelli et al. (1994). Since post-main-sequence age of the cluster is $\sim$ 4 Myr, the stars having $V<15$ mag ($V_0 < 13.5; M>2.5 M_\odot$) have been considered to be on the main sequence. For the MS stars, the LF was converted to the MF using the theoretical model by Bertelli et al. (1994) (cf. Pandey et al. 2001, 2005). The MF for PMS stars was obtained by counting the number of stars in various mass bins (shown as evolutionary tracks) in Fig. 14. The MF in two subregions as well as for the whole cluster is given in Table 7 and plotted in Fig. 19. Table 8 indicates that the slopes of the MF of MS and of PMS stars in the inner region of the cluster are almost the same and can be represented by $\Gamma = -1.19\pm0.03$ which is slightly shallower than the Salpeter value. This indicates that there is no mass segregation in the inner region of the cluster. In the outer region as well as for the whole cluster region, the $\Gamma$ for PMS stars seems to be shallower than the $\Gamma$ for the MS stars indicating a break in the slope of the MF at $\sim 2 M_\odot$. However a single slope for the MF, in the outer region and whole cluster, can also be fitted to the entire observed mass range ( $0.6<M/M_\odot < 17.7$) with $\Gamma = -1.32\pm0.12$ and $\Gamma = -1.27\pm0.08$ respectively. Effect of mass segregation can be seen on the MS stars. The $\Gamma$ for the MS stars is steeper in the outer region indicating a preferential distribution of relatively massive stars towards the cluster center, whereas $\Gamma$ for the PMS stars is steeper in the inner region as compared to the $\Gamma$ in the outer region. However the difference in the slopes is rather small ($2.5 \sigma$ and $2.7 \sigma$ in the case of MS and PMS stars respectively). For the mass range $2.5\le M/M_\odot \le 17.7$, the MF for the whole cluster region ($r\le6'$) can be represented by $\Gamma = -1.71\pm0.20$ which is in agreement with the value ($\Gamma = -1.6\pm0.3$) given by Massey et al. (1995a). ----------------- ------------------- ---- ------------ ---- ------------ ---- ------------ Mass Mean $(M/M_{\odot})$ log $M/M_{\odot}$ N log $\phi$ N log $\phi$ N log $\phi$ 17.7 - 12.3 1.1759 1 0.7964 1 0.7964 2 1.0974 12.3 - 8.4 1.0147 2 1.0882 3 1.2643 5 1.4861 8.4 - 5.6 0.8451 4 1.3490 10 1.7470 14 1.8931 5.6 - 3.7 0.6650 6 1.5191 16 1.9451 22 2.0834 3.7 - 2.5 0.4868 8 1.6644 25 2.1592 33 2.2798 2.0 - 1.5 0.2432 13 2.0173 37 2.4715 50 2.6023 1.5 - 1.0 0.0969 24 2.1345 57 2.5101 81 2.6628 1.0 - 0.8 -0.0459 20 2.3147 46 2.6764 66 2.8332 0.8 - 0.7 -0.1249 17 2.4671 31 2.7280 48 2.9179 0.7 - 0.6 -0.1872 20 2.4753 40 2.7763 60 2.9527 ----------------- ------------------- ---- ------------ ---- ------------ ---- ------------ ![$J/(J-H)$ CMD for the YSO candidates in cluster region ($r\le r_{cl}$). The symbols are same as in Fig. 15. The solid curve denotes PMS isochrone of 1 Myr, derived from Siess et al. (2000), corrected for a distance of 3.25 kpc. Masses range from 3.5 to 0.1 $M_\odot$ from top to bottom. The dashed oblique reddening lines denote the positions of PMS stars of 0.1, 1, 3.0 and 3.5 $M_\odot$. ](fig18.eps){height="8cm" width="8cm"} K-band Luminosity function ========================== In order to obtain the K-band Luminosity function (KLF) of the cluster, it is essential to take into account the incompleteness of the data as well as the foreground and background source contaminations. The completeness of the data is estimated using the ADDSTAR routine of DAOPHOT as described in Sec. 5. To take into account foreground/ background field star contamination we used both the Besançon Galactic model of stellar population synthesis (Robin et al. 2003) and the nearby reference field stars. Star counts are predicted using the Besançon model in the direction of the control field. We checked the validity of the simulated model by comparing the model KLF with that of the control field (see Fig. 20 (a)) and found that both the KLFs match rather well. An advantage of using the model is that we can separate the foreground ($d<3.25$ kpc) and background ($d>3.25$ kpc) field stars. As mentioned in Section 7.1, the foreground extinction using optical data was found to be $A_V \sim1.24$ mag. The model simulations with $A_V$ = 1.24 mag and $d<3.25$ kpc gives the foreground contamination. The background population ($d>3.25$ kpc) was simulated with $A_V$ = 1.86 mag in the model. We thus determined the fraction of the contaminating stars (foreground+background) over the total model counts. This fraction was used to scale the nearby reference field and subsequently the star counts of the modified control field were subtracted from the KLF of the cluster to obtain the final corrected KLF. The KLF is expressed by the following power-law: ${{ \rm {d} N(K) } \over {\rm{d} K }} \propto 10^{\alpha K}$ where ${ \rm {d} N(K) } \over {\rm{d} K }$ is the number of stars per 0.5 magnitude bin and $\alpha$ is the slope of the power law. Fig. 20 b shows the KLF for the cluster region which indicates a slope of $\alpha = 0.34\pm0.07$. The slope is consistent with the average value of slopes ($\alpha \sim 0.4$) for young clusters (Lada et al. 1991; Lada & Lada 1995; Lada & Lada 2003). Mass segregation ================ There are evidences for mass segregation in a few Galactic as well as LMC star clusters, with the highest mass stars preferentially found towards the center of the cluster (see e.g. Sagar et al. 1988, Sagar & Richtler 1991, Pandey et al. 1992, 2001, 2005; Fischer et al. 1998). Although, as per standard theory where stars in clusters evolve rapidly towards a state of energy equipartition through stellar encounters, consequently mass segregation - in the sense that more massive stars tend to lie near the center - is well accepted. However, observations of mass segregation in very young clusters (e.g. Pandey, Mahara & Sagar 1992; Hillenbrand 1997) suggest that in the case of a few young clusters the mass segregation may be the imprint of star formation process itself (Pandey et al. 2005). To characterize the degree of mass segregation in NGC 1893 we subdivided the MS sample into two mass groups ($5.6 < M/M_{\odot} \le 17.7, 2.5 < M/M_{\odot} \le 5.6$). Fig. 21 shows cumulative distribution of MS stars as a function of radius in two different mass groups. The figure indicates an effect of mass segregation in the cumulative distribution in the sense that more massive stars ($5.6 < M/M_{\odot} \le 17.7$) tend to lie toward the cluster center. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test confirms the statement that the cumulative distribution of massive stars in the cluster is different from the cumulative distribution of relatively less massive stars at a confidence level of 99%. Because of the dynamical relaxation, low mass stars in a cluster may acquire larger random velocities, consequently occupy a larger volume than high mass stars (cf. Mathieu 1985, Mathieu & Latham 1986, McNamara & Sekiguchi 1986). We estimated the relaxation time to decide whether the mass segregation discussed above is primordial or due to dynamical relaxation. To estimate the dynamical relaxation time $T_{E}$, we used the relation where N is the number of cluster stars, $ R_{h}$ is the radius containing half of the cluster mass and $\bar{m}$ is the average mass of cluster stars (Spitzer & Hart 1971). The total number of MS stars and the total mass of the MS stars in the given mass range ($2.5\le M/M_\odot \le 17.7$) is obtained with the help of LF/ MF. This mass should be considered as the lower limit of the total mass of the cluster. For the half mass radius we used half of the cluster extent i.e. 2.85 pc. Various parameters used to estimate $T_E$ for the cluster are given in Table 9. Using these numbers, the estimated relaxation time $T_{E}$ comes out to be larger than the age of the cluster. This indicates that the observed mass segregation of MS stars in the cluster should be of largely primordial nature. Region $`\Gamma$’ (MS) $`\Gamma$’ (PMS) $`\Gamma$’ (MS+PMS) -------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- Inner $-1.25\pm0.13$$^{a}$ $-1.15\pm0.11$$^{b}$ $-1.19\pm0.03$$^{c}$ Outer $-1.96\pm0.26$$^{a}$ $-0.76\pm0.09$$^{b}$ $-1.32\pm0.12$$^{c}$ Whole $-1.71\pm0.20$$^{a}$ $-0.88\pm0.09$$^{b}$ $-1.27\pm0.08$$^{c}$ : Mass Function $`\Gamma$’. \[clustable\] a: Mass range (2.5 $<$ $M/M_{\odot}$ $<$ 17.7)\ b: Mass range (0.6 $<$ $M/M_{\odot}$ $<$ 2.0)\ c: Mass range (0.6 $<$ $M/M_{\odot}$ $<$ 17.7)\ ------------------------ --------------- ------------ ------------------------- ----------- Mass range Total mass No. of Average mass $T_E$ ($M_{\odot}$) stars $\bar{m}$ ($M_{\odot}$) (Myr) 2.5$<M/M_{\odot}<$17.7 $\sim$ 374 $\sim$ 78 $\sim$ 4.8 $\sim$ 12 0.6$<M/M_{\odot}<$ 2.0 $\sim$ 333 $\sim$ 315 $\sim$ 1.1 $\sim$ 35 0.6$<M/M_{\odot}<$17.7 $\sim$ 710 $\sim$ 390 $\sim$ 1.8 $\sim$ 29 ------------------------ --------------- ------------ ------------------------- ----------- : Parameters of the cluster. \[clustable\] ![image](fig22.eps){height="14cm" width="16cm"} -------- -------- ------------ ----------------- ------------- Region Totals NIR excess $H\alpha$ stars All YSOs stars stars (slitless) 1 139 16 (21) 8+7$^a$ (20) 29 (38)$^b$ 2 145 5 (6) 6+2$^a$(10) 12 (15)$^c$ 3 99 1 (3) 0 1 (3) Field 63 -------- -------- ------------ ----------------- ------------- : Statistics of the YSOs in the three different regions. Numbers given in parenthesis are in percentage. \[clustable\] a: $H\alpha$ stars taken from Negueruela & Marco et al. (2007).\ b: Two $H\alpha$ stars have NIR excess.\ c: One $H\alpha$ stars has NIR excess.\ ![image](fig23.eps){height="6cm" width="16cm"} Spatial distribution: Global overview of star formation around the cluster ========================================================================== Massive O-type stars may have strong influence and significantly affect the entire star forming regions. On one hand energetic stellar winds from massive stars could evaporate nearby clouds and consequently terminate nearby star formation by destroying the gas clouds. Alternatively stellar winds and shock waves from supernova explosion may squeeze molecular clouds and induce subsequent star formation. Could both of these effects occur in different parts of the same star-forming regions? Herbig (1962) suggested that low and intermediate-mass stars form first and with the formation of the most massive star in the regions, the cloud gets disrupted and star formation ceases. Alternatively, Elmegreen & Lada (1977) propose the low-mass stars form first throughout the entire molecular cloud. After formation of massive stars, the expanding ionization fronts play a constructive role to incite a sequence of star-formation activities in the neighborhood. The morphological details of the environment around NGC 1893 containing several O-type stars can be used to probe the different stages of evolution of star formation present in this cloud complex. In Fig. 22 spatial distribution of O-type stars, IR-excess sources (probable T-Tauri type stars) and $H\alpha$ stars have been displayed on a $40^\prime \times 40^\prime$ DSS-II $R$ band image around the cluster. Most of the YSOs seem to align toward from north-east to south-west. The apparent concentration of the YSOs can be seen around the nebulous region Sim 129. The distribution of YSOs indicates that star formation in the cluster might have taken place along the direction of Sim 129. Similar conclusion has also been reported by Negueruela & Marco et al. (2007). To study whether stars show any sequence in age we selected three sub-regions having equal area and a field region outside the cluster region, as shown in Fig. 22. Fig. 23 a and b shows unreddened $V/(V-I)$ CMDs for the probable YSOs (triangles; NIR excess stars, star symbols; $H\alpha$ stars) in region 1 and 2 respectively. In region 2 CMD we have also plotted probable MS stars. The $(J-H)/ (H-K)$ TCD was used to estimate $A_V$ for each YSO by tracing back to the intrinsic line of Meyer et al. (1997) along the reddening vector. Probable MS stars are dereddened individually as described in $\S$ 7.1. In region 3 (Fig. 23 c) only one NIR excess star was found. There seems to be a small clustering around O-type star in the region 3. Stars within a 1 arcmin of the O-type stars are also plotted in Fig. 23 c. These stars were unreddened using the $E(B-V)$ value of the O-type star. Fig. 23 manifests that the YSOs lying near the nebula Sim 129 have age $\sim$ 1-2 Myr. The post-main-sequence age of the cluster stars is $\sim$ 4 Myrs, whereas the YSOs near the cluster region have age $<1 - 2$ Myr. The probable PMS stars in the region 3 have age $1-5$ Myr, whereas O-type star has an age $\sim$ 4 Myr. To further verify the age sequence we estimate the percentage of YSOs in these three regions. The statistics is given in Table 10. $H\alpha$ photometry for the nebula Sim 129 region was not carried out therefore $H\alpha$ photometry is not used for the statistics. Table 10 indicates a significant excess of YSOs in the region 1 (38%) in comparison to the second (15%) and third (3%) region. The distribution of YSOs further supports a small scale sequential star formation. The O7-8 star (HD 242935) at the center of the cluster might have triggered the star formation towards the direction of nebula Sim 129. Using the $^{12}CO$ survey Leisawitz et al. (1989) concluded that a molecular cloud (NGC 1893A) is associated with the cluster. The peak of the $^{12}CO$ contours is located at the SW of the cluster center. The cloud NGC 1893A is in front of the cluster and it may be receding from the cluster (Leisawitz et al. 1989). The differential extinction towards the cluster is $\sim 0.2$ mag indicating that the cloud contains low-density gas. In Fig. 22 NVSS (1.4 GHz) radio continuum emission contour maps (${\it black~ contours}$) and MSX A-band infrared contour maps (${\it white~ contours}$) are also overlaid. The location of IRAS point sources has been represented by crosses. The gross morphologies of the radio contour map and MSX A-band contour map are similar, though the emission from the MSX A-band is much more extended. The majority of emission from radio as well as MSX A-band comes from an arc-shaped region embracing the cluster from north-west to south-east. To the north-west of the cluster, the contours show relatively steep intensity gradient towards the cluster. This region also harbors two IRAS sources. The MSX A-band intensity map indicates presence of several discrete sources (including Sim 129 and 130) representing high-density clumps and region of further star formation. It is interesting to point out that 5 $H\alpha$, 2 NIR excess stars (see Fig. 22) and 2 PMS stars from Marco & Negueruela (2002) lie on the rim of the cloud towards west of the cluster. This indicates, as suggested by Marco & Negueruela (2002), this region is in the process of emerging from the parental cloud. Fig. 24 shows the IRAS-HIRES intensity maps for the cluster region at $12~\mu$m (top left), $25~ \mu$m (top right), $60~ \mu$m (bottom left) and $100~ \mu$m (bottom right). The contour maps also show a bright arc shaped rim on the western side of the cluster, as seen in MSX as well as NVSS radio contour maps. Such a morphology implies that the HII region is ionization bounded towards the western side of the cluster. The cluster region shows emission in MIR (MSX A-band and IRAS $12~\mu$m) indicating presence of warm dust in the region but no radio emission. The nebula Sim 129 is associated with the ionized region and also shows emission in MIR and FIR (IRAS $12~\mu$m$ - 100~\mu$m), whereas the nebula Sim 130 does not show significant emission in FIR ($60~\mu$m and $100~\mu$m). The clump to the NW of the cluster (hereafter clump A, $\alpha_{2000} = {05^h} {22^m.2}$, $\delta_{2000} = 33^{\circ} 33^{'}$), which harbors two IRAS sources, shows presence of ionized gas along with warm dust (MSX A-band, IRAS $12~\mu$m and $25~\mu$m) as well as cold dust (IRAS $60~\mu$m$ - 100~\mu$m). This clump also shows $H\alpha$ emission (see Fig. 25). The above mentioned features indicate ongoing star formation activity in the clump. There is another clump towards south of the cluster (clump B, $\alpha_{2000} = {05^h} {22^m.6}$, $\delta_{2000} = 33^{\circ} 18^{'}.5$) which shows strong emission in FIR ($60~\mu$m$ - 100~\mu$m). This clump also shows emission in $H\alpha$ and an O7-type star is located in the clump B. Distribution of YSOs and intensity maps of radio, NIR and FIR emissions in NGC 1893 region indicate four major clumps/condensations including Sim 129 and 130. YSOs distributed around Sim 129 and 130 are found to have ages $\sim$ 1-3 Myr. The angular distance of Sim 129 and 130 from the cluster is about $\sim 5.^{'}6$ and $\sim 6.^{'}1$ respectively. Clump A (angular distance $\sim 10^{'}$) shows signature of ongoing star formation. A few NIR excess stars are visible towards the direction of the clump. As we have mentioned above, the region towards the clump A seems to be in process of emerging out from the parental cloud, so many more YSOs may still be embedded in the cloud. The contribution of UIBs due to PAHs to the mid-infrared emissions in the four MSX bands has been studied using the scheme developed by Ghosh & Ojha (2002). The emission from each pixel is assumed to be a combination of two components, namely the thermal continuum from dust grains (gray body) and the emission from the UIB features in the MSX bands. The scheme assumes a dust emissivity of the power law form $\epsilon_\lambda \propto \lambda^{-1} $ and the total radiance due to the UIBs in band C is proportional to that in band A. A self consistent non-linear chi-square minimization technique is used to estimate the total emission from the UIBs, the dust temperature, and the optical depth. The spatial distribution of the UIB emission, temperature map and optical depth ($\tau_{10}$ at 10 $\mu$m) contour map with an angular resolution of $\sim 18^{\prime\prime}$ (for the MSX survey) extracted for the cluster region is shown in Fig. 25. Morphologically all are similar with the intensity peaks matching rather well with each other. This indicates the presence of high densities near the embedded sources. We have used the IRAS-HIRES maps at 12 and 25 $\mu$m to generate the spatial distribution of dust colour temperature T(12/25) and optical depth at 25 $\mu$m ($\tau_{25}$) (cf. Ghosh et al. 1993). An emissivity law of $\epsilon_\lambda \propto \lambda^{-1} $ was assumed to generate these maps. The dust colour temperature and optical depth maps representing warmer dust component are presented in Fig. 26. The latter is shown in Fig. 26 ([left)]{}, which is scaled to 10 $\mu$m by a $\lambda^{-1}$ emissivity law to compare with the MSX $\tau_{10}$ map. The distribution is centrally dense with optical depth peak and lower temperature at the center. The region is showing cometary appearance. Such a morphology can result if a massive star(s) is formed away from the center of a molecular cloud. This will cause the HII region to expand into an asymmetric density distribution and so becomes cometary (Israel 1978). From the orientation of the two emission nebulae and the arc shaped ring around the cluster center it is suggested that the central O type star(s) is (are) most likely responsible for the cometary morphology and the trigger of star formation. A comparison is also made between the $\tau_{10}$ maps generated from the higher angular resolution MSX maps (Fig. 25: bottom left) and that based on the IRAS HIRES maps at 12 and 25 $\mu$m (Fig. 26: left). The MSX $\tau_{10}$ map is brought to the same angular resolution as of HIRES for the comparison. The peak optical depth is 8.54 $\times 10^{-5}$ for the map based on MSX. The corresponding value from the IRAS-HIRES map is 1.36 $\times 10^{-5}$. These derived values are in reasonable agreement considering that they are based on instruments with very different angular resolutions. The difference in the peak values of $\tau_{10}$ may be a result of the following effects: beam dilution, clumpy interstellar medium and the contribution of UIB emission. In particular in our study the contribution of the UIBs emission has been removed in generating the optical depth in the modeling of the MIR emission from the MSX bands, however the IRAS-HIRES maps represent the emission from dust and UIB carriers (e.g. the emission from the UIB features falls within the IRAS 12 $\mu$m band ($\sim$ 8-15 $\mu$m)). The distribution of reddening (cf. Sec. 7.1) and close inspection of Fig. 22 indicate the presence of a region of low density of reddening material at the center of the cluster. Similar trend has been noticed in a few H II regions (e.g. 30 Dor, Brandl et al., 1996 and NGC 3603, Pandey et al. 2000). A reasonable explanation for this lack of gas and dust in the central region may be a wind blown bubble by massive stars at the center of the cluster. Visual estimation of radius of the bubble from Fig. 22 yields a value of $\sim$ 13 - 14 arc minute corresponding to 12 - 13 pc at the distance of NGC 1893. A stellar wind of power $L_w$ $erg$ $s^{-1}$ from a star located in a uniform cloud of neutral hydrogen density, $n_0$ atoms $cm^{-3}$, will in time $`t$’ yr produce a spherical shell of diameter $D(t)$ pc, expanding at $V(t)$ km $s^{-1}$, where $L_w = 9.5 \times 10^{17} n_0~ V(t)^5~ t^2$ $D(t) = 3.5 \times 10^{-6}~V(t)~t$ (cf. Pandey et al. 2000) Assuming that O7 stars at the center of the cluster are injecting a kinetic energy $L_W$ $\sim$ $10^{36} ~erg$ $s^{-1}$, with the gas density $10^3 - 10^4 ~cm^{-3}$ and age of O-type stars $\sim$ 4 Myr, the radius of the bubble corresponds to $\sim$ 10 - 16 pc. Summary and Conclusion ====================== On the basis of a comprehensive multi-wavelength study of the star forming region NGC 1893 we have made an attempt to study the effects of massive stars on low mass star formation. Deep optical $UBVRI$ and narrow band $H\alpha$ photometric data, slit-less spectroscopy along with archival data from the surveys such as 2MASS, MSX, IRAS and NVSS are used to understand the global scenario of star formation in and near the cluster region. Reddening ($E(B-V)$) in the direction of cluster is found to be varying between 0.40 to 0.60 mag. The post-main-sequence age and distance of the cluster are found to be $\sim 4$ Myr and 3.25 $\pm 0.20$ kpc respectively. Using the NIR two colour diagram and excess $H\alpha$ emission we identified candidate YSOs which are aligned from the cluster to the direction of nebula Sim 129. The O-type stars at the center of the cluster may be responsible for the trigger of star formation in the region. The morphology of the cluster seems to be influenced by the star formation in the region. We find a population of PMS YSOs in the cluster region having mass $\sim 1 - 3.5 M_\odot$. The position of the YSOs on the CMDs indicates that the majority of these stars have age between $\sim$ 1 Myr to 5 Myr indicating a possibility of non-coeval star formation in the cluster. Two probable HBe stars in the vicinity of central O-type stars further indicate an prolonged star formation in the center of the cluster region. The K-band luminosity function for the cluster is found to be $0.34\pm0.08$ which is consistent with the average value ($\sim$ 0.4) obtained for young star clusters (Lada et al. 1991; Lada & Lada 1995; Lada & Lada 2003). The slope of the initial mass function $`\Gamma$’ for PMS stars (mass range $0.6 < M/M_\odot \le 2.0 $) is found to be $-0.88\pm0.09$, which is shallower than the value ($-1.71\pm0.20$) obtained for MS stars having mass range $2.5 < M/M_\odot \le 17.7$. However for the entire mass range ($0.6 < M/M_\odot \le 17.7 $) the $`\Gamma$’ comes out to be $-1.27\pm0.08$. The effect of mass segregation can be seen on the MS stars. The estimated dynamical evolution time is found to be greater than the age of the cluster, therefore the observed mass segregation in the cluster may be the imprint of the star formation process. Acknowledgements ================ Authors are thankful to the anonymous referee for useful comments. The observations reported in this paper were obtained using the 2 meter HCT at IAO, Hanle, the high altitude station of Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bangalore. We thank the staff at IAO, Hanle and its remote control station at CREST, Hosakote for their assistance during observations. This publication makes use of data from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation. AKP is thankful to the National Central University, Taiwan for the financial support during his visit to NCU. The support given by the DST (India) is also thankfully acknowledged. Aumann, H. H., Fowler, J. W., & Melnyk, M., 1990, AJ, 99, 1674 Bertelli, G., Bressan, A., Chiosi, C., Fagotto, F., & Nasi, E., 1994, A&AS, 106, 275 Bertout, C., Basri, G., & Bouvier, J., 1988, ApJ, 330, 350 Bessell, M. S., & Brett, J. M., 1988, PASP, 100, 1134 Brandl, B., Sams, B. J., Bertoldi, F., Eckart, A., Genzel, R., Drapatz, S., Hofmann, R., Loewe, M., & Quirrenbach, A, 1996, ApJ, 466, 254 Chen, W. P., Chen, C. W., & Shu, C. G., 2004, AJ, 128, 2306 Chini, R., & Wargau, W. F., 1990, A&A, 227, 213 Cohen, J. G., Frogel J. A., Persson, S. E., & Ellias, J. H., ApJ, 1981, 249, 481 Cuffey, J., 1973, AJ, 78, 408 Dolan, C. J., & Mathieu, R. D., 2002, AJ, 123, 387 Elmegreen, B. G., & Lada, C. J. 1977, ApJ, 214, 725 Fischer, P., Pryor, C., Murray, S., Mateo, M., & Richtler, T., 1998, AJ, 115, 592 Fitzsimmons, A., 1993, A&AS, 99, 15 Gaze, V. F., & Shajn, G. A., 1952, Izv. Krym. Astrofiz. Obs., 9, 52 Ghosh, S. K., Verma, R. P., Rengarajan, T. N., Das, B., & Saraiya, H. T., 1993, ApJS, 86, 401 Ghosh, S. K., & Ojha, D. K., 2002, A&A, 388, 326 Herbig, G. H., 1962 Adv. Astron. astrophys. 1,47 Hillenbrand, L. A., 1997, AJ, 113, 1733 Hillenbrand, L. A., Strom, S. E., Vrba, F. J., & Keene, J., 1992, ApJ, 397, 613 Hoag, A.A., Johnson, H.L., Iriarte, B., Mitchell, R.I., Hallam, K.L., & Sharpless, S., 1961, PUSNO, 17, 347 Huang, F., Chen, W. P., & Hsiao, W. S., 2006, JTAM, 4, 27 Israel, F. P., 1978, A&A, 70, 769 Johnson, H. L., & Morgan, W. W., 1953, ApJ, 117, 313 Joshi, Y. C., 2005, MNRAS, 362, 1259 Kaluzny, J., & Udalski, A., 1992, AcA, 42, 29 King, I. 1962, AJ, 67, 471 Koorneef, J., 1983, A&A, 128, 84 Kroupa, P., SCIENCE, 2002, 295, 5552, 82 Lada, E. A., Evans, N. J. II, Depoy, D. L., & Gatley, I., 1991, ApJ, 371, 171 Lada, C. J., & Adams, F. C., 1992, AJ, 393, 278 Lada, E. A., & Lada, C. J., 1995, AJ, 109, 1682 Lada, C. J., & Lada E. A., 2003, ARA&A, 41, 57 Landolt A.U., 1992, AJ 104, 340 Leisawitz, D., Bash, F. N., & Thaddeus, P., 1989, ApJS, 70, 731 Marco, A., Bernabeu, G., & Negueruela, I., 2001, AJ, 121, 2075 Marco, A., & Negueruela, I., 2002, A&A, 393, 195 Massey, P., Johnson, K.E., & DeGioia-Eastwood, K., 1995a, ApJ, 454, 151 Massey, P., Lang, C. C., Degioia-Eastwood, K., & Garmany, C. D., 1995b, ApJ, 438, 188 Mathieu, R.D., 1985, IAU Symp., 113, 427 Mathieu, R.D., & Latham D.W., 1986, AJ 92, 1364 McNamara, B.J., & Sekiguchi K., 1986, ApJ 310, 613 Meyer, M., Calvet, N., & Hillenbrand, L. A., 1997, AJ, 114, 288 Moffat, A.F.J., & Vogt, N., 1974, VeBoc, 2, 1 Negueruela I., Marco, A., Israel, G., & Bernabeu, G., astro-ph/0703706 Ojha, D. K., et. al., 2004a, ApJ, 608, 797 Ojha, D. K., et. al., 2004b, ApJ, 616, 1041 Pandey, A.K., Mahra H.S., & Sagar R., 1992, BASI, 20, 287 Pandey, A. K., Bhatt, B. C., Mahra, H. S., & Sagar, Ram, 1989, MNRAS, 236, 263 Pandey, A. K., Ogura, K., & Sekiguchi, K., 2000, PASJ, 52, 847 Pandey A.K., Nilakshi, Ogura K., Sagar R., & Tarusawa K., 2001 A&A, 374, 504 Pandey, A. K., Upadhyay, K., Nakada, Y., & Ogura, K., 2003, A&A, 397, 191 Pandey, A.K., Upadhyay K., Ogura K., Sagar R., Mohan V., Mito H., Bhatt H.C., & Bhatt B.C., 2005, MNRAS, 358, 1290 Phelps, R. L., & Janes K.A., 1993, AJ 106, 1870 Phelps, R. L., & Janes, K. A. 1994, ApJS, 90, 31 Preibisch, T., & Zinnecker, H., 1999, AJ, 117, 2381 Price, S. D., Egan, M. P., Carey, S. J., Mizuno, D. R., & Kuchar, T. A., 2001, AJ, 121, 2819 Robin, A. C., Reyle, C., Derriere, S., & Picaud, S., 2003, A&A, 409, 409, 523 Sagar, R., Piskunov, A. E., Miakutin, V. I., & Joshi, U. C., 1986, MNRAS, 220, 383 Sagar, R., Miakutin, V. I., Piskunov, A. E., & Dluzhnevskaia, O. B., 1988, MNRAS, 234, 831 Sagar, R., & Richtler, T., 1991, A&A, 250, 324 Sharma, Saurabh, Pandey, A. K., Ogura, K., Mito, H., Tarusawa, K., & Sagar, R., 2006, AJ, 132, 1669 Schmidt-Kaler, Th. 1982, Landolt-Bornstein, Vol. 2b, ed. K. Schaifers, H. H. Voigt & H. Landolt (Berlin: Springer), 19 Siess, L., Dufour, E. & Forestini, M., 2000, A&A, 358, 593 Spitzer, L. Jr., & Hart M.H., 1971, ApJ 164, 399 Stetson, P. B., 1987, PASP, 99, 191 Stetson, P. B., 1992, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 25, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and System I. Astron. Soc. Pac., ed. Warrall D.M., & Biemesderfer C., Barnes J., San Francisco, 297 Sung, H., Chun, M., & Bessell, M. S., 2000, AJ, 120, 333 Tapia, M., Costero, R., Echevarria, J., & Roth, M, 1991, MNRAS, 253, 649 Vallenari, A., Richichi, A., Carraro, G., & Girardi, L., 1999, A&A, 349, 825 \[lastpage\] [^1]: IRAF is distributed by National Optical Astronomy Observatories, USA [^2]: ESO-MIDAS is developed and maintained by the European Southern Observatory.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - 'A. M. de M. Carvalho' - 'C. Sátiro' - 'F. Moraes' title: 'Aharonov-Bohm-like effect for light propagating in nematics with disclinations' --- Introduction ============ In a recent article [@sat] two of us (CS and FM) studied the propagation of light in nematics with topological defects using a geometric approach due to Joets and Ribotta [@joe]. The model associates Fermat’s principle of geometrical optics to geodesics in a hypothetic non-Euclidean space. This way, an effective geometry can be found which may be interpreted as “the cause” of the bending of the light paths, just as in general relativity. An important issue concerning this approach is the possibility of using the mighty resources of differential geometry to calculate physical properties of such system. Indeed, in this Letter we show that spinors, which describe the polarization of a photon, when parallelly tranported around a loop encircling a disclination, acquire a topological phase analogous to the Aharonov-Bohm effect [@aha]. Effective geometry for disclinations in nematics ================================================ We study wedge disclinations of generic strength $k$, whose director configurations, in the plane $x-y$, are given by [@kle] $$\varphi(\theta)=k\theta+c , \label{phi}$$ where $\varphi$ is the angle between the molecular axis and the $x$-axis, $\theta$ is the angular polar coordinate and $c=\varphi(0)$. Selected director configurations can be seen on Figure 11.4 of [@kle]. We assume the disclinations are straight and lie along the $z$-axis and the light rays propagate in the $x$-$y$ plane so, effectively, we have a two-dimensional problem. Eq. (\[phi\]) implies that $\varphi(2\pi)-\varphi(0)=2\pi k$. Since the nematic molecules are symmetric under a rotation of $\pi$ radians around an axis perpendicular to the molecular axis, this result must be $n\pi$ where $n$ is a positive or negative integer. This means that $k$ can only take integer or half-integer values. In ref. [@sat] we found that the effective geometry perceived by light traveling in the neighborhood of a disclination, in a nematic liquid crystal, is described by the line element $$\begin{aligned} & ds^2 & = \left\{\cos^{2}\xi+\alpha^2 \sin^{2}\xi\right\}d\rho^{2} \nonumber\\ & + & \left\{\sin^{2}\xi+\alpha^2 \cos^{2}\xi\right\}\rho^{2}d\theta^{2} \nonumber\\ & - & \left\{2(\alpha^2-1)\sin\xi\cos\xi\right\}\rho d\rho d\theta ,\label{metric} \nonumber\\ & & \end{aligned}$$ where $\xi$ depends on the azimuthal angle $\theta$ as $$\xi(\theta)=(k-1)\theta+c$$ and where $\alpha=n_e/n_o$ and $n_{o}$ and $n_{e}$ are the ordinary and extraordinary refractive indices, respectively. The radial coordinate $r$, used in ref. [@sat], has been rescaled to $\rho=n_o r$. The above metric is associated to a curvature scalar given by $$R=\frac{2k(k-1)(1-\alpha^{2})}{\alpha^{2}\rho^{2}}\cos(2\xi). \label{scalar}$$ In fact, as we show below, this result is valid only for $\rho\neq 0$ since the idealized coreless defects will have a $\delta$-function curvature singularity at $\rho=0$. Parallel transport of a vector in the effective geometry ======================================================== Although our main interest in this work is the parallel transport of spinors, this section is important because it introduces the contribution of the singularity at the $z$-axis to the curvature, which justifies the main result of this Letter. The parallel transport of a vector in a loop involving curved space is equivalent to a local rotation of the vector. The rotation angle contains precious information on the nature of the encircled curved space. We use this information to infer the contribution of the singularity at $\rho=0$ to the curvature. To do this we use the powerful and concise calculus of differential forms [@dar]. We introduce an appropriate dual $1$-form basis (coframe), defined in terms of local zweibein fields by $e^{a}=e^{a}_{\mu}dx^{\mu}$, where $$\begin{aligned} e^{1}&=& \left( \cos\xi d\rho+\sin\xi \rho d\theta\right) \mbox{,} \label{e1}\\ e^{2}&=& \alpha \left( \sin\xi d\rho-\cos\xi \rho d\theta\right) \mbox{.} \label{e2}\end{aligned}$$ We introduce an affine spin connection 1-form $\omega^{a}_{b}$ and define the torsion 2-form and the curvature 2-form, respectively, by $$\begin{aligned} T^{a}&=&\frac{1}{2}T^{a}_{bc}\;e^{b}\wedge e^{c}=de^{a}+\omega^{a}_{b} \wedge e^{b}\mbox{,} \\ R^{a}_{b}&=&\frac{1}{2}R^{a}_{bcd}\; e^{c}\wedge e^{d}.\end{aligned}$$ These are the Maurer-Cartan structure equations. Since we already know that the effective geometry is Riemannian [@sat] we make use of the torsion-free condition for this geometry, which implies that the first of the Maurer-Cartan equations becomes $$de^{a}+\omega^{a}_{\mu} \wedge e^{b}=0.$$ From the 1-form basis we can determine the non-null connection 1-forms: $$\begin{aligned} \omega^{1}_{2}&=&-\omega^{2}_{1}=k\left[\frac{1-\alpha^2}{\alpha}\sin\xi\cos\xi\frac{d\rho}{\rho}\right.\nonumber\\ &+&\left.\left(\frac{1}{\alpha}+\frac{\alpha^{2}-1}{\alpha}\cos^{2}\xi\right)d\theta \right] \mbox{.}\end{aligned}$$ The connection 1-forms transform in the same way as the gauge potential of a non-Abelian gauge theory, which means that any two elements of the group do not commute. This result takes us to the following spin connection for the effective metric (\[metric\]) $$\begin{aligned} \Gamma_{\theta} =\left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & B \\ -B & 0 \end{array}\right) ,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \Gamma_{r} = \left( \begin{array}{cccc} A & 0 \\ 0 & -A \end{array}\right) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} A&=& \frac{1-\alpha^2}{\alpha}\kappa\;\sin\xi\cos\xi\ \mbox{,} \\ B&=& \frac{\kappa}{\alpha}+\kappa\frac{\alpha^{2}-1}{\alpha}\cos^{2}\xi.\end{aligned}$$ The spin connection $\Gamma_{\theta}$ corresponds to orbits with the radial coordinate $\rho$ constant and $\Gamma_{\rho}$ corresponds to curves with the $\theta$ coordinate constant. The holonomy matrix $U(\gamma)$ associated with the parallel transport of vectors around a closed curve $\gamma$ is defined by $$U(\gamma)= {\cal P}\exp \left[ -\oint_{\gamma}dx^{\mu} \Gamma_{\mu} \right],\label{holo}$$ where ${\cal P}$ is the ordering operator. The set of all holonomy matrices forms the holonomy group which is defined as the group of linear transformations of the tangent space $T_{p}M$ induced by parallel transport around loops based at a point $p$. This group possesses information regarding to the curvature of the effective geometry. We are interested in analyzing circular orbits. In this case the holonomy possess only the azimuthal contribution to the spin connection and is written as $$U(\gamma_{\theta})={\cal P}\exp \left(-\oint \Gamma_{\theta}d\theta \right), \label{U}$$ which results in $$\begin{aligned} U(\gamma_{\theta}) = \left( \begin{array}{cccc} \cos\lambda & -\sin\lambda \\ \sin\lambda & \cos\lambda \end{array}\right) \label{matrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \lambda&=&\left(\frac{\pi}{\alpha}+\alpha\pi\right)k \nonumber\\ &+&\frac{\alpha^{2}-1}{\alpha}\left\{\frac{\sin\left[4\pi(k-1)+2c\right]-\sin2c}{4(k-1)}\right\}k \label{lambda}\end{aligned}$$ The matrix $U(\gamma_{\theta})$ gives the effective rotation of the parallelly transported vector but it includes a $2\pi$ rotation due to the loop. Therefore $\chi=2\pi -\lambda$ is the angle between the final and initial versions of the vector. Eq. (\[lambda\]) gets greatly simplified when the allowed values of $k$ (integer or half-integer) are taken into account. For $k=1$ it is easily seen that $$\chi(k=1)=2\pi(1-\alpha) \label{chik1}$$ and for the remaining integer or half-integer $k$ $$\chi(k\neq1)=2\pi-\pi\left[\alpha+\frac{1}{\alpha}\right]k .\label{chik2}$$ Notice that, when $k=1$ and $c=0$ the metric (\[metric\]) reduces to that of a cosmological object, the cosmic string, as already reported in ref. [@sat2] and, accordingly, the outcome of our calculations reduces to the know result for the cosmic string [@val], where $\chi=2\pi(1-\alpha)$. This, at first sight, may seem incompatible with the null curvature obtained when one makes $k=1$ in equation (\[scalar\]). In fact, as it is well known in the cosmic string lore there is a $\delta$-function curvature singularity at $\rho=0$ which is responsible for the change in the direction of the transported vector. As we show below this also happens for the generic $k$ case. Before analysing the more general case we recall that for $k=1$ and $c=0$ the geometry is that of a cone [@sat2]. Fig. \[cone\] clearly shows the effect of the parallel transport of a vector alongside a circle in the Euclidean plane where a wedge of angle $2\pi(1-\alpha)$ was removed in order to make the cone by identification of the lose edges. The resulting angle between the initial and final vectors is $\chi=2\pi(1-\alpha)$, in agreement with eq. (\[chik1\]). ![Parallel transport of a tangent vector around a circle concentric with the tip of a cone. The angle between the initial and final versions of the vector is $\chi=2\pi(1-\alpha)$.[]{data-label="cone"}](alpha.eps){height="1.3in"} Now, the above results have to be compatible with the Gauss-Bonnet theorem [@man] which states that, for a regular Riemannian surface, $$\int_{Q} K dA = 2\pi-\int_{\partial Q}k_{g}ds, \label{gaussbonnet}$$ where $K$ is the Gaussian curvature, $\partial Q$ is the boundary of the singly-connected domain $Q$ and $k_{g}$ is the geodesic curvature of the line $\partial Q$. Since our interest is circular orbits, we take $Q$ to be a disc of radius $\rho$ centered at $\rho=0$ and its circumference to be $\partial Q$. There is a very nice relationship between the Gauss-Bonnet theorem and the element of the holonomy group (\[matrix\]) giving the angle of local rotation of a vector after parallel transport in a loop [@vic], $$\chi=2\pi-\int_{\partial Q}k_{g}ds=\int_{Q} K dA,$$ which we explicitly verify below. For a curve in a surface with line element $ds^2=Edu^2+2Fdudv+Gdv^2$, the geodesic curvature is [@man] $$\begin{aligned} k_g&=&\sqrt{EG-F^2}\left[-\Gamma_{11}^2 \dot{u}^3 +\Gamma_{22}^1 \dot{v}^3-(2\Gamma_{12}^2 -\Gamma_{11}^1)\dot{u}^2\dot{v} \right. \nonumber \\ &+&\left. (2\Gamma_{12}^1 -\Gamma_{22}^2)\dot{u}\dot{v}^2 +\ddot{u}\dot{v}-\ddot{v}\dot{u}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma_{ij}^{k}$ are the Christoffel symbols of second kind and the derivatives are taken with respect to an affine parameter along the curve, which we choose to be $s$ itself. We choose $u=\theta$ and $v=\rho$. The metric given by eq. (\[metric\]) yields $\sqrt{EG-F^2}=\alpha\rho$ and, since $\partial Q$ is a circle $\rho=const$, we have $$ds=\sqrt{\sin^{2}\xi+\alpha^2 \cos^{2}\xi}\rho d\theta ,$$ from (\[metric\]). This gives immediately $$\dot{\theta}=\rho^{-1}(\sin^{2}\xi+\alpha^2 \cos^{2}\xi)^{-1/2}.$$ The geodesic curvature reduces then to $$k_g =-\alpha\rho\Gamma_{\theta\theta}^r \dot{\theta}^3 .$$ Now, using the metric (\[metric\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \Gamma_{\theta\theta}^r=-\frac{\rho}{\alpha^2}\left\{\alpha^2(1-k)+k[1-(1-\alpha^2)\cos^2\xi]^2\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, $$\begin{aligned} \int_{\partial Q}k_g ds&=&\int_{0}^{2\pi}\left\{\frac{(1-k)\alpha}{\sin^{2}\xi+\alpha^2 \cos^{2}\xi}\right. \nonumber\\ &+&\left.\frac{k}{\alpha}[\sin^{2}\xi+\alpha^2 \cos^{2}\xi]\right\}d\theta, \end{aligned}$$ with $\xi(\theta)=(k-1)\theta+c$. These integrals are easily solved to $$\int_{\partial Q}k_g ds=2\pi\alpha$$ for $k=1$ and $$\int_{\partial Q}k_g ds=\pi\left[\alpha+\frac{1}{\alpha}\right]k$$ for $k\neq 1$ integer or half-integer. Since we are working in two-dimensional space, the curvature scalar is related to the Gaussian curvature by $K=R/2$. Using this, we substitute eq. (\[scalar\]) into the left hand side of eq. (\[gaussbonnet\]), with $dA=\alpha\rho d\rho d\theta$, which is easily obtained by taking the wedge product between $e^1$ and $e^2$ (eqs. (\[e1\]) and (\[e2\])). For $k=1$ we have that $K=R/2=0$ but $\chi=2\pi\alpha$ indicates that there should be a $\delta$-function contribution to $K$. Therefore, in order that the Gauss-Bonnet theorem is satisfied, $$K=\left(\frac{1-\alpha}{\alpha}\right)\frac{\delta(\rho)}{\rho} \label{gauss1}$$ for $k=1$, in agreement with ref. [@sok]. Now, for $k\neq 1$ the integral $\int_{q} K dA=0$ again as it can be easily verified taking $K=R/2$ and using eq. (\[scalar\]). Again, it means that eq. (\[scalar\]) is incomplete since $\chi=2\pi-\pi\left[\alpha+\frac{1}{\alpha}\right]k$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned} K&=&\frac{1}{\alpha}\left[1-\left(\alpha+\frac{1}{\alpha}\right)\frac{k}{2}\right]\frac{\delta(\rho)}{\rho}\nonumber\\ &+&\frac{k(k-1)(\alpha^{2}-1)}{\alpha^{2}\rho^{2}}\cos\left\{2\left[(k-1)\theta+c\right]\right\} \label{gauss2}\end{aligned}$$ for $k\neq 1$ integer or half-integer. This means that, even though for $\rho\neq 0$ there is a $\rho$- and $\theta$-dependent curvature associated to the disclination, the average of this curvature term in a disk centered in the origin is null. The singularity there is the sole responsible for the parallel transport effects. In real systems, the curvature $\delta$-function singularity in the core of the defect will be smoothed out. But still, one can think of a localized flux of curvature accross a very small area, the disclination core cross secion. So, even though the light ray does not crosses the core of the disclination, its spin angular momentum will “feel” the curvature flux, in a clear analogy with the Aharonov-Bohm effect. This justifies the next section on the parallel transport of a spinor. Parallel transport of a spinor in the effective geometry ======================================================== An important question that emerges when we study the parallel transport of vectors is what happens with more complex fields when they also undergo a parallel transport. Vectors in a curved background have their orientation changed after a complete loop if there is a nonvanishing average curvature in the region surrounded by the loop. Spinors, as well, have their components changed if the same basis is used. This can be interpreted as a rotation in spinor space or the acquisition of a topological phase like Berry’s [@ber]. Motivated by the spin angular momentum of the light, or polarization, we are interested in the study of the parallel transport of a spinor in the effective geometry associated to the disclinations. The spinorial connection is $$\label{holonomy2} \Gamma_{\mu}(x)=-\frac{1}{4}\omega^{\alpha}_{\nu \mu}\gamma_{\alpha}\gamma^{\nu},$$ where $\gamma_{\alpha}$ are the flat-space Dirac matrices and $\omega^{\alpha}_{\nu \mu}$ are the coefficients of the spin connection. The holonomy matrix is given, as in the parallel transport of vectors, by eq. (\[holo\]) but in terms of the spinorial connection $\Gamma_{\mu}(x)$ instead of the spin connection. For circular orbits we find the following expression for the spinorial connection in terms of the Dirac matrices $$\begin{aligned} \Gamma_{\theta}(x)&=&-\frac{1}{4}\omega^{1}_{2\theta}\left(\gamma_{1}\gamma^{2}-\gamma_{2}\gamma^{1} \right)\nonumber \\ &=&\frac{1}{2} \omega^{1}_{2\theta}\, i\,\sigma^{z},\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the following representation for the $\gamma$ matrices in terms of the Pauli matrices: $\gamma^{1}=i\sigma^{y}$ and $\gamma^{2}=-i\sigma^{x}$. Again, the phase associated with the above spinorial connection is given by eq. (\[U\]). Integrating and expanding the exponential in eq. (\[U\]) we obtain $$U(\gamma_{\theta})=\cos(\chi/2)I+i\sin(\chi/2)\sigma^{z},$$ where $I$ is the identity matrix, $\sigma^{z}$ the Pauli matrix and $\chi$ is given either by eq. (\[chik1\]) or eq. (\[chik2\]). Therefore, when a two-component spinor is parallelly transported in a closed orbit around the curvature flux given by eq. (\[gauss1\]) or eq. (\[gauss2\]) it undergoes a phase change given by $${\|\psi'\rangle}=U(\gamma_{\theta}){\|\psi\rangle}= \left(\begin{matrix} e^{i\chi/2} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{-i\chi/2} \end{matrix}\right) {\|\psi\rangle}, \label{qua}$$ with phase angles corresponding, respectively, to eq.(\[chik1\]) and eq. (\[chik2\]). Discussion ========== The phase (\[qua\]) was obtained for a circular path around the line defect. But this is a topological effect and therefore the loop can be deformed without changing the result as far as the defect core is kept inside the loop. Moreover, since the line integral $\oint = \int_A^B + \int_B^A=\int_A^B - \int_A^B$, following different paths (see Fig. \[cam\]), eq. (\[U\]) can be split into two parts, each integral to be done on a separate path between points $A$ and $B$. ![Integration paths for eq. (\[U\]).[]{data-label="cam"}](caminho.eps){height="1.3in"} This way, the result (\[qua\]) gives the polarization phase difference between two light beams travelling in opposite sides of the defect. Considering a beam of linearly polarized light travelling past a disclination, if the input state is $${\|\psi\rangle}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left({\|+\rangle}+{\|-\rangle}\right),$$ the output state, obtained from eq. (\[qua\]), is $${\|\psi'\rangle}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\exp(i\chi/2){\|+\rangle}+\exp(-i\chi/2){\|-\rangle}\right].$$ The internal product between these two states is $$\vert{\langle \psi\|\psi'\rangle}\vert^2=\frac{1}{4}\left[\exp(i\chi/2)+\exp(-i\chi/2)\right]^2=\cos^2(\chi/2). \label{rot}$$ Then, according to Malus’s law, the polarization plane of the light rotates by a relative angle $\chi/2$. That is, if the original beam is split in two, each of them travelling on either side of the defect, the relative rotation of the polarization plane is given by the angle $\chi/2$ when they are rejoined. Similar results apply to circularly and elliptically polarized beams, as can be easily verified. The rotation of the polarization in eq. (\[rot\]) is analogous to what is observed when a linearly polarized laser beam propagates down a nonplanar optical fiber [@ross]. This effect has been interpreted as a manifestation of Berry’s phase [@chi; @tom]. Like the original Aharonov-Bohm effect [@aha], where a flux of magnetic field provokes a phase shift in a split electron beam, the manifestation of Berry’s phase can be associated to a flux of a gauge field in parameter space [@sim]. In our case, the topological defect is associated to a flux of curvature in ordinary space. Since only the curvature associated to the defect core contributes, the phase is topological and should not depend on the local geometry. On the other hand, the defect is a particular configuration of nematic molecules. If one or a few of them have their orientation disturbed it is no longer the same defect. Then the phase associated to this deformed defect may not be the same as the one obtained here. Thermal agitation and molecular reorientation due to the electric field of a polarized laser beam are then effects that may affect experimental measurements of the predicted phase shift. To minimize thermal effects the sample should be as far below the isotropic to nematic transition temperature as possible. Since the reorientation angle is very small for laser beams with low power [@self; @hat] the minimum possible power should be used. The closest the beam passes the core of the defect the better because the strong “anchoring” of the nematic molecules near the core will offer resistance to the torque provoked by the external field. In order to do an experiment to measure the effect predicted here one needs disclinations in the nematic sample. These defects are spontaneously generated at the isotropic to nematic phase transition. In a recent article, Mukai and coworkers [@hat2] produced disclinations in a lyotropic mixture (potassium laurate, decanol and water) in a sealed planar glass cell. Although their interest was in the formation statistics of the defects (which by the way represents another analogy with cosmic strings) their procedure for generating and identifying the defects can be followed. The defects are observed in an optical microscope with the sample placed between crossed polarizers. If a binocular microscope is used, one of the oculars can be used to focus the laser beam near a chosen defect and the second polarizer rotated in order to maximize the intensity at a photodiode conveniently placed after the second polarizer. This will give the phase change in a single beam travelling past a disclination. One can try also an interference experiment with the aid of the converging lens behavior predicted for some of the disclinations [@sat] since they naturally force light rays following paths on opposing sides of the defect to meet. In this case the relative phase shift between the polarizations of the beams on different sides of the defect is measured. Although in the original Aharonov-Bohm effect there is no deflection of the beam, the analogy is in the fact that in both cases there is a confined field flux causing a topological phase shift. As described above, the deflection is an advantage that can help in the detection of the effect. Diffraction of light by a disclination will certainly be affected by the effective geometry described here. Although the more interesting cases will be those of asymmetric defects (under present study) we can infer some properties of the $k=1$ case (symmetric defect) from their cosmic analogues. In reference [@sat2] it was shown that the $k=1$ defect is analogous to a cosmic string in the sense that they share the same space geometry. Linet [@lin] and, more recently, Yamamoto and Tsunoda [@yam] investigated the propagation of a plane wave past a cosmic string in the limit of geometrical optics. From their work we obtain that the cylindrical diffracted wave has an order of magnitude $\frac{A\alpha}{2\pi}$, where $A$ is the amplitude of the incident plane wave and $\alpha=\frac{n_o}{n_e}$. For cosmic strings [@vil] $\alpha=1-4G\mu/c^2\approx 10^{-6}$, where $G$ is the gravitational constant and $\mu$ is the mass density of the string, which for grand unification strings $\mu\approx 10^{22}g/cm$. This indicates that, while the diffraction effect may be very difficult to observe for cosmic strings, it may be observable for disclinations in nematic liquid crystals which have $\alpha\approx 10^0$. A recent experiment that is somehow related to the results presented here was done by Marrucci and coworkers [@angular]. Injecting circularly polarized light in q plates, which are in fact cross sections of the defects discussed here, they observed the conversion of the spin angular momentum into orbital angular momentum. The incident Gaussian beam is therefore converted to a helical mode preserving total angular momentum in this process. Their setup is exactly orthogonal to ours but nevertheless a change in the helicity is observed although not in the sense of our work. In our case there is only a rotation of the polarization without conversion of spin to angular momentum therefore keeping a Gaussian beam in its original mode. A number of experiments have been carried out on the manifestation of Berry’s phase for the photon polarization. Among them is the observation of the rotation of linearly polarized light propagating down a helically wound, single-mode optical fiber [@ross; @tom]. We have seen above that the polarization of light propagating in the neighborhood of disclinations is affected in a similar way by the director field of the defect. Using a geometric approach we showed that this polarization change is due to a flux of curvature associated to the core of the disclination. This is clearly a manifestation of Berry’s phase and analogous to the Aharonov-Bohm effect in the sense that the spinorial connection $\Gamma_{\mu}$ has the same role as the vector potential $A_{\mu}$ in provoking the phase change. Similar effects were predicted for disclinations in elastic solids [@azevedo] and for femionic quasiparticles in superfluids [@gar]. We thank CNPq and CAPES (PROCAD program) and FINEP/FAPESQ (PRONEX program). We are also indebted to J. Schaum, C. Furtado, H. Mukai and P. R. G. Fernandes for important comments and suggestions. [0]{} . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
=25.3cm=-2.2cm=15.3cm -0.1cm-0.1cm ------------------ HEPHY-PUB 725/99 UWThPh-1999-77 hep-ph/0001191 December 1999 ------------------ \ [COMMENT ON “CALCULATION OF THE\ QUARKONIUM SPECTRUM AND $\mbox{\boldmath{$m$}}_{\bf b},$ $\mbox{\boldmath{$m$}}_{\bf c}$\ TO ORDER $\mbox{\boldmath{$\alpha$}}_{\bf s}^4$”]{}\ \ Institut für Hochenergiephysik,\ Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften,\ Nikolsdorfergasse 18, A-1050 Wien, Austria\ \ Institut für Theoretische Physik,\ Universität Wien,\ Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Wien, Austria A recent determination of the mass of the b quark, based exclusively on quantum chromodynamics (by avoiding strictly to introduce any phenomenological interaction potential of nonperturbative origin), may be improved by allowing for a merely numerical solution of the corresponding eigenvalue problem. [PACS numbers]{}: 14.40.Gx, 12.38.Bx, 12.38.Lg Recently, Pineda and Ynduráin [@PinedaYndurain98] presented a re-analysis of heavy quarkonia. Their investigation is based on the main assumption that bound systems of heavy quarks may be reasonably described by nonrelativistic kinematics and only the perturbative contribution to the quark–antiquark interaction potential $V$ if all nonperturbative effects are taken into account by some appropriate correction to the energy. In order to describe a system of a heavy quark and antiquark, both with constituent mass $m$, forming a bound state with total spin $s=0$ or $s=1$, Pineda and Ynduráin consider the Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned} H&=&2\,m-\frac{1}{m}\,\Delta-\frac{1}{4\,m^3}\,\Delta^2 +V_0^{\rm P}(r)+\frac{C_{\rm F}\,\alpha(\mu)}{m^2\,r}\,\Delta+\frac{C_{\rm F}\,\alpha^2(\mu)}{4\,m\,r^2}\,(C_{\rm F}-2\,C_{\rm A})\nonumber\\[1ex] &+&\frac{4\,\pi\,C_{\rm F}\,\alpha(\mu)}{3\,m^2}\,s\,(s+1)\,\delta^{(3)}({\bf x})\ ,\quad r\equiv\|{\bf x}\|\ .\label{Eq:HPY}\end{aligned}$$The perturbative contribution to the static quark–antiquark interaction potential, $V_0^{\rm P}(r),$ is known up to and including the two-loop level [@StatPot2L]:$$\begin{aligned} V_0^{\rm P}(r) &=&-C_{\rm F}\,\frac{\alpha(\mu)}{r}\left\{1+\frac{\alpha(\mu)}{4\,\pi} \left[\frac{5}{3}\,\beta_0-\frac{8}{3}\,C_{\rm A}+2\,\beta_0\, [\ln(\mu\,r)+\gamma_{\rm E}]\right]\right.\\[1ex] &+&\left(\frac{\alpha(\mu)}{4\,\pi}\right)^2\left[ \beta_0^2\left(4\,[\ln(\mu\,r)+\gamma_{\rm E}]^2+\frac{\pi^2}{3}\right)+\left( 2\,\beta_1+\frac{20}{3}\,\beta_0^2-\frac{32}{3}\,\beta_0\,C_{\rm A}\right) [\ln(\mu\,r)+\gamma_{\rm E}]\right.\\[1ex]&+&\left(\frac{4343}{162}+4\,\pi^2 -\frac{\pi^4}{4}+\frac{22}{3}\,\zeta(3)\right)C_{\rm A}^2-\left(\frac{1798}{81} +\frac{56}{3}\,\zeta(3)\right)n_{\rm f}\,C_{\rm A}\,T_{\rm F}\\[1ex]&-& \left.\left.\left(\frac{55}{3}-16\,\zeta(3)\right)n_{\rm f}\,C_{\rm F}\, T_{\rm F}+\frac{400}{81}\,n_{\rm f}^2\,T_{\rm F}^2\right]\right\}.\end{aligned}$$Here, the following notations have been adopted: $\alpha(\mu)$ denotes the strong fine-structure constant in the modified minimal-subtraction ($\overline{\rm MS}$) renormalization scheme. For a non-Abelian gauge theory for $n_{\rm f}$ Dirac fermions, invariant w. r. t. gauge transformations forming a Lie group SU($N$) describing $N$ colour degrees of freedom, the quadratic Casimir invariants read, for the fundamental representation,$$C_{\rm F}=\frac{N^2-1}{2\,N}$$and, for the adjoint representation,$$C_{\rm A}=N\ ,$$if the generators of the Lie group SU($N$) are normalized such that the second-order Dynkin index of the fundamental representation is$$T_{\rm F}=\frac{1}{2}\ .$$The dependence of the effective (running) fine-structure constant $\alpha(\mu)$ on the renormalization scale $\mu$ is described in terms of the Gell-Mann–Low $\beta$ function according to$$\frac{\mu}{2}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\mu}\alpha(\mu)= -\frac{\alpha^2(\mu)}{4\,\pi}\,\beta_0 -\frac{\alpha^3(\mu)}{(4\,\pi)^2}\,\beta_1 -\frac{\alpha^4(\mu)}{(4\,\pi)^3}\,\beta_2+O(\alpha^5)\ ,$$involving the well-known expressions for the (gauge-invariant) one-, two-, and three-loop expansion coefficients in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme [@Tarasov80]$$\begin{aligned} \beta_0&=&\frac{11}{3}\,C_{\rm A}-\frac{4}{3}\,n_{\rm f}\,T_{\rm F}\ ,\\[1ex] \beta_1&=&\frac{34}{3}\,C_{\rm A}^2-\frac{20}{3}\,n_{\rm f}\,C_{\rm A}\,T_{\rm F}-4\,n_{\rm f}\,C_{\rm F}\,T_{\rm F}\ ,\\[1ex] \beta_2&=&\frac{2857}{54}\,C_{\rm A}^3-\frac{1415}{27}\,n_{\rm f}\,C_{\rm A}^2\,T_{\rm F}+\frac{158}{27}\,n_{\rm f}^2\,C_{\rm A}\,T_{\rm F}^2 -\frac{205}{9}\,n_{\rm f}\,C_{\rm A}\,C_{\rm F}\,T_{\rm F}+\frac{44}{9}\,n_{\rm f}^2\,C_{\rm F}\,T_{\rm F}^2 +2\,n_{\rm f}\,C_{\rm F}^2\,T_{\rm F}\ .\end{aligned}$$The resulting dependence of the fine-structure constant $\alpha(\mu)$ on the chosen renormalization scale $\mu$, expressed in terms of the (standard) scale parameter $\Lambda$, reads up to and including the three-loop level$$\begin{aligned} \alpha(\mu)&=& \frac{4\,\pi}{\beta_0\ln(\mu^2/\Lambda^2)}\left\{1-\frac{\beta_1}{\beta_0^2}\, \frac{\ln(\ln(\mu^2/\Lambda^2))}{\ln(\mu^2/\Lambda^2)}\right.\\[1ex] &+&\left.\frac{\beta_1^2}{\beta_0^4\ln^2(\mu^2/\Lambda^2)} \left[\left(\ln(\ln(\mu^2/\Lambda^2))-\frac{1}{2}\right)^2 +\frac{\beta_2\,\beta_0}{\beta_1^2}-\frac{5}{4}\right]\right\}.\end{aligned}$$$\gamma_{\rm E}$ is known as Euler–Mascheroni constant. In the case of quantum chromodynamics, clearly, $N=3.$ Now, in order to stick to an entirely analytical analysis and following the philosophy developed in an earlier treatment [@TitardYndurain94] of heavy quarkonia, in Ref. [@PinedaYndurain98] the static potential $V_0^{\rm P}(r)$ is split, according to$$V_0^{\rm P}(r)=\tilde V(r)+\hat V(r)\ ,\label{Eq:statpotsplit}$$into the Coulomb-like contribution$$\tilde V(r)\equiv-C_{\rm F}\,\frac{\tilde\alpha(\mu)}{r}\ ,$$with the effective fine-structure constant$$\begin{aligned} \tilde\alpha(\mu)&\equiv&\alpha(\mu) \left\{1+\frac{\alpha(\mu)}{4\,\pi}\left(\frac{5}{3}\,\beta_0 -\frac{8}{3}\,C_{\rm A}+2\,\beta_0\,\gamma_{\rm E}\right)\right.\\[1ex] &+&\left(\frac{\alpha(\mu)}{4\,\pi}\right)^2\left[ \beta_0^2\left(4\,\gamma_{\rm E}^2+\frac{\pi^2}{3}\right)+\left( 2\,\beta_1+\frac{20}{3}\,\beta_0^2-\frac{32}{3}\,\beta_0\,C_{\rm A}\right) \gamma_{\rm E}\right.\\[1ex]&+&\left(\frac{4343}{162}+4\,\pi^2 -\frac{\pi^4}{4}+\frac{22}{3}\,\zeta(3)\right)C_{\rm A}^2-\left(\frac{1798}{81} +\frac{56}{3}\,\zeta(3)\right)n_{\rm f}\,C_{\rm A}\,T_{\rm F}\\[1ex]&-& \left.\left.\left(\frac{55}{3}-16\,\zeta(3)\right)n_{\rm f}\,C_{\rm F}\, T_{\rm F}+\frac{400}{81}\,n_{\rm f}^2\,T_{\rm F}^2\right]\right\},\end{aligned}$$and an obvious remainder involving logarithms of the radial coordinate $r$,$$\begin{aligned} \hat V(r)&=&-C_{\rm F}\,\frac{\alpha^2(\mu)}{4\,\pi\,r} \left\{2\,\beta_0\,\ln(\mu\,r)\frac{}{}\right.\\[1ex] &+&\left.\frac{\alpha(\mu)}{4\,\pi}\left[4\,\beta_0^2\,\ln^2(\mu\,r) +\left(2\,\beta_1+\frac{20}{3}\,\beta_0^2-\frac{32}{3}\,\beta_0\,C_{\rm A} +8\,\beta_0^2\,\gamma_{\rm E}\right)\ln(\mu\,r)\right]\right\}.\end{aligned}$$The eigenvalue problem for the Coulombic Hamiltonian $$\tilde H\equiv 2\,m-\frac{1}{m}\,\Delta+\tilde V(r)$$is solved exactly, yielding, for instance, for the ground state, the energy eigenvalue $\tilde E_0=2\,m+\varepsilon_0,$ with the Coulomb binding energy$$\varepsilon_0=-\frac{C_{\rm F}^2\,\tilde\alpha^2(\mu)\,m}{4}\ .$$The “non-Coulombic” part $H-\tilde H$ of the Hamiltonian (\[Eq:HPY\]) is treated perturbatively. Counting carefully the powers of $\alpha$ yields analytical expressions for the eigenvalues of $H$ correct up to and including the order $\alpha^4$. Nonperturbative effects are incorporated by adding the Leutwyler–Voloshin correction [@NPC], which involves the gluon condensate $\langle\alpha\,G^2\rangle=0.06\pm 0.02\;\mbox{GeV}^4$. For the ground state, this correction amounts to the energy shift$$\delta E_0=\frac{624}{425}\,\frac{\pi\,\langle\alpha\,G^2\rangle\,m}{(C_{\rm F}\,\tilde\alpha(\mu)\,m)^4}\ .$$By inversion of the expression for the (ground-state) bound-state mass emerging from this procedure, the corresponding quark pole mass $m$ is computed. For instance, with $\Lambda(n_{\rm f}=4)=0.23\!\!{\tiny\begin{array}{l}+0.08\\-0.05\end{array}}\!\mbox{GeV}$ and $\mu=\sqrt{6.632\pm 25\,\%}\;\mbox{GeV},$ implying $\alpha(\mu)=0.246$ and $\tilde\alpha(\mu)=0.386,$ the experimental value [@PDT98] of the $\Upsilon$ mass, $M(\Upsilon)_{\rm exp}=9.46037\pm 0.00021\;\mbox{GeV},$ translates into the b quark mass $m_{\rm b}=5.001\!\!{\tiny\begin{array}{l} +0.104\\-0.066\end{array}}\!\mbox{GeV}$ [@PinedaYndurain98]. However, a perturbative treatment as implied by the splitting (\[Eq:statpotsplit\]) of the static potential $V_0^{\rm P}(r)$ is by no means mandatory, obligatory, or even desirable. We may also adopt the following point of view. Given the operator $H$ defined by Eq. (\[Eq:HPY\]) (accurate up to a certain order in $\alpha$), compute (numerically, if necessary) its discrete spectrum, i. e., the set of eigenvalues, irrespective of the involved powers of $\alpha$. Of course, the terms in Eq. (\[Eq:HPY\]) proportional to$$-\Delta^2\ ,\quad+\frac{1}{r}\,\Delta\ ,$$and, if the effective coupling strength multiplying this term exceeds some critical value, also the term in Eq. (\[Eq:HPY\]) proportional to$$-\frac{1}{r^2}$$render the operator $H$ unbounded from below and have therefore to be treated perturbatively anyway. The Hamiltonian$$\hat H\equiv 2\,m-\frac{1}{m}\,\Delta+V_0^{\rm P}(r)\ ,\label{Eq:SPH}$$on the other hand, may certainly be analyzed without adhering to some perturbative approximation. In order to obtain a first idea of the differences brought about by these two approaches, let us start by considering only the Hamiltonian (\[Eq:SPH\]). The perturbative calculation is straightforward. Introducing, for notational brevity, the generalized Bohr radius $$a(\mu)\equiv\frac{2}{C_{\rm F}\,\tilde\alpha(\mu)\,m}\ ,$$the expectation values of the non-Coulombic interaction $\hat V(r)$ w. r. t. the ground state of $\tilde H$ (indicated by the subscript $\tilde 0$) may be evaluated with the help of the relations (see also Appendix B of Ref. [@TitardYndurain94]) $$\begin{aligned} \left\langle\frac{\ln(\mu\,r)}{r}\right\rangle_{\tilde 0}&=& \frac{1}{a(\mu)}\left[\ln\left(\frac{\mu\,a(\mu)}{2}\right)+1-\gamma_{\rm E}\right],\\[1ex]\left\langle\frac{\ln^2(\mu\,r)}{r}\right\rangle_{\tilde 0}&=& \frac{1}{a(\mu)}\left[\ln^2\left(\frac{\mu\,a(\mu)}{2}\right)+2\,(1-\gamma_{\rm E})\,\ln\left(\frac{\mu\,a(\mu)}{2}\right)+(1-\gamma_{\rm E})^2+\frac{\pi^2}{6}-1\right].\end{aligned}$$The nonperturbative evaluation of $\hat H$ is performed with some numerical procedure[^1] developed for the treatment of the nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation [@Lucha98IJMPC]. In this way, we find, for the parameter values used in the second of Refs. [@PinedaYndurain98] and focusing our interest to the ground state, for the Coulomb binding energy, $\varepsilon_0=-0.33146\;\mbox{GeV},$ for the expectation value of $\hat V(r)$, $\langle\hat V(r)\rangle_{\tilde 0}=-0.13714\;\mbox{GeV},$ and thus, for the perturbatively calculated ground-state energy,[^2] $\hat E_0^{\rm P}\equiv 2\,m+\varepsilon_0+\langle\hat V(r)\rangle_{\tilde 0}=9.5334\;\mbox{GeV},$ while the numerically computed “exact” lowest eigenvalue of the operator (\[Eq:SPH\]) is $\hat E_0^{\rm NP}\equiv\langle\hat H\rangle_0=9.5198\;\mbox{GeV}.$ Consequently, for the parameters of Ref. [@PinedaYndurain98] the difference in the lowest bound-state mass predicted by the Hamiltonian (\[Eq:SPH\]) within perturbative and nonperturbative approaches is $\hat E_0^{\rm P}-\hat E_0^{\rm NP}=13.6\;\mbox{MeV}.$ Unfortunately, this discrepancy is roughly 65 times larger than the experimental error on the $\Upsilon$ mass. Phrased the other way round, the perturbative ground-state eigenvalue $\hat E_0^{\rm P}$ of $\hat H$ can be reproduced by the nonperturbative evaluation of $\hat H$ for a mass $m$ of the bound-state constituents of $m=5.008\;\mbox{GeV}.$ For the b quark mass of Ref. [@PinedaYndurain98], the theoretical error different from the one induced by variation of the renormalization scale $\mu,$ attributed to neglected higher-order perturbative as well as nonperturbative corrections, is estimated to be $\pm0.006\;\mbox{GeV}.$ Obviously, this error is entirely consumed already by the difference of the masses of the bound-state constituents obtained by perturbative and nonperturbative evaluations of $\hat H.$ In view of these findings, let’s try to improve the theoretical value of the b quark pole mass $m_{\rm b}$ by approaching the part $\hat H$ of the Hamiltonian (\[Eq:HPY\]) nonperturbatively. The numerical computation of the expectation values of the operator $H-\hat H$ is considerably facilitated by the following two observations: - The eigenvalue equation for the “toy-model” (Hamiltonian) operator $\hat H$ defined in Eq. (\[Eq:SPH\]) reads, for some generic (energy) eigenvalue $\hat E$ and its corresponding eigenstate $\|\psi\rangle$ of $\hat H$, $\hat H\|\psi\rangle=\hat E\,\|\psi\rangle.$ Thus the expectation values of all terms in the Hamiltonian (\[Eq:HPY\]) involving the Laplacian $\Delta,$ taken w. r. t. $\|\psi\rangle,$ may be evaluated by substituting $\Delta$ according to $\Delta\|\psi\rangle=m\left[2\,m+V_0^{\rm P}(r)-\hat E\right]\|\psi\rangle.$ - The expectation value of the $\delta$ function entering in the “spin–spin term” of the Hamiltonian (\[Eq:HPY\]), taken w. r. t. $\|\psi\rangle,$ is the modulus squared of the corresponding wave function $\psi({\bf x})$ at the origin: $\langle\psi\|\delta^{(3)}({\bf x})\|\psi\rangle=\|\psi({\bf 0})\|^2.$ For states with vanishing orbital angular momentum $\ell$ (the so-called “S waves”), $\|\psi({\bf 0})\|^2$ may be expressed in terms of the first derivative of the relevant interaction potential $V(r)$ w. r. t. the radial coordinate $r$ according to (for a derivation, see, e. g., Ref. [@Lucha91PRep])$$\|\psi({\bf 0})\|^2=\frac{m}{4\,\pi} \left\langle\psi\left\|\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}r}V(r)\right\|\psi\right\rangle.$$ In this way, the lowest eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian $H$ may be computed from the expression (where the subscript 0 of the expectation values indicates, as before, the ground state of the Hamiltonian $\hat H$) $$\begin{aligned} E_0\equiv\langle H\rangle_0&=&\hat E_0^{\rm NP}-\frac{1}{4\,m^3}\left\langle\Delta^2\right\rangle_0+\frac{C_{\rm F}\,\alpha(\mu)}{m^2}\left\langle\frac{1}{r}\,\Delta\right\rangle_0 +\frac{C_{\rm F}\,\alpha^2(\mu)}{4\,m}\,(C_{\rm F}-2\,C_{\rm A})\left\langle\frac{1}{r^2}\right\rangle_0\\[1ex] &+&\frac{4\,\pi\,C_{\rm F}\,\alpha(\mu)}{3\,m^2}\,s\,(s+1)\,\|\psi_0({\bf 0})\|^2\ .\end{aligned}$$Adding the nonperturbative shift $\delta E_0$ gives our final result for the ground-state energy: ${\cal E}_0=E_0+\delta E_0.$ For the parameter values of Ref. [@PinedaYndurain98] and a b quark mass of $m_{\rm b}=5.001\;\mbox{GeV},$ this expression entails the bound-state energy ${\cal E}_0=9.4953\;\mbox{GeV}.$ Hence, the error of the predicted $\Upsilon$ mass brought about by the perturbative approximation in the treatment of the Hamiltonian (\[Eq:HPY\]), which amounts to $35\;\mbox{MeV},$ is of the order of the hyperfine splittings in the bottomonium system. For the latter, the second of Refs. [@PinedaYndurain98] quotes, e. g., $M(\Upsilon)-M(\eta_{\rm b})=46.6\!\!{\tiny\begin{array}{l}+14.8\\-12.7\end{array}}\!\mbox{MeV}.$ Consequently, a re-evaluation of the b quark mass appears to be in order. Fitting the ground-state bound-state energy ${\cal E}_0$, for the numerical values of the parameters $\Lambda,$ $\mu,$ and $\langle\alpha\,G^2\rangle$ adopted in Ref. [@PinedaYndurain98], to the experimental mass of the $\Upsilon,$ we obtain for the pole mass of the b quark$$m_{\rm b}=4.983\;\mbox{GeV}\ .$$The errors caused by the uncertainties of $\Lambda$ and $\langle\alpha\,G^2\rangle$ and by the variation of $\mu$ should be practically the same as in Ref. [@PinedaYndurain98]. Hence, dropping the requirement of analytical accessibility of the Hamiltonian (\[Eq:HPY\]) reduces the extracted b quark mass by some $18\;\mbox{MeV}.$ A very similar result is expected to be found for the determination of the c quark mass. We arrive at the conclusion that in Refs. [@PinedaYndurain98] the theoretical errors on the quark masses have been somewhat underestimated. Note that the above considerations apply, of course, also to the analysis presented in Ref. [@TitardYndurain94]. Note also that the correct [@Tarasov80] numerical factor in the numerator of the first term in the expression for the three-loop $\beta$ function coefficient $\beta_2$ differs slightly from the one used in Refs. [@PinedaYndurain98]. [30]{} A. Pineda and F. J. Ynduráin, Phys. Rev. D [58]{} (1998) 094022; hep-ph/9812371. M. Peter, Phys. Rev. Lett. [78]{} (1997) 602; Nucl. Phys. B [501]{} (1997) 471;\ Y. Schröder, Phys. Lett. B [447]{} (1999) 321; hep-ph/9909520. O. V. Tarasov, A. A. Vladimirov, and A. Yu. Zharkov, Phys. Lett. B [93]{} (1980) 429. S. Titard and F. J. Ynduráin, Phys. Rev. D [49]{} (1994) 6007. M. B. Voloshin, Nucl. Phys. B [154]{} (1979) 365;\ H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. B [98]{} (1981) 447. C. Caso [et al.]{} (Particle Data Group), Eur. Phys. J. C [3]{} (1998) 1. W. Lucha and F. F. Schöberl, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C [10]{} (1999) 607, hep-ph/9811453. W. Lucha, F. F. Schöberl, and D. Gromes, Phys. Rep. [200]{} (1991) 127. [^1]: The desired accuracy of the (numerically determined) bound-state energies and wave functions may be adjusted in the routine used for the solution of the Schrödinger equation. For the present analysis, the uncertainty of these energies has been required to be less than $10^{-7}\;\mbox{GeV}=100\;\mbox{eV}.$ This accuracy should be, by far, sufficient for our purposes. [^2]: For the perturbative treatment of $\hat H$, we truncate the Rayleigh–Schrödinger series for $\hat E_0^{\rm P}$ at lowest non-trivial order in $\hat V(r)$. Inclusion of the next order [@PinedaYndurain98] reduces the observed discrepancies but does not change qualitatively our findings.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'A HD-like isotopic dipole moment is proposed as a sensible probe for molecular environments, in particular for electrostatic fields and polarizable (reactive) sites of molecules. Fictitious nuclear masses are chosen in order to yield a rigid dipole with appropriate magnitude. Upon subtracting the Born-Oppenheimer energy, the interaction is reduced to the field-dipole-like and the dipole-polarizability-like terms, the last one being particularly informative since connected to potentially reactive sites. The field strength and orientation are easily obtained by identifying the minimum field-dipole energy configuration and flipping the dipole from it. In this case the method appears to have a superior accuracy in comparison with ab initio approaches. In tests with hydrogen, water, benzene and chlorobenzene molecules and with a frustrated Lewis pair, the potential of the method is assessed.' author: - \| José R. Mohallem and Paulo F. G. Velloso\ Laboratório de Átomos e Moléculas Especiais,\ Departamento de Física, ICEx, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais,\ PO Box 702, 30123-970, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil\ [email protected],\ \ Antonio F. C. Arapiraca\ Coordenação de Ciências,\ Centro Federal de Educação Tecnológica de Minas Gerais,\ 30421-169, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil title: Probing molecular environments with a fictitious isotopic dipole --- Introduction ============ In the last decades, the applicability of ab initio quantum chemical methods have been extended to the study of structural and dynamical properties of very large isolated molecules. Many important processes of modern science however, including those involving life, demand a step further, namely the generation of accurate theoretical knowledge of the properties of molecular environments, which are connected to the detailed description of Van der Waals (VdW) interactions and the identification of reactive sites for chemical processes [@Buck88; @Maksic13]. The quite important topics of biological recognition [@Culver17], hydrogen bonding [@Omeara15], and computer simulations and modelling of molecular complexes and new materials [@Koc14; @Wang14; @Botu17], for instance, lie on this subject. Particularly, the electrostatic field created by a source molecule on its surroundings is considered as being helpful for this prospect [@Koc14; @Polit85; @Gadre00; @Kumar14; @Mohan14; @Sunda17], since it indicates how the molecule affects statically its environment. But the knowledge of the molecular polarization “potential”, meaning the way the molecule would react dynamically to the presence of another, is of even greater importance [@Polit17]. Reporting back to a review by Scrocco and Tomasi [@Scro78], many investigations in these fields in the last decades rely on the molecular electrostatic potential (MEP) method, in order to investigate structure, reactivity and other properties of large molecules. Ab initio MEP derives directly from the electronic density [@Polit85; @Polit17; @Gadre00] and is the only method of general applicability so far. On the other hand, besides being static properties of isolated molecules, MEP fields are also inaccurate in regions close to the source molecule. This unsatisfactory situation motivated recent movements to the point charges model [@Cox81] and from the last to particular multipole expansions [@Pop14] and fragmented potentials [@Reid13]. The situation is still unfavourable since, despite some particular tentatives [@Botu17; @Pond02; @Boeuf14; @Gord17], there is still no general approach to the real problem of predicting what happens when large molecules approach each other. We propose here a change of the present paradigm to approach the problem, by exploring molecular environments with a computational probe that, simultaneously, evaluates the electrostatic field and slightly interacts with the source molecule, identifying polarizable (perhaps reactive) sites. VdW interactions are usually described by the well known classical fields [@Hozba88]. The partitioning of the quantum mechanical (VdW and stronger) energy in identifiable terms is not a well defined task, however, since the effects are all mixed in quantum chemical calculations. A prospective probe would allow us to turn on just particular parts of the interaction energy and extract valuable information about the interaction, by isolating and identifying them. HD-like (D: Deuterium) isotopic dipole moments arise as good candidates. Besides HD being a small, neutral and closed-shell molecule and having reasonably small polarizability, its dipole moment displays the here proposed feature that the interaction can be isolated, to a good extent, as that of a classical permanent dipole moment interacting with the source molecule. This dipole, made rigid by allowing just its rotational and translational degrees of freedom, will slightly polarize the source and, once this effect is separated, will align to the source field. This possibility arises from our ability to perform molecular electronic calculations accounting for the finiteness of the nuclear masses, the so-called FNMC (finite-nuclear-mass-corrections) approach [@Moha04; @Moha11], which has proven to yield correct experimental trends for isotopic dipole moments [@Ara11; @Ara14; @Ara16]. The FNMC electronic hamiltonian is $$H=-\sum\limits_{A}(\sum\limits_{i}P_{A}\frac{\nabla_{i}^{2}}{2M_{A}} P_{A})+H_{BO}, \label{eq1}$$ in which $H_{BO}$ is the usual clamped-nuclei Born-Oppenheimer (BO) hamiltonian, $M_{A}$ is the mass of a generic nucleus, $P_{A}\frac{\nabla_{i}^{2}}{2M_{A}}P_{A}$ is the correction to the kinetic energy of electron $i$ due to the finiteness of $M_{A}$ and $P_{A}$ projects the molecular electronic wavefunction on the space of the atomic wavefunctions. The signature of the nuclear masses in hamiltonian (\[eq1\]) allows to account for the isotopic effects already on the electronic level. For the present purposes, the FNMC electronic energy of the probe-molecule system will be written as $$E=E_{BO}+E_{dm}=E_{BO}+E_{df}+E_{dp}+E_{d+m}, \ \label{eq2}$$ where $E_{BO}$ is the BO energy of an equivalent calculation for the probe-molecule system, $E_{dm}$ is the interaction energy of the probe dipole with the molecule, $E_{df}$ is the energy of the dipole in the molecular electrostatic field, $E_{dp}$ is the dipole-polarization energy and $E_{d+m}$ is the constant FNMC contribution of the isolated molecule and probe. A most important feature is that $E_{BO}$ must account for all lead, non-isotopic, interaction energy terms so that $E_{dm}$ accounts only for the energy terms of the rigid dipole interacting with the source molecule. Despite not being an issue, we do not subtract the positive constant term $E_{d+m}$, since the approach is not restricted to methods having size-consistency in FNMC calculations. Upon subtracting the BO energy, $E_{dm}$ is written $$E_{dm}=E-E_{BO}=E_{df}+E_{dp}=-\mu\epsilon cos\theta+E_{dp}+E_{d+m}, \ \label{eq3}$$ in which $\theta$ is the angle between the field $\boldsymbol\epsilon$ and the isotopic dipole moment $\boldsymbol\mu$ of the probe. Eqn. (\[eq3\]) will allow the identification of the two components of $E_{dm}$ by fitting procedures. In the case of a polar molecule, $E_{df}$ will be strongly dominant. Otherwise, in the limit of a polarizable point molecule, we will find useful the classical formula for $E_{dp}$, namely $$E_{dp}=-\dfrac{\alpha\mu^2 (3cos^2\theta+1)}{2 r^6}, \ \label{eq30}$$ in which $\alpha$ is the isotropic polarizability. Near the molecule, the dependence of $E_{df}$ and $E_{dp}$ with $r$ (distance from a chosen point of the molecule to the center of the dipole) is hardly so simple, however. On the other hand, we can take advantage of the constancy of the electrostatic field in a fixed point and the proportionality of $E_{df}$ with $cos\theta$ in order to separate the $\theta$ dependence of the two terms, by turning the probe around a chosen axis which passes by the fixed point (see Figure 1, for example). In cases in which we can consider the molecule as a point particle, $E_{dp}$ will be proportional to $(3cos^2\theta+1)$ as in Eqn. (\[eq30\]) and the procedure is much easier. In general cases, the dependence of $E_{dm}$ on $\theta$ can be checked, since the same dependence for $E_{df}$ is known. Furthermore, when we explore the symmetry of the molecule and the rigidity of the probe dipole, the $\theta$ dependence of $E_{dp}$ can agree with Eqn. (\[eq30\]) in particular situations, even when the dependence with $r$ does not. These features greatly simplify the analysis of the interaction, allowing a dissection of $E_{dm}$, with both the evaluation of the electric field and the characterization of $E_{dp}$. These are the two goals of this work, which turns out as a powerful tool for the analysis of molecular environments. Once $E_{df}$ is isolated, the electrostatic field can be easily obtained. In fact, the dipole probe will align to it in the configuration for which $E_{df}$ is a minimum, fixing then the field orientation. As for its magnitude, let us define $$\delta(E_{df,\theta})=(E_{df,0})-(E_{df,\theta}), \ \label{eq4}$$ where $(E_{df,\theta})$ is calculated for the dipole assuming an angle $\theta$ from the field direction. Flipping the dipole to the counter-aligned configuration, $\theta=\pi$ rad, the energy difference $\delta(E_{df,\pi})$ yields the electric field magnitude as, $$\epsilon=\frac{\delta(E_{df,\pi})}{2\mu}. \ \label{eq5}$$ An stringent test of this procedure is the accuracy of a fit of $E_{df}$ to a cosine function. In general, a trial and error fitting of $E_{dm}$ data to Eqn. (\[eq3\]) gives information about $E_{dp}$ without previous knowledge of properties (dipole moment, polarizabilities, etc.) of the source molecule. Cases in which $E_{df}$ is largely dominant (correspondent to highly polar molecules) are more favourable since $E_{df}\simeq{E_{dm}}$. Analogously, $E_{df}$ can be zero (in specific points) or negligible, so that $E_{dp}\simeq{E_{dm}}$. Probe calibration ================= The theoretical dipole moment of HD itself, $\mu=8.5\times10^{-4}$ Debye, is too small for our objectives. Calculations with FNMC are not accurate enough [@Ara11], in consequence, so that the $E_{dm}$ components would suffer from the same drawbacks, mainly $E_{dp}$, in which $\mu$ enters squared. On the other hand, we are not constrained to work with a real probe. The FNMC method admits the use of fictitious nuclear masses, or fictitious isotopologues. With $M=10,000$ and $m=50$ a.u. chosen, after some tests, as masses of, respectively, the heavy and light fictitious nuclei, the dipole moment of the probe results as $\mu=0.086$ Debye, two orders of magnitude larger than for HD. With good correlation method (CI or modern DFT) and basis set (typically superior than cc-pVDZ), the three decimal figures converge. These mass choice becomes a good compromise between having the largest isotopic dipole moment and keeping the validity of the adiabatic approximation for the probe. Only the rotational and translational degrees of freedom are allowed to the probe, meaning that its internuclear distance $R$ is fixed. Its rigidity is then gauged by noticing that its isotropic polarizability differs by less than 1% from that of $H_2$ in full-CI calculations with aug-cc-pVDZ basis set. Since most of the polarization effects on the whole probe-molecule system are accounted for in the non-isotopic BO energy, which is subtracted to yield $E_{dm}$, further polarization effects on the probe become negligible. The probe dipole points from M to m, because M is more effective in attracting electrons (the Bohr radius of a one-electron M atom is smaller than that of a m atom), that is, M corresponds to the minus sign and m to the plus sign of the rigid dipole. As a final point concerning the probe calibration, in order the procedure of subtracting the BO energy to be consistent, the length of the probe is fixed at the equilibrium distance of $H_2$, $R=1.40$ a.u. Tests with H$_{2}$, H$_{2}$O, benzene and chlorobenzene ======================================================= Some tests with simple systems allow to gauge the performance of the probe. Besides being the smallest neutral molecule, $H_{2}$ has only an electric quadrupole moment, so it becomes an interesting test for the probe. At large distances, $r\geq8$ a.u., it behaves like a point molecule and the interaction energy $E_{dm}$ fits well a typical quadrupole $r^{-4}$ function, but its behaviour at shorter distances is more complicated as expected, see Figure 1 (at very short distances the $r^{-6}$ behaviour is dominant). The angular behaviour, on the other hand, is much simpler and more informative. At $r=5$ a.u., inset ($\textbf{a}$) displays $E_{dm}$ for full turning of the probe. Despite the complex behaviour with $r$ in this distance, the curve obtained has a very close angular behaviour to the classical dipole-polarizability $\theta$ dependence, $-(3cos^2\theta+1)$. We then use Eqn. (\[eq30\]) for the dipole-polarization term and fit $E_{dm}$ to Eqn.( \[eq3\]) so that the isolation of $E_{df}$ yields a typical cosine function shown in inset ($\textbf{b}$), with energies of about $10^{-5}$ a.u. The quadrupole field intensity is evaluated at that point as $\epsilon=2.6\times10^{-4}$ a.u. with rms deviation of $4\times10^{-6}$ for the cosine fit. The evaluation of such a small quadrupole field is indicative of the accuracy of the method. Moving to the highly polar water molecule, we verify that the angular adjustment of $E_{dm}$ to a pure cosine function is very accurate in almost all the neighbourhood of the molecule, because $E_{df}$ is strongly dominant as expected, see Figure 2. However, approaching the lone electron pair of the oxygen atom along the symmetry molecular axis, we noted that from 7 to 5 a.u. from the this atom, the rms deviation of the fit increases by almost one order of magnitude (the deviation is also visible for 5 a.u.). This means that the $E_{dp}$ contribution increases and become progressively relevant. Fitting the results to Eqn. (\[eq3\]) and isolating $E_{dp}$, we obtain the angular curve in the inset of Figure 2 at 5 a.u. It shows a behaviour that we connect with a non-VdW region of the molecule, since $E_{dm}$ becomes sensible to direct and counter orientation of the probe. For $\theta=\dfrac{\pi}{2}$, where the probe is aligned to the molecular axis, $E_{dp}$ has a small peak (m closer to the lone pair). At the counter aligned orientation the peak is higher (M closer to the lone pair, ) because of a larger repulsion. As we know, this is the region where hydrogen bonding occurs, so these features deserve further investigation. The center of a benzene molecule, where there is no electric field, is another quite interesting site for checking the performance of the probe. The interaction is thus restricted to $E_{dp}$, but the point approximation for the molecule hardly applies, since we have various equivalent point atomic centers. In this case, both BO or FNMC energies show minima for the probe pointing to the middle of the bonds, as expected. Differently, $E_{dp}$ identifies the positions of the carbon atoms (the polarizable centers of the molecule) with minima, see Figure 3. The minimum of $E_{dm}=E_{dp}$ in the figure corresponds to the probe dipole pointing to the C$_{1}$ atom. A different pattern is displayed when we replace one of the H atoms by a Cl atom (chlorobenzene), since a non-zero electric field appears at the center of the ring. Figure 4 displays the result for $E_{dm}$. Considering the Cl atom as a point particle, the $E_{dp}$ classical contribution is subtracted from the $E_{dm}$ fit leading to an accurate cosine function for $E_{df}$, see the inset of Figure 4. We evaluate the intensity of the electric field as $\epsilon=5.3\times10^{-3}$ a.u., with $\boldsymbol\epsilon$ pointing to the Cl atom. Application to a frustrated Lewis pair ====================================== Finally, we devise an application to a presently controversial problem involving larger molecules. A pair of an acid and a base molecules, sterically hindered by large substituents, is called a frustrated Lewis pair (FLP) [@Steph06; @Steph08]. Such systems are not chemically neutralized and are able to activate molecular hydrogen and other smal molecules. Some theoretical models compete to explain this ability of FLPs. The simpler electric-field (EF) model [@Grim10] is based on the proposed existence of strong electric fields inside the FLP, mainly in regions close to the two central atoms, which would polarize the $H_2$ molecule and produce its bond cleavage. In [@Grim10] it is suggested that the field intensity to accomplish this task should be larger than $0.1$ a.u., a huge electric field at molecular level. In the previous static-DFT-based electron-transfer (ET) model, a more involved process of electron transfer from the FLP to $H_2$ and back to the FLP is suggested, weakening the $H_2$ bond so as to produce the cleavage [@Papai]. From DFT-MEP calculations, as a response to [@Grim10], the authors contest the EF model by claiming that the electric field in the FLP cavity never reaches the predicted $0.1$ a.u value [@Rokob13]. However, it has been shown that DFT MEPS perform not better than Hartree-Fock MEPS, overestimating charge polarity and having particular problems in the presence of some atoms, including phosphorus [@Soli], just the present case. More recent DFT metadynamics simulations calculations argue for an even more complex reaction mechanism, involving a series of transition states. So the correct mechanism is still a matter under debate. Here we illustrate the potential of the present method by probing the cavity of the phosphane/borane FLP. We consider first some points around the medium point of the line joining the central atoms P and B, in the minimum energy configuration of the FLP obtained withouth the $H_{2}$ molecule (from ref. [@Rokob13]). We use DFT with the B97D functional and the 6-31G\\ basis set for the molecule and the probe. As shown in the inset of Figure 5, the plot of $E_{dm}$ versus $\theta$ for point 2 is well adjusted by the two first terms of Eqn. (\[eq3\]), with $E_{dp}$ given by Eqn. (\[eq30\]). This means first that, one more time, the angular effect on the probe beyond the electrostatic $E_{df}$ is well approached by the classical dipole-polarization potential. This feature can be understood by realizing that the effect of the point central atoms must be largely dominant. Further, $E_{df}$ is not dominant but can be isolated and the electrostatic field evaluated. The components of $\boldsymbol\epsilon$ out of the P-B line result quite small. The moduli of the electric field are evaluated in a.u. as $\epsilon_{1}=0.9\times10^{-2}$, $\epsilon_{2}=1.3\times10^{-2}$ and $\epsilon_{3}=2.1\times10^{-2}$. Despite further tests have shown an expected dependence ($20\%$ at most) of $\epsilon$ on both the DFT functionals basis sets, it is quite unlikely that it would reach a value near $0.1$ a.u. at any point, except perhaps in a physically unlike position much closer to the P atom. This means that our results do not support the assumption of too large electric fields of the EF model [@Grim10] for $H_{2}$ activation as well. In view of this indication, we then consider the geometry corresponding to a transition state, the TS1 geometry of Liu et al [@Liu], obtained in the presence of a $H_2$ molecule. Here the $H_2$ molecule is withdrawn and the probe is placed again in the middle point between the P and B atoms. Remarkably, the $E_{dp}$ contribution to $E_{dm}$ practically disappears, showing that the field in this position becomes purely electrostatic. This result is consistent with the shift of the $H_2$ molecule in TS1 from close to the middle of the central atoms to a position far from them [@Liu], and with the corresponding transference of the FLP lone electron pair, more consistently with the ET model. Note however that it is obtained in the absence of the $H_2$ molecule, that is, it seems that the charge transfer is a configurational property of the FLP, independent of the presence of the molecule to be activated. Conclusions =========== In abstract, probing molecular environment represents a paradigmatic change as we compare with the limited MEP and the non general present approaches based on ab initio or semi-empirical methods. The fictitious isotopic probe proposed here is shown to work well in different environments, for the evaluation of electrostatic fields as well as the identification of polarizable, possibly reactive, sites in molecules. Also, the FNMC technique is quite easy to be upgraded to any method of quantum chemistry. It can thus become a powerful tool for the prediction of properties of large molecules, as illustrated with the last application to a FLP. Acknowledgments =============== JRM thanks Dr. Thomas Heine for calling his attention to the FLP problem. We thank Dr. Leonardo G. Diniz for his help in an earlier stage of this work and for useful discussions. This project is supported by CNPq and Fapemig (Brazilian agencies). Figure captions =============== FIGURE 1- Energy interaction of the probe with the $H_2$ molecule along its molecular axis. The triangles correspond to the calculated $E_{dm}$ and the full line to an adjustment of a $r^-4$ function from $r=8$ a.u.. Inset (a) shows $E_{dm}$ for $r=5$ a.u. and inset (b) shows the electrostatic quadrupole $E_{df}$.\ \ FIGURE 2- Energy interaction of the probe with the water molecule along its axis and close to the O atom, for two distances. The inset shows $E_{dp}$ at $r=5$ a.u.\ \ FIGURE 3- Energy interaction of the probe with the benzene molecule at its center.\ \ FIGURE 4- Energy interaction of the probe with the chlorobenzene molecule at the center of the ring. The inset shows the electrostatic $E_{df}$.\ \ FIGURE 5- The probe in the cavity of the FLP. The FLP drawing is only a pictorial representation not corresponding to any of the real configurations used here. The distances 1-2 and 2-3 are $0.44$ a.u. The inset shows the calculated points for $E_{dm}$ and their adjustment to Eqn. (\[eq3\]) (see text for full explanation). [9]{} A. D. Buckingham, P. W. Fowler and J. M. Hutson, Theoretical Studies of Van der Waals Molecules and Intermolecular Forces, Chem. Rev. 88, 963 (1988) Z. B. Maksic, Theoretical Treatment of Large Molecules and their Interactions, Part 4 – Theoretical Models of Chemical Bonding, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2013) H. R. Culver, J. R. Clegg, and N. A. Peppas, Acc. Chem. Res. 50, 170 (2017) M. J. O’Meara,A. Leaver-Fay, M. D. Tyka, A. Stein, K. Houlihan, F. DiMaio, P. Bradley, T. Kortemme, D. Baker, J. Snoeyink, and B. Kuhlman, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 11, 609 (2015) M. Kocman, M. Pykal and P. Jurecka, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16, 3144( 2014) B. Wang and D. G. Truhlar, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 10, 4480( 2014) V. Botu, R. Batra, J. Chapman, and R. Ramprasad, J. Phys. Chem. C 121, 511( 2017) P. Politzer, P. R. Laurence, and K. Jayasuriya, Environ. Health Perspect. 61, 191 (1985) J. S. Murray and P. Politzer, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. e1326 (2017) E. Scrocco and J. Tomasi, Adv. Quant. Chem. 11, 115 (1978) S. R. Gadre and R. N. Shirsat, Electrostatics of Atoms and Molecules, Universities Press, India (2000) A. Kumar, S. R. Gadre, N. Mohan, and C. H. Suresh, J. Phys. Chem. A 118, 526 (2014) N. Mohan and C. H. Suresh, J. Phys. Chem. A 118, 1697 (2014) 2014 R. Sundararaman and Y. Ping, J. Chem. Phys 146, 104109 (2017) S. R. Cox and D. E. Williams, J. Comput. Chem. 2, 304 (1981) See S. Y. Liem and P. L. A. Popelier, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 16, 4122 (2014) and references therein. D. M. Reid and M. A. Collins, J. Chem. Phys. 139, 184117 (2013) P. Ren and J. W. Ponder, J. Comput. Chem., 23, 1497 (2002) C. Corminboeuf, Acc. Chem. Res., 47, 3217 (2014) C. Bertoni, L. V. Slipchenko, A. J. Misquitta, and M. S. Gordon, J. Phys. Chem. A, 121, 2056 (2017) P. Hozba and R. Zahradnik, Chem. Rev., 88, 871 (1988) C. P. Gonçalves and J. R. Mohallem, J. Comput. Chem. 25, 1736 (2004) J. R. Mohallem, L. G. Diniz and A. S. Dutra, Chem. Phys. Lett. 501, 575 (2011), and references therein. A. F. C. Arapiraca, D. Jonsson and J. R Mohallem, J. Chem. Phys 135, 244313 (2011) A. F. C. Arapiraca and J. R Mohallem, Chem. Phys. Lett. 609, 123 (2011) A. F. C. Arapiraca and J. R Mohallem, J. Chem. Phys. 144, 144301 (2016) G. C. Welch, R. R. San Juan, J. D. Masuda and D. W. Stephan, Science 314, 1124 (2006) D. W. Stephan, Org. Biomol. Chem. 6, 1535 (2008) S. Grimme, H. Kruse. L. Goerigk and G. Erker, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 49, 1402 (2010) T. A. Rokob, A. Hamza, A. Stirling, T. Soós and I. Pápai, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 47, 2435 (2008) T. A. Rokob, I. Bakó, A. Stirling, A. Hamza and I. Pápai, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135, 4425 (2013) R. Soliva, F. L. Luque and M. Orozco, Theor. Chem. Acc. 98, 42 (1997) L. Liu, B. Lukose and B. Ensing, J. Phys. Chem. C 121, 2046 (2017)	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The Neptunian satellite system is unusual, comprising Triton, a large ($\sim2700$ km) moon on a close-in, circular, yet retrograde orbit, flanked by Nereid, the largest irregular satellite ($\sim$300 km) on a highly eccentric orbit. Capture origins have been previously suggested for both moons. Here we explore an alternative in-situ formation model where the two satellites accreted in the circum-Neptunian disk and are imparted irregular and eccentric orbits by a deep planetary encounter with an ice giant (IG), like that predicted in the Nice scenario of early solar system development. We use $N$-body simulations of an IG approaching Neptune to 20 Neptunian radi ($R_\mathrm{Nep}$), through a belt of circular prograde regular satellites at 10-30 $R_\mathrm{Nep}$. We find that half of these primordial satellites remain bound to Neptune and that 0.4-3% are scattered directly onto wide and eccentric orbits resembling that of Nereid. With better matches to the observed orbit, our model has a success rate comparable to or higher than capture of large Nereid-sized irregular satellites from heliocentric orbit. At the same time, the IG encounter injects a large primordial moon onto a retrograde orbit with specific angular momentum similar to Triton’s in 0.3-3% of our runs. While less efficient than capture scenarios [@Agnor2006], our model does indicate that an in-situ origin for Triton is dynamically possible. We also simulate the post-encounter collisional and tidal orbital evolution of Triton analogue satellites and find they are decoupled from Nereid on timescales of $\sim$$10^4$ years, in agreement with @Cuk2005.' author: - Daohai Li - 'Apostolos A. Christou' title: 'The origin of Neptune’s unusual satellites from a planetary encounter' --- Introduction {#sec-intro} ============ Observational biases notwithstanding, Neptune has the least number of satellites among the four giant planets but perhaps with the most intriguing orbits. The largest moon, Triton, is orbiting its host planet at 14 Neptunian radii ($R_\mathrm{Nep}$) on a circular path but, oddly, in a retrograde direction. Nereid, $>200R_\mathrm{Nep}$ further out and the third largest moon in the system, has the highest orbital eccentricity among solar system moons (Figure \[fig-aei-size-new-hill\]). ![Distribution of giant planet moons in the $(a,i)$ and $(a,e)$ planes from Scott Sheppard’s website: <https://sites.google.com/carnegiescience.edu/sheppard/moons>. Symbol size is proportional to the square root of that moon’s actual size. Grey symbols represent moons around Neptune while Triton and Nereid are the large and small black filled circles respectively. Small (5-10$\times 10^{-4}$) vertical offsets have been added to allow moons with negligible orbital eccentricity to be displayed on a log-scale.[]{data-label="fig-aei-size-new-hill"}](aei-size-new-hill){width="\hsize"} Mechanisms favouring capture of Triton from heliocentric orbit include gas drag [@McKinnon1984; @McKinnon1995], collisions [@Goldreich1989] and three-body gravitational interaction [@Agnor2006; @Nogueira2011; @Vokrouhlicky2008]. See @Colombo1971 [@Heppenheimer1977; @Pollack1979; @Cuk2004d; @Nicholson_etal_2008; @Nesvorny2007; @Nesvorny2014] for discussions on satellite capture. In an alternative [in situ]{} formation scenario, the two moons have accreted in the circum-Neptunian disk [e.g., @Szulagyi2018] with initially circular, prograde orbits on the equatorial plane of Neptune. This raises the question of how they arrive at their [current]{} orbits. @Harrington1979 originally postulated an encounter between an [ad hoc]{} planetary body of several earth masses and Neptune, flipping Triton’s orbit and scattering Nereid outward. This scenario has been criticized [@Farinella1980; @McKinnon1995a] on the grounds that the encountering planet is not observed in the solar system and that the encounter may have over-excited Neptune’s orbit. Also, computational resources available at that time allowed only one “successful” simulation run, making it difficult to estimate the success rate of this particular evolutionary path. In a subsequent model where Triton was assumed captured, [@Goldreich1989] suggested that Nereid could be scattered onto a wide orbit by Triton, an outcome not reproduced in numerical simulations [@Nogueira2011]. It is believed the giant planets radially migrated in the early solar system [@Fernandez1984; @Malhotra1993] in the now widely-accepted framework of the Nice model. There, the planets formed at different heliocentric distances from those where they are presently observed and, due to interactions with a primordial planetesimal disk, they migrated to their current locations. Since its introduction [@Tsiganis2005], the Nice model has evolved considerably to meet an enhanced set of constraints. Because of the difficulty to correctly excite the orbit of Jupiter [@Morbidelli2009] and, at the same time, to avoid over-exciting the inner main asteroid belt [@Morbidelli2010a; @Minton2011] and the terrestrial planets [@Brasser2009; @Agnor2012], Jupiter is thought to have impulsively “jumped” over the 2:1 mean motion resonance with Saturn, owing to close encounters with an ice giant. As such, a five-planet variant of the Nice model, where an additional ice giant planet (IG hereafter) was subsequently ejected from the solar system, was introduced [@Batygin2012a; @Nesvorny2012]. The IG, before its ejection, probably encountered other planets as well, leading to the capture of Trojans and irregular satellites [@Nesvorny2013; @Nesvorny2014] and the emplacement of the so-called “kernel” of the Kuiper Belt [@Nesvorny2015]. These planet-planet encounters may have been as close as 0.003 au [@Nesvorny2014a], penetrating to the satellite region. The appearance of the Nice scenario mitigates the two major objections [@Farinella1980; @McKinnon1995a] to the [in-situ]{} formation of Triton [@Harrington1979] since the encountering IG could have been ejected from the solar system and thus be rendered unobservable while Neptune’s eccentricity, even if excited, may be damped owing to the interaction with the planetesimal disk (actually, the encounters considered here ensure that the orbit of Neptune is at most mildly excited). Hence it is worthwhile to reexamine the [in-situ]{} formation model within the constraints of the Nice scenario, also providing statistics of successful vs unsuccessful simulations runs to estimate model efficiency and exploring the ensuing Neptunian system evolution post-encounter. We focus on studying how a close encounter between Neptune and the IG could bring about the unusual orbits of Triton and Nereid. Our model consists of three parts. First (Section \[sec-enc\]), we check how the IG encounter scatters an initial population of Neptunian moons onto distant, eccentric orbits as well as onto retrograde orbits. In Section \[sec-col\] we study the system’s post-encounter evolution via collisions and tidal dissipation. The implications and conclusions are presented in Sections \[sec-dis\] and \[sec-con\]. ![Illustration of our origin scenario for Triton and Nereid. Before the encounter, several tens of pre-existing moons orbit Neptune (1), all small (open circles) except one that is Triton-sized (black filled circle). After the IG encounter (2), the orbit of the large moon is flipped and a small moon is emplaced onto a wide, eccentric orbit, turning into Nereid. Subsequently (3), collisions with Triton remove the other small moons and decouple the orbit of Triton from Nereid’s. Finally (4), tides circularise Triton’s orbit.[]{data-label="fig-illustration"}](illustration){width="\hsize"} NEPTUNE-IG encounter {#sec-enc} ==================== Following @Cloutier2015 and as detailed below, we first set up the ice giant (IG)-Neptune encounters; then the satellites’ evolution under these encounters are examined. See panels (1) and (2) of Figure \[fig-illustration\] for an illustration of this phase. Model ----- We consider a three-body system comprising the Sun, the IG and Neptune. In order to fully control the minimum separation $d_\mathrm{enc}$ between the IG and Neptune, we start with the Sun-IG-Neptune system at the moment of the two planets’ closest approach [@Cloutier2015], i.e., when the relative position vector satisfies $\|\vec r_\mathrm{IG-N}\|=d_\mathrm{enc}$; we set $d_\mathrm{enc}=$0.003 au [or 18 Neptunian radii @Nesvorny2014a]. At this moment, the relative velocity vector is perpendicular to the relative position vector: $\vec v_\mathrm{IG-N} \bot \vec r_\mathrm{IG-N}$. We further assume their relative kinetic energy $\|\vec v_\mathrm{IG-N}\|^2$ to be uniformly distributed within the range $(0,3 v^2_\mathrm{esc}$) where $ v_\mathrm{esc}$ is the two-body escape velocity between the IG and Neptune. The orientations of the two vectors are random in the solid angle. Then the IG-Neptune barycentre is assigned a heliocentric orbit parameterised by the set of orbital elements $(a_\mathrm{IG+N},e_\mathrm{IG+N},i_\mathrm{IG+N})$, with values within the ranges: $a_\mathrm{IG+N}\in(10,40)$ au, $e_\mathrm{IG+N}\le0.7$ and $i_\mathrm{IG+N}\le10^\circ$; the angular elements are randomly drawn from a uniform distribution. We calculate the position and velocity vectors $\vec r_\mathrm{IG+N}$ and $\vec v_\mathrm{IG+N}$ and combine them with $\vec r_\mathrm{IG-N}$ and $\vec v_\mathrm{IG-N}$ to fully define the heliocentric state vectors of the IG and Neptune at the instant of closest approach. Next, we carry out a reference frame transformation such that the $z$-axis is parallel to the total angular momentum of the three-body system. We refer to this as the heliocentric frame. The IG mass is 18 Earth masses [@Nesvorny2014a], similar to that of Neptune. We integrate this system backwards and forwards for 10 years apiece using the general Bulirsch-Stoer algorithm in [MERCURY]{} [@Chambers1999] with an error tolerance of $10^{-14}$. At the end of these two integrations, we check the planets’ mutual distance is larger than 0.8 au, Neptune’s current Hill radius (see below). Then the heliocentric orbital elements of Neptune are used to determine whether an encounter is “realistic” in that its semimajor axis is in the range 25 au$<a_\mathrm{N}<$30 au and eccentricity is $e_\mathrm{N}<0.15$; For the inclination, we only require that the change in the direction of the heliocentric angular momentum vector before and after the encounter is $\Delta i_\mathrm{N}<6^\circ$, for consistency with Nice scenario simulations [@Nesvorny2012; @Gomes2018] and with constraints derived from Neptune’s perturbation on the Cold Kuiper Belt Objects (CKBOs) [@Wolff2012; @Dawson2012]. We additionally require that the change in the Neptunian semimajor axis before and after the encounter is $<$1 au [@Nesvorny2015]. While a more violent dynamical history of Neptune is not necessarily inconsistent with the CKBOs [@Morbidelli2014; @Gomes2018], the planets’ exact heliocentric orbits are irrelevant for the satellites’ evolution during the brief encounter. Furthermore, this encounter need not be the last one and subsequent encounters may additionally change the orbit of Neptune. Thus the Neptunian orbit in our simulations may not define the starting point of ensuing outward migration and damping in $e$ and $i$, upon which the constraints from CKBOs were imposed [@Dawson2012]. A total of 500 encounters are generated in this way. In Figure \[fig-IG-nep-ei\], we show the distribution of the IG’s orbit with respect to Neptune at closest approach. As expected [cf. @Deienno2014], they are mostly near-parabolic due to strong gravitational focusing. The resemblance of the distribution of $i_\mathrm{enc}$ (measured in the Neptunian-centric frame, see below) to a sine function suggests that the encounters are nearly uniformly distributed in the solid angle. Hence, the direction of Neptune’s spin axis is statistically unimportant. ![Distribution of eccentricity and inclination of the IG in the Neptune-centric frame, the latter measured wrt Neptune’s equator. Histograms of the two quantities are shown in the top and right panels.[]{data-label="fig-IG-nep-ei"}](IG-nep-ei){width="\hsize"} Then we generate 1000 test moons on prograde circular orbits, all coplanar with respect to the Neptunian equatorial plane (the Neptune-centric frame), with orbits evenly distributed in the range $(10 R_\mathrm{Nep},30 R_\mathrm{Nep})$. The orbital phase is again randomly drawn. Since the planetary spin axis is essentially unaffected by close encounters [@Lee2007], we assume that Neptune acquires its current obliquity of $\sim 30^\circ$ before the encounter [by, for example, a giant impact, @Morbidelli2012b]. The Sun, IG, Neptune and 1000 test moons are integrated for 20 yr using [MERCURY]{} where the moons are treated as massless particles. During the integration, a moon is removed if it collides with either the IG or Neptune. After the integration, we calculate the orbital elements of the moons in the Neptune-centric frame. A test moon is removed from the simulation if its semimajor axis exceeds half the Neptunian Hill radius [@Nesvorny2003] $R_{\rm Hill}=a_\mathrm{N}{\left(M_\mathrm{N}/M_{\rm Sun}\right)}^{1/3}$ ($M_{\rm Sun}$ is the solar mass) or if it achieves a hyperbolic orbit. Moons remaining on bound orbits around Neptune are referred to in the following sections as survivors. Results ------- Out of our 500$\times$1000=500000 test moons, 53% survive and their orbital distribution is shown in Figure \[fig-a-e-i\]. Not unexpectedly, most have acquired significant eccentricities and inclinations. A small fraction gain orbits with semimajor axes greater than about $100R_\mathrm{Nep}$, eccentricities up to unity and inclinations up to $180^\circ$. Specifically, we observe that the orbits of both Triton (red circle) and Nereid (red triangle) lie within the distribution of simulated moons. ![Density histogram of all $2.7\times10^5$ surviving test particles in Phase 1 that remain bound to Neptune after the IG flyby in the $(a,i)$ and $(a,e)$ planes. Warmer colours represent higher values. The red points & triangles respectively mark Triton’s & Nereid’s present orbit and the error bar shows Nereid’s inclination variational range. Note that it is those orbits on the right of Triton’s (thus with larger $a$) that finally evolve towards it later, following equal-angular momentum level curves (black curve in bottom panel).[]{data-label="fig-a-e-i"}](a-e-i){width="\hsize"} To determine how well the orbits of the two moons can be reproduced in Phase 1 simulations, we need to quantify how closely a test moon orbit from the simulation should resemble the orbit of the actual satellite. For Nereid ($a=224 R_\mathrm{Nep}$, $e=0.75$ and $i=32^\circ$) we consider those particles injected onto orbits with $a\in (200R_\mathrm{Nep},250R_\mathrm{Nep})$ as Nereid Analogues (NerAs). The time evolution of a typical NerA is shown in column (1) of Figure \[fig-aei-tot\]. During the encounter, the NerA is instantly scattered onto a wide, highly eccentric and inclined orbit, analogous to that of the observed satellite (black triangles on the right). ![image](aei-tot){width="0.8\hsize"} From the simulations we obtain $1.8\times10^3$ such NerAs or about $1.8\times10^3/5\times10^5\sim0.4\%$ of the initial prograde satellite population. Because NerAs are defined through $a$, we show their $e$ and $i$ distribution in the left panel of Figure \[fig-tri\_ner\]. Here the red region marks the range of eccentricity variation for Nereid and Triton while the vertical and horizontal lines are the median values obtained from NerAs. While the agreement in eccentricity is excellent, the obtained median inclination of the NerAs is somewhat higher but still brackets the observed value to within $1-\sigma_i$ ($\simeq 34^\circ$). ![image](tri_ner){width="0.8\hsize"} \[fig-tri\_ner\] Next, we turn our attention to Triton. For reference, Triton has $a=14.4 R_\mathrm{Nep}$, $e\approx0$ and $i=157^\circ$. We define test moons on orbits with $i\in(150^\circ,165^\circ)$ as Triton Analogues (TriAs). A typical time evolution of a TriA is presented in column (2) of Figure \[fig-aei-tot\]. We obtain $1.5\times10^3$ TriAs or about $1.5\times10^3/5\times10^5\sim0.3\%$ of the initial population. Their distribution in $a$ and $i$ is shown in the bottom right panel of Figure \[fig-tri\_ner\]. Unlike the NerAs matching the observed orbit fairly well, the TriAs immediately after the IG encounter, in general, have wider and more eccentric orbits than the real Triton. Thus, as with Triton’s post-capture evolution, additional mechanisms must be invoked to both shrink and circularise the orbit [@Goldreich1989; @McKinnon1995; @Cuk2005; @Correia2009; @Rufu2017]. We explore these in the next Section. Aftermath: Evolution of circumneptunian material post-encounter {#sec-col} =============================================================== Following Neptune’s encounter with the IG, the surviving satellites will undergo further evolution in the form of mutual gravitational interactions, collisions between each other and with Neptune as well as tidal decay of the orbits. The outcome of this phase must satisfy the observational constraints i.e. the survival of one Triton-sized and one Nereid-sized moon. Gravitational perturbations leading to planetary impact and, to a lesser extent, collisional elimination remove small satellites in Triton-crossing orbits over $10^{4} - 10^{5}$ yr [@Cuk2005; @Nogueira2011], requiring an efficient protection mechanism for Nereid. We begin to tackle this by considering the “soft” constraint that, for all solar system giant planets, the ratio of the satellites’ total mass to that of the host planet, is $\lesssim 0.024\%$ [@Canup2006; @Barr2017]. As Triton itself is already $\sim0.02\%$ of the mass of Neptune, it is reasonable to expect exactly one large, Triton-sized moon with the remaining mass of surviving moons (Other Surviving Small Moons or OSSMs) being small enough so that Triton survives the ensuing collisional evolution. It has been argued that a head-on impact with an impactor mass of no more than a few % of Triton’s mass would not disrupt Triton [@Rufu2017]. The total mass of OSSMs must satisfy the constraint that $\Sigma m_\mathrm{OSSM} \lesssim m_\mathrm{Triton}$ which may be converted into a rough estimate of their number. For instance, if each of the OSSMs is assumed to be of Nereid’s mass ($\sim$0.14% of that of Triton; <https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?sat_phys_par>), there should be no more than several hundred. This is discussed further in Section \[sec-dis\]. We now consider the effect of OSSM-Triton collisions on Triton’s orbit. We want to find out how Triton’s orbit is altered and at what rate. For this purpose, a system comprised of Neptune, the TriA and a user-defined number of OSSMs is integrated with [MERCURY]{}. We run these simulations with 200 OSSMs per TriA, at the high end of the estimated non-Triton mass orbiting Neptune. However, the sole purpose of this exercise is to find out the critical mass - hopefully much lower than the threshold for disruption - of OSSMs needed for orbital decoupling such that the apocentre distance of the TriA becomes smaller than the pericentre distance of the NerA. And, as we will see, the model is not dependent on this particular size frequency distribution of the OSSMs so long as their mass is at least a few percent of Triton’s. A TriA is assumed to be of Triton’s size and mass [@Murray1999] and its starting orbit is taken from the encounter simulations. Each OSSM, assumed to be of Nereid’s size and mass, is assigned the median of all prograde orbits from the encounter simulations, a random orbital phase and a random orbit orientation. Mutual gravitational interactions as well as the solar perturbation are omitted [@Nogueira2011], leaving the Neptunian quadrupole term parameterised by the $J_2$ coefficient [@Murray1999]. Collisions are treated as perfect mergers with the change in the TriA’s orbit calculated via conservation of linear momentum. The integration is terminated as soon as the TriA is decoupled from Nereid’s orbit or the simulation reaches $10^4$ yr, irrespective of whether decoupling occurs or not. Not all TriAs need to be examined. As the bottom right panel of Figure \[fig-tri\_ner\] shows, only TriAs in the green region can collide with the OSSMs. An orbit outside the green region has a pericentre distance larger than the apocentre distance of OSSMs while an orbit outside of the blue region does not pose a risk to the NerA since the orbits do not intersect. Hence, only the $4.9\times10^2$ TriAs within the intersection of the blue and green regions need to be considered. An example run is shown in column (3) of Figure \[fig-aei-tot\]. In this case, orbit decoupling is achieved over 150 yr after 8 collisions. The timescale is irrelevant; for our purposes, the essential feature of the evolution is that the collisions reduce both $a$ and $e$ and leave $i$ unchanged. From our numerical runs, we find that the TriA’s orbit is collisionally decoupled from the NerA’s in 96% of cases, typically after after colliding with a mass of about 2.7% of Triton’s mass (or with about 19 of the OSSMs in the model). We calculate analytically the collisional timescale $T_\mathrm{TriA,OSSM}$ between an OSSM and a TriA using the approach of @Kessler1981. We estimate the time to collide with 2.7% of Triton’s mass in OSSMs using a truncated harmonic series and find that the time to decouple Triton’s orbit is approximately $3.5 T_\mathrm{TriA,OSSM}$ when there are about 20 OSSMs; this is the decoupling timescale. The solid line in Figure \[fig-collision\] shows this timescale as a function of the TriA’s semimajor axis. Note that this timescale is weakly dependent on the number of bodies that the mass is divided into (i.e., $\propto \log(N)$) and varies from about $3.5 T_\mathrm{TriA,OSSM}-8.2 T_\mathrm{TriA,OSSM}$ when the number of bodies is changed from 20 to 2000 while keeping the total mass constant. Be it $3.5 T_\mathrm{TriA,OSSM}$ or $8.2 T_\mathrm{TriA,OSSM}$, for semimajor axes less than about $100 R_{Nep}$, it is not more than a few times $10^{4}$ years [see also @Cuk2005; @Rufu2017], comparable to the loss timescale for dynamical interactions by Triton [$\sim10^4-10^5$ yr, shaded region, @Cuk2005; @Nogueira2011]. Therefore, the conditions arising after the Neptune-IG encounter favour the survival of Nereid against either dynamical or collisional elimination as long as the TriA acquires an orbit $\lesssim 100 R_\mathrm{Nep}$. This is, in fact, true for the vast majority of TriA orbits arising from the encounter phase (Figure \[fig-tri\_ner\], bottom right panel). ![Collisional (dotted line) and dynamical loss (shaded region) timescale for Nereid compared to the decoupling timescale for Triton (solid line). For $a$ sufficiently small, the orbit of the TriA no longer crosses that of the NerA.[]{data-label="fig-collision"}](collision){width="\hsize"} Therefore, collisions bring down Triton’s orbit efficiently enough to preserve Nereid [as well as any other moons on wide orbits, @Cuk2005] and eliminate the OSSMs. As the typical total mass of OSSMs colliding with Triton is only a few % of Triton’s, this moon’s angular momentum and inclination remain effectively unchanged. Our assumption that all OSSMs have the same mass as Nereid is not essential for collisional damping of Triton’s orbit. Rather, our model requires that there are some other surviving moons after the IG encounter, and these moons amount to at least a few $\sim\%$ the mass of Triton. Also, the OSSM orbits must be relatively close to Neptune (cf. Figure \[fig-a-e-i\]) such that $T_\mathrm{TriA,OSSM}$ is smaller than the dynamical lifetime of Nereid. Following the depletion of the OSSM population, tidal dissipation within the satellites and within the planet further shrinks and circularises the orbits (panels 3 and 4 of Figure \[fig-illustration\]). Nereid’s orbit is too far from Neptune to be significantly affected by tides and is not considered further in the following. Triton’s tidal evolution has been discussed extensively in the literature [@McKinnon1984; @Chyba1989; @Goldreich1989; @Cuk2005; @Correia2009; @Nogueira2011; @McKinnon1995a]. Here we want to know specifically the effect of tides on the orbit of the TriA following collisional evolution. For this purpose, we follow a recent implementation [@Correia2009] of the equilibrium tidal model [@Hut1981]. Since the orbit of a TriA is now entirely inside that of Nereid, orbital precession is controlled by Neptune’s oblateness [@Goldreich1989; @Nogueira2011; @Li2016] and the solar perturbation may be omitted. Actually, we can also disregard the planetary oblateness, as it causes orbital precession but not secular variations in $a$, $e$ or $i$ [@Nogueira2011]. We consider the TriA as a rocky body with Love number $k_\mathrm{Tri}=0.1$ and tidal $Q_\mathrm{Tri}=100$ [@Goldreich1989; @Correia2009; @Nogueira2011]; the solid body parameters for Neptune are taken from @Correia2009 [@Hubbard1991]. A typical TriA evolution is shown in column (4) of Figure \[fig-aei-tot\]. As with collisions, $i$ is unaffected while both $a$ and $e$ decrease and the orbital angular momentum is quasi-conserved. Here the orbit of the TriA is circularised within a Gyr, consistent with other studies [@Goldreich1989; @Correia2009; @Nogueira2011]. This timescale is shorter if the TriA is molten or semi-molten [@McKinnon1984; @Goldreich1989; @Nogueira2011]. In fact, for any TriA with pericentre distance $q<20 R_\mathrm{Nep}$, tides circularise the orbit within the age of the solar system [@Nogueira2011]. Discussion {#sec-dis} ========== Comparison with observations and model efficiency ------------------------------------------------- We first examine how well our model matches the observed orbits of Triton and Nereid. Since its orbit is circular, Triton is defined by its orbital $i$ and $a$. In our model, both $i$ and the normalised angular momentum $G$ are quasi-conserved during collisional as well as tidal evolution and are thus determined solely from the IG-encounter phase. By definition, all TriAs have inclinations close to Triton’s, therefore we only need to consider $G$. In the top right panel of Figure \[fig-tri\_ner\], we show that the median of $G^2$ of our TriAs is within 2% of the observed value, suggesting that our model reproduces the correct final orbit for Triton. On the other hand, a NerA is directly placed onto a wide, highly eccentric orbit during the encounter phase and experiences no further evolution. By definition, NerAs all have $a$ similar to Nereid’s. As shown in the left panel of Figure \[fig-tri\_ner\], the median $e$ of the NerAs is 0.80, $\sim6\%$ from that observed. The dispersion in $i$ of the NerAs is large and Nereid is within $1-\sigma_i$. The efficiency of our model is determined mainly by the Neptune-IG encounter phase because the outcome of subsequent evolution - producing a Triton-like object with orbit circularised within the age of the solar system - is fairly deterministic and the NerA does not participate in the latter phase. The simulation results indicate that about $1.8\times10^3$ of the initial $5\times10^5$ prograde satellite particles ended up on Nereid-like orbits after the encounter with the ice giant and are labelled as NerAs. This suggests that the probability of an object with Nereid’s orbit and size resulting from a similarly deep encounter is $P_{NerA} \sim 4\times10^{-3} N_{R>R_\mathrm{Nereid}}$, where $N_{R>R_\mathrm{Nereid}}$ is the number of Nereid-sized moons ($R_\mathrm{Nereid}\simeq170$-km) in the initial satellite system. If there were a few tens of these moons $N_{R>R_\mathrm{Nereid}}\sim20$ in the primordial system, the probability of an encounter producing a NerA is about $P_\mathrm{NerA}\sim0.1$. Similarly, when examining the encounter results we find that $1.5\times10^3$ of the $5\times10^5$ initial prograde satellite particles are transferred to orbits with Triton-like retrograde orbits and are labelled as TriAs. This suggests that the probability of an object with Triton’s inclination and size resulting from a deep encounter is about $P_\mathrm{TriA}\sim 3\times10^{-3}N_{R>1000\text{-km}}$, where $N_{R>1000\text{-km}}$ is the number of large ($R>1000$-km) satellites in the initial prograde satellite population. Another factor, the chance of a 0.003 au encounter happening, is $\sim0.1$ [@Deienno2014; @Nesvorny2014a]. Hence, the overall success rate of our model to account for both Triton and Nereid in this way is about $3\times10^{-5}$. Clearly, how stringently we define TriAs and NerAs has a great impact on the model efficiency. If we only ask the TriAs to have an inclination $i>90^\circ$ instead of $i\in(150^\circ,165^\circ)$, the chance for creating one such object increases by a factor of ten to $3\%$. Similarly, if all orbits with $a>100R_\mathrm{Nep}$ are recognised as NerAs rather than requiring $a\in(200R_\mathrm{Nep},250R_\mathrm{Nep})$, the corresponding rate also rise by an order of magnitude, reaching also $3\%$. Combined, this suggests that if the analogues are loosely defined, the overall efficiency reaches a few times $10^{-3}$. Comparison with capture models ------------------------------ In-situ formation models for the two moons have been discussed in Section \[sec-intro\], so here we focus on capture models. A leading mechanism for Triton’s capture is via three-body encounter [@Agnor2006]. In this model, Triton and a bound massive binary companion encounter Neptune. During this encounter the orbit of the binary is tidally disrupted and leaves the Triton-mass object on a bound orbit around Neptune, while its companion escapes on a hyperbolic trajectory. The capture efficiency, examined in the context of the Nice scenario, has been estimated to be between 2% [@Vokrouhlicky2008] and 50% [@Nogueira2011]; though, this exchange capture may have occurred before the Nice scenario with a higher efficiency [@Vokrouhlicky2008]. Hence, in terms of Triton’s procurement alone, our model is less likely than capture via 3-body gravitational encounters [@Agnor2006; @Vokrouhlicky2008; @Nogueira2011]. However, Nereid’s acquirement is also non-trivial. Nereid is the largest among the so-called irregular satellites (Figure \[fig-aei-size-new-hill\]) and larger than Trojan asteroids, populations genetically linked in that they were both captured by the giant planets during the instability period from the primordial planetesimal disk [PPD, @Nesvorny2013; @Nesvorny2007; @Nesvorny2014]. The largest Jovian Trojan (624) Hektor and irregular moon (J VI) Himalia have been used to show the consistency between capture efficiencies and the size frequency distribution (SFD) and the total mass of the PPD [@Nesvorny2016]. However, Nereid does not readily fit into this picture. For example, Hektor, the second largest object within the two populations, is 230 km in diameter [@Nesvorny2016] and its capture efficiency, as a Trojan at Jupiter, is $(6-8) \times10^{-7}$ [@Nesvorny2013], $\sim 20$ times higher than the capture of irregular satellites at Neptune [@Nesvorny2014]. Furthermore, the steep SFD [@Nesvorny2016] implies Nereid-sized (or larger) objects are rarer than Hektor by almost an order of magnitude. These facts combined suggest that the capture of Nereid is $\sim 100$ times as infrequent as that of Hektor: should capturing one Hektor-sized object on Jovian Trojan orbits be expected [@Nesvorny2016], acquiring one Nereid-sized body at Neptune must be unlikely. Indeed, following these works, the expected number of such large objects captured at Neptune is $< 0.006$. In summary, the chance of capturing both Triton [@Agnor2006] and Nereid [@Nesvorny2007] is thus $10\% \times 0.6\%\sim6\times10^{-4}$, higher than the average efficiency of our model by a factor of ten. We note, capture models do not strongly constrain the characteristics of the capture orbit. Leaving Triton aside, Nereid has the largest orbital eccentricity and the smallest semimajor axis (in units of the host planet’s Hill radius) among all irregular moons (Figure \[fig-aei-size-new-hill\]). Indeed, Nereid is located at the inner edge of the region where the capture mechanism operates [@Nesvorny2007; @Nesvorny2014]. As discussed before, our efficiency reaches a few times $10^{-3}$ if we loosen the requirement on the orbital similarity between the observation and the analogues and this is higher than that of the capture models by a factor of a few. However, the origin of the two moons may not be related at all. For example, Triton may be captured long before that of Nereid and when the latter arrives, the orbit of the former has already been small enough – no issue for the stability of Nereid. Then it is perhaps unfair to compare the overall efficiency between the in-situ and the capture models and only the individual rate should be confronted. As discussed before, the exchange capture model for Triton is probably better while our model seems to work particularly well for Nereid. So can the two work together? Timing is important. (1) If Triton predates Nereid: Upon capture, Triton gains a highly eccentric orbit of which the circularisation would probably have cleared any small moons, leaving no seeds for Nereid anymore. Also, Triton itself may be excited or even ejected by the encounter. (2) Or if Nereid precedes Triton: During the encounter, Nereid was placed onto its current orbit with some other small moons surviving. Then when Triton is captured, it collides with these other moons and Nereid is protected. So it seems that (2) may be viable but a careful modelling is needed. The primordial satellite population ----------------------------------- The scenario advocated here, operates with an efficiency of $\sim10^{-5}$ in a self-contained and self-consistent way, reproducing the main orbital features of both Triton and Nereid. Here we discuss its principal weaknesses. However, how realistic is the assumed size distribution of the initial satellite population? This has been constructed based on the known inventory of solar system moons and our model efficiency (Section \[sec-enc\]). Currently, Jupiter and Uranus each has four large, similar-sized moons plus smaller ones. [^1] Perhaps the system most closely resembling our assumed configuration is that of Saturn where the mass budget is dominated by Titan together with several intermediate-sized moons (each of $0.5\%-1.7\%$ of Titan’s mass; <https://sites.google.com/carnegiescience.edu/sheppard/moons/saturnmoons>) but only a few, hundred km-sized moons. So, small number statistics aside, it seems that our assumption on the initial size distrbution of Neptune moons does not have concrete observational support. However, available to us are only the satellites’ [current]{} configurations: e.g., moons exterior to Uranus’ outermost moon Oberon could have been lost [@Deienno2011] and may not necessarily be primordial. While the assumption that one Triton-sized moon exists seems sensible at least mass-wise [@Barr2017; @Szulagyi2018], the number of smaller moons, a few tens, is estimated from the expectation that one Nereid should be created during the best encounters (those featuring the highest occurrence rates of TriAs & NerAs). A few tens of such moons, under these encounters, give rise to a NerA at an efficiency close to unity and, fortuitously, provide just the right amount of impacting mass to shrink the orbit of the TriA (its creation still a small-likelihood event) quickly enough to protect the NerA without disrupting the TriA. Nonetheless, when estimating the number of small moons using the overall creation efficiency for the NerA ($\sim$0.1%), an initial population of a few hundreds results. These moons, if each of Nereid’s mass, total $\sim10\%$ of that of Triton. This population, while more efficiently decoupling Triton from Nereid, its large total mass implies a considerable decrease in the normalised angular momentum $G$ of Triton. Then, our argument about the agreement between the observed value and simulations fails (top right panel of Figure \[fig-tri\_ner\]). On the other hand, if only a few moons exist before the encounter it would be difficult to create a NerA and its survival becomes problematic. Finally, we comment on the implications for Neptune’s remaining moons. The irregular satellites are omitted from our discussion as these moons may have been acquired by Neptune later on [@Nesvorny2007]. The inner regular moons, however, will be perturbed by the IG. To quantify the maximum possible extent of the perturbation, we consider Proteus, the inner neighbour of Triton at 4.7 $R_\mathrm{Nep}$. For each of our 500 encounters, we place 10 test moons at 5 $R_\mathrm{Nep}$ around Neptune and follow them through the encounter. We observe that all these $500\times10=5000$ moons are stable and their orbital excitation is small, with a median eccentricity is $\lesssim0.04$. Moreover, because this moon is prograde and outside the synchronous orbit, it must have migrated outwards in the past. Therefore, Proteus has been closer to Neptune during our encounter and should have been disturbed to an even smaller degree. This experiment represents a worst-case-scenario for the disturbance to the inner regular satellites. Yet, these moons may also be perturbed by Triton, gaining moderate eccentricities which accelerates the rate of internal tidal dissipation [@Rodriguez2011] or leads to disruptive collisions between Proteus and others [@Banfield1992]. Conclusions and implications {#sec-con} ============================ We have explored an in-situ combined formation scenario for two peculiar moons in the Neptunian system: Triton and Nereid. In our model, both moons formed in a circum-Neptunian disk, together with another set of tens of small moons. A close encounter between Neptune and an ice giant, penetrating down to the satellite system, flips the orbit of Triton and places Nereid onto a wide and eccentric orbit. Nereid’s orbit immediately following this event matches observations well, but Triton’s is too large and eccentric. Then, collisions between Triton and the other small moons shrink Triton’s orbit on $10^4$ yr timescales. This removes the small moons and protects Nereid from elimination by Triton. Finally, tides circularise Triton’s orbit over Gyrs. Our self-contained model explains the major orbital features of both Triton and Nereid. We note that the only exomoon candidate known so far resides on an orbit tilted by $\sim(42\pm18)^\circ$ with respect to that of its host planet [@Teachey2018]. While further observations are needed to confirm its orbital parameters, the mechanism we propose here for solar system moons suggests an evolutionary pathway for such high-inclination satellites. Given the ubiquitousness of dynamical instability among exoplanets [@Rasio1996; @Gong2013], we predict a plethora of exomoons on highly-excited orbits produced during planetary encounters. Similarly, planets are themselves subject to the disturbance of stellar encounters so, as shown here for Triton and Nereid, a planet can be injected on a highly-eccentric, inclined and/or distant orbit by such events [@Malmberg2011; @Li2019]. \ The authors are grateful to an anonymous referee for useful comments. The authors thank Dr Craig B. Agnor for discussions and comments as well as direct text editing of the manuscript; his remarks have led to changes to the paper structure and content, including a more comprehensive discussion on collisional evolution. D.L. thanks Anders Johansen, Douglas Hamilton, David Nesvorný and Matija Ćuk for useful discussions. D.L. acknowledges the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation through two grants (2014.0017, PI: Melvyn B. Davies and 2012.0150, PI: Anders Johansen). Computations were carried out at the center for scientific and technical computing at Lund University (LUNARC) through the Swedish National Infrastructure for Computing (SNIC) via project 2018/3-314. Astronomical research at the Armagh Observatory and Planetarium is funded by the Northern Ireland Department for Communities (DfC). natexlab\#1[\#1]{}\[1\][[\#1](#1)]{} \[1\][doi: [](http://doi.org/#1)]{} \[1\][[](http://ascl.net/#1)]{} \[1\][[](https://arxiv.org/abs/#1)]{} Agnor, C. B., & Hamilton, D. P. 2006, Nature, 441, 192, Agnor, C. B., & Lin, D. N. C. 2012, Astrophysical Journal, 745, 143, Asphaug, E., & Reufer, A. 2013, Icarus, 223, 544, Banfield, D., & Murray, N. 1992, Icarus, 99, 390, Barr, A. C. 2017, Astronomical Review, 12, 24, Batygin, K., Brown, M. E., & Betts, H. 2012, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 744, L3, Brasser, R., Morbidelli, A., Gomes, R., Tsiganis, K., & Levison, H. F. 2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 507, 1053, Canup, R. M., & Ward, W. R. 2006, Nature, 441, 834, Chambers, J. E. 1999, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 304, 793, Chyba, C. F., Jankowski, D. G., & Nicholson, P. D. 1989, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 219, L23 Cloutier, R., Tamayo, D., & Valencia, D. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 813, 8, Colombo, G., & Franklin, F. 1971, Icarus, 15, 186, Correia, A. C. M. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 704, L1, uk, M., & Burns, J. A. 2004, Icarus, 167, 369, uk, M., & Gladman, B. J. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 626, L113, Dawson, R. I., & Murray-Clay, R. 2012, Astrophysical Journal, 750, 43, Deienno, R., Nesvorn[ý]{}, D., Vokrouhlick[ý]{}, D., & Yokoyama, T. 2014, The Astronomical Journal, 148, 25, Deienno, R., Yokoyama, T., Nogueira, E. C., Callegari, N., & Santos, M. T. 2011, Astronomy [&]{} Astrophysics, 536, A57, Farinella, P., Milani, A., Nobili, A. M., & Valsecchi, G. B. 1980, Icarus, 44, 810, Fern[á]{}ndez, J. A., & Ip, W. H. 1984, Icarus, 58, 109, Goldreich, P., Murray, N., Longaretti, P. Y., & Banfield, D. 1989, Science, 245, 500, Gomes, R., Nesvorn[ý]{}, D., Morbidelli, A., Deienno, R., & Nogueira, E. 2018, Icarus, 306, 319, Gong, Y.-X., Zhou, J.-L., Xie, J.-W., & Wu, X.-M. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 769, L14, Harrington, R. S., & [Van Flandern]{}, T. C. 1979, Icarus, 39, 131, Heppenheimer, T. a., & Porco, C. 1977, Icarus, 30, 385, Hubbard, W. B., Nellis, W. J., Mitchell, A. C., [et al.]{} 1991, Science, 253, 648, Hut, P. 1981, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 99, 126 Kessler, D. J. 1981, Icarus, 48, 39, Lee, M. H., Peale, S. J., Pfahl, E., & Ward, W. R. 2007, Icarus, 190, 103, Li, D., & Christou, A. A. 2016, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 125, 133, Li, D., Mustill, A. J., & Davies, M. B. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 1366, Malhotra, R. 1993, Nature, 365, 819, Malmberg, D., Davies, M. B., & Heggie, D. C. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 411, 859, McKinnon, W. B. 1984, Nature, 311, 355, McKinnon, W. B., & Leith, A. C. 1995, Icarus, 118, 392, McKinnon, W. B., Lunine, J. I., & Banfield, D. 1995, in Neptune and Triton, ed. D. Cruikshank (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), 807–877. <http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995netr.conf..807M> Minton, D. a., & Malhotra, R. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 732, 53, Morbidelli, A., Brasser, R., Gomes, R., Levison, H. F., & Tsiganis, K. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 140, 1391, Morbidelli, A., Brasser, R., Tsiganis, K., Gomes, R., & Levison, H. F. 2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 507, 1041, Morbidelli, A., Gaspar, H. S., & Nesvorny, D. 2014, Icarus, 232, 81, Morbidelli, A., Tsiganis, K., Batygin, K., Crida, A., & Gomes, R. 2012, Icarus, 219, 737, Murray, C. D., & Dermott, S. F. 1999, [Solar System Dynamics]{} (Cambridge University Press), 592, . <https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174817> Nesvorn[ý]{}, D. 2015, The Astronomical Journal, 150, 68, Nesvorn[ý]{}, D., Alvarellos, J. L. A., Dones, L., & Levison, H. F. 2003, The Astronomical Journal, 126, 398, Nesvorn[ý]{}, D., & Morbidelli, A. 2012, The Astronomical Journal, 144, 117, Nesvorn[ý]{}, D., & Vokrouhlick[ý]{}, D. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 94, Nesvorn[ý]{}, D., Vokrouhlick[ý]{}, D., & Deienno, R. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 784, 22, Nesvorn[ý]{}, D., Vokrouhlick[ý]{}, D., Deienno, R., & Walsh, K. J. 2014, The Astronomical Journal, 148, 52, Nesvorn[ý]{}, D., Vokrouhlick[ý]{}, D., & Morbidelli, A. 2007, The Astronomical Journal, 133, 1962, —. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 768, 45, Nicholson, P. D., [Ć]{}uk, M., Sheppard, S. S., Nesvorný, D., & Johnson, T. V. 2008, in The Solar System Beyond Neptune, ed. M. A. Barucci et al. (Tucson, AZ: Univ. Arizona Press), 411 Nogueira, E., Brasser, R., & Gomes, R. 2011, Icarus, 214, 113, Pollack, J. B., Tauber, M. E., & Burns, J. a. 1979, Icarus, 37, 587, Rasio, F. A., & Ford, E. B. 1996, Science, 274, 954, Rodr[í]{}guez, A., Ferraz-Mello, S., Michtchenko, T. A., Beaug[é]{}, C., & Miloni, O. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 2349, Rufu, R., & Canup, R. M. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 208, Szul[á]{}gyi, J., Cilibrasi, M., & Mayer, L. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 868, L13, Teachey, A., & Kipping, D. M. 2018, Science Advances, 4, eaav1784, Tsiganis, K., Gomes, R., Morbidelli, a., & Levison, H. F. 2005, Nature, 435, 459, Vokrouhlick[ý]{}, D., Nesvorn[ý]{}, D., & Levison, H. F. 2008, The Astronomical Journal, 136, 1463, Wolff, S., Dawson, R. I., & Murray-Clay, R. A. 2012, Astrophysical Journal, 746, 171, [^1]: But we do note that such four-moon systems may turn into ones containing a single large moon plus others [@Asphaug2013].	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The influence of the network’s structure on the dynamics of spreading processes has been extensively studied in the last decade. Important results that partially answer this question show a weak connection between the macroscopic behavior of these processes and specific structural properties in the network, such as the largest eigenvalue of a topology related matrix. However, little is known about the direct influence of the network topology on microscopic level, such as the influence of the (neighboring) network on the probability of a particular node’s infection. To answer this question, we derive both an upper and a lower bound for the probability that a particular node is infective in a susceptible-infective-susceptible model for two cases of spreading processes: reactive and contact processes. The bounds are derived by considering the $n-$hop neighborhood of the node; the bounds are tighter as one uses a larger $n-$hop neighborhood to calculate them. Consequently, using local information for different neighborhood sizes, we assess the extent to which the topology influences the spreading process, thus providing also a strong macroscopic connection between the former and the latter. Our findings are complemented by numerical results for a real-world e-mail network. A very good estimate for the infection density $\rho$ is obtained using only 2-hop neighborhoods which account for 0.4% of the entire network topology on average.' author: - Daniel Smilkov - Ljupco Kocarev title: The influence of the network topology on epidemic spreading --- Introduction ============ Complex network theory has opened the way for exploring many dynamical processes on large-scale systems consisting of individual components connected in a nontrivial topology. One of the most widely studied phenomena occurring on complex networks are spreading processes, with a prominent example attracting widespread attention being the spread of viruses in social or computer networks [@ref-3; @ref-4; @ref-5; @ref-6; @ref-7; @ref-2008]. There are several approaches being used in the analysis of epidemic spreading. One popular approach is the heterogeneous mean-field (HMF) prescription by coarse-graining nodes within degree classes and relaxing the problem by assuming that all nodes in a degree class have the same dynamical properties [@ref-4; @ref-5; @hmf1; @hmf2]. However, it has been shown that HMF can result in different levels of accuracy [@hmf-accuracy]. A more successful approach in determining the outcome of an infection was introduced by Chakrabarti et.al [@ref-8] where the SIS epidemic model was analyzed by using a system of probability equations, which in fact, represents a deterministic non-linear dynamical system (NLDS). This approach was also used in [@Gomez-2010], where a family of SIS epidemic models is examined, parameterized by the number of stochastic contact trials per unit time, that range from contact processes (where the contagion expands at a certain rate from an infective vertex to one neighbor at a time) to reactive processes (in which an infective individual effectively contacts all its neighbors to expand the epidemics). Using a deterministic model, referred to as the Microscopic Markov-Chain approach (MMCA), which is virtually equivalent to NLDS, the whole phase diagram of the different infection models is constructed and their critical properties are determined. It is worth noting that using different number of stochastic contagion per unit time extends the usability of the model, since this number can surely vary for different real-world problems [@bounded-contact]. Recently, a mixed approach using both NLDS and HMF was proposed in [@npHMF] which lead to a nonperturbative formulation enhancing the predictive power of the classical HMF approach. Heterogeneous environments have also been extensively studied. One such is an epidemic model with inhomogeneous infection probabilities on a graph with prescribed degree distribution [@ref-2011] where model’s dynamics are derived for i.i.d. weights and for weights that are functions of the degrees. With the help of these theoretical frameworks, the role of network topology in the spreading process has been repeatedly emphasized, yielding the result of a finite threshold for the spreading process in networks with exponentially bounded degree distributions, and a vanishing threshold in infinite uncorrelated networks with a power-law degree distribution. A recent addition to these findings is that for the SIS epidemic model, the vanishing threshold has nothing to do with the scale-free nature of the degree distribution, but is the result of the largest hub being a self-sustainable source for the infection [@psv-SIS] (see also [@reinfection]). However, the currently established connections are very rough with a topology-related threshold differentiating between two extreme outcomes of the model. With the threshold being satisfied, there is still a large spectrum for different spreading parameters and the poorly understood role of the network’s topology there motivated our work. In this paper we adopt the approach proposed in [@ref-8; @Gomez-2010] and study the deterministic epidemic model on graphs, in which the dynamics of individual nodes is described by a discrete-time Markov chain. In the SIS model, a node can be in one of two states: susceptible (S) or infective (I). Infective nodes can infect other neighbouring nodes, and each node can be randomly cured with probability $\delta$ per unit time. At each time step, an infective node makes a number of trials per unit time to transmit the disease to its neighbours with probability $\beta$. We consider two specific cases: (i) the contact process, which involves a single stochastic contagion per infective node per unit time, and (ii) the reactive process, which involves as many stochastic contagions per unit time as neighbours a node has. The work in this paper extends that of [@ref-8; @Gomez-2010]. We derive upper and lower bounds on the probability of a node to be infective, and determine how tight the bounds are around the probability that a node is infective. For both processes the bounds are derived using the $n-$hop neighbourhood of each node. The larger the considered neighbourhood – the more topological information one uses to determine the bounds, hence the bounds are tighter. We use the difference between the upper and lower bound averaged over all nodes to determine the influence of the network topology on the spreading process and compute numerical results for a real-world e-mail network. For additional clarity, Figure \[fig:plotedgraphs\] depicts the $1$-hop and $2$-hop neighborhood of a particular node in the Enron e-mail network with degree 10, together with the calculated bounds for its probability of infection derived using only its respective subgraph information. The outline of the paper is the following. Section \[sec:2\] gives the definition of the model and recovers known results. The contributions of this paper are contained in sections \[sec:3\] and \[sec:4\]. In section \[sec:3\] the upper and lower bounds on the probability of being infective are derived for the reactive process, and numerical results for the e-mail network are presented. Section \[sec:4\] gives the bounds for the contact process, along with the corresponding numerical results. Section \[sec:conc\] concludes the paper and points out future research directions. Model definition and analysis {#sec:2} ============================= Consider a closed population of $N$ individuals, connected in a network structure which is represented by a simple, undirected, unweighted, connected and unipartite graph $G = (V,E)$ with node set $V$ and edge set $E$. The adjacency matrix of the graph is given by $A = [ a_{ij} ]_{N \times N}$, where $a_{ij} = 1$ if node $i$ is connected to node $j$, and $a_{ij} = 0$ otherwise. Each node can be in one of two possible states: susceptible (S) and infective (I). Susceptible nodes are healthy and can contract the disease upon contact with infective nodes, which spread the disease. After the infectious period of the disease has ended, a node becomes susceptible to the disease once again. The initial set of infective nodes at time 0 is assumed to be non-empty, and all other nodes are assumed to be in state S at time 0. The state of a node is represented by a status vector, an indicator vector containing a single 1 in the position corresponding to the present state, and 0 in the other $\mathbf{s}_i(t)=[s_i^S(t) \hspace{0.2cm} s_i^{I}(t)]^T,$ for all $i \in \{1, \ldots, N \}$. Let $ \mathbf{p}_i(t)=[p_i^S(t) \hspace{0.2cm} p_i^{I}(t)]^T $ be the probability mass function (PMF) of node $i$ at time $t$. The evolution of SIS is described by the following equations: $$\begin{array}{lll} p_i^S(t+1) &=& s_i^S (t) (1 - f_i(t)) + \delta s_i^I(t) \\ p_i^{I}(t+1) &=& s^S_{i}(t) f_i(t) + (1 - \delta) s_i^I(t) \label{eq:stochastic-SIS} \end{array}$$ and $$\mathbf{s}_i(t+1) = MultiRealize[\mathbf{p}_i(t+1)], \label{eq:Multirealize}$$ where $MultiRealize[\cdot]$ performs a random realization for the PMF given with $\mathbf{p}_i (t+1)$. In (\[eq:stochastic-SIS\]) $0 \leq \delta \leq 1$ is the probability of curing and $0 \leq \beta \leq 1$ is the probability of disease transmission from an infective to a susceptible node. We consider two cases of infection spreading: the contact process and the reactive process. The contact process [@contact-1; @contact-2; @contact-3] is a dynamical process that involves a single stochastic contagion per infective node per unit time, while in the reactive process [@reactive-1; @reactive-2; @reactive-3] there are as many stochastic contagions per unit time as there are neighbours to a node. The distinction between the two processes is reflected in the probability $f_i(t)$ that a susceptible node $i$ receives the infection from any combination of its infective neighbours. The probability $f_i(t)$ has the form: $$f_i(t) = 1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta r_{ij} s_j^I(t)). \label{eq:fi-stoc}$$ where $r_{ij}$ is a contact probability. Without loss of generality, it is instructive to think of these probabilities as the transition probabilities of random walkers on the network. The general case is represented by $\lambda_i$ random walkers leaving node $i$ at each time step: $$r_{ij} = 1 - \left( 1 - \frac{a_{ij}}{\sum_j a_{ij}} \right)^{\lambda_i}$$ The contact process corresponds to a model dynamics of one contact per unit time, $\lambda_i = 1$, $\forall i$, thus $r_{ij} = a_{ij}/\sum_j a_{ij}$. In the reactive process all neighbors are contacted, which corresponds, in this description, to set the limit $\lambda_i \to \infty$, $\forall i$, resulting on $r_{ij} = a_{ij}$. Though exact and realistic, the system of equations (\[eq:stochastic-SIS\]) is not suitable for the analytical study of the system dynamics, since the new statuses are obtained as a result of a decision process, transforming a continuous variable into a discrete one. That is why, in the further text, we will complement the status dependent system, with a set of adequate probability equations. This approach was introduced by Chakrabarti et.al [@ref-8], who analyzed the infection in the network using a system of probability equations, referred to as the Non-Linear Dynamical System (NLDS) model. Adopting their approach to the SIS process (\[eq:stochastic-SIS\]), we obtain the following set of difference equations for the probabilities of states S and I: $$\begin{array}{lll} p_i^S(t+1) &=& p_i^S (t) (1 - f_i(t)) + \delta p_i^I(t) \\ p_i^{I}(t+1) &=& p^S_{i}(t) f_i(t) + (1 - \delta) p_i^I(t) \label{eq:det-SIS} \end{array}$$ where $f_i(t)$ is now $$f_i(t) = 1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta r_{ij} p_j^I(t)). \label{eq:fi-det}$$ Note that (\[eq:det-SIS\]) is a deterministic equation. Since $p_i^S(t) + p_i^I(t) = 1$ for all $i$ and all $t$, we rewrite (\[eq:det-SIS\]) using $x_i = p_i^I$: $$x_i(t+1) = (1 - x_i(t))f_i(t) + (1-\delta) x_i(t). \label{eq:xi-SIS}$$ Equation (\[eq:xi-SIS\]) represents a nonlinear dynamical system $F : [0,1]^N \to [0,1]^N$. The system (\[eq:xi-SIS\]) has two fixed points: the origin $x_i = 0, \forall i \in \{1, \ldots, N \}$ and let $x_i^(G)$ be the fixed point of (\[eq:xi-SIS\]) different from the origin for the graph $G$. We will write only $x^_i$ instead of $x^_i(G)$ when it is clear which graph $G$ is considered in the context. At the stationary state: $$\delta x^_i = (1 - x^_i) \left[ 1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta r_{ij} x^_j) \right]. \label{eq:xi-stat}$$ The origin $x_i = 0, \forall i \in \{1, \ldots, N \}$ is a fixed point of the system. Using the Jacobian matrix of the system (\[eq:xi-SIS\]) evaluated at the origin: $$DF\|_{(x_i = 0)} = (1 - \delta) I + \beta R,$$ where $R=[r_{ij}]_{N \times N}$, one finds the well-known result [@ref-8; @Gomez-2010] that the origin is stable when $$\frac{\beta}{\delta} < \frac{1}{\lambda_{1,R} }, \label{eq:stability-cond}$$ where $\lambda_{1,R}$ is the largest eigenvalue of the matrix $R$. Whenever the infection to cure ratio $\beta / \delta$ is greater than the network threshold $1 / \lambda_{1,R}$ the disease will reach an endemic state in the network. For a contact process $\lambda_{1,R}=1$, since $R$ is a row stochastic matrix, while for a reactive process $\lambda_{1,R} = \lambda_{1,A}$. Moreover, when $\beta \neq 0$, $\delta \neq 0$, and $\delta \neq 1$, the ergodicity of the Markov chains describing the SIS dynamics of each node is guaranteed and therefore (\[eq:det-SIS\]) has a unique globally stable fixed point. Therefore, there exists a critical value of $\beta$, $\beta_{c}=\delta/\lambda_{1,R}$, such that the origin is a globally asymptotically stable fixed point of (\[eq:xi-SIS\]) if $\beta < \beta_{c}$, and $x_i^$ for all $i$ is a globally asymptotically stable fixed point of (\[eq:xi-SIS\]) when $\beta > \beta_{c}$. Reactive process {#sec:3} ================ Upper bounds on the probability of being infective -------------------------------------------------- In this section we consider a family $\Phi$ of all possible simple and connected graphs with at least two nodes (we exclude from this family the empty graph and the graph with a single node and no links) and SIS reactive processes on this family for which the stationary solution (\[eq:xi-stat\]), different from the origin, is an asymptotically stable fixed point of (\[eq:xi-SIS\]). For the reactive process, since $r_{ij}=a_{ij}$, we rewrite (\[eq:xi-stat\]) as: $$\label{eq:xi-reactive} x_i^ = \frac{\left[ 1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta a_{ij} x_j^) \right]}{\left[ 1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta a_{ij} x_j^) \right] + \delta}$$ Our first observation which acted as a building block for deriving the bounds for contact and reactive processes was that the stationary probability of infection of the reactive model (\[eq:xi-reactive\]) for all nodes $i$, is bounded by $$\label{eq:bound-reactive} x_i^* < \frac{1}{1+\delta} \equiv u_i^0.$$ This is formally stated in lemma \[lemma-main\] in Appendix \[app-reactive\]. Note that the bound (\[eq:bound-reactive\]) is independent of the specific network topology. Its right-hand side corresponds to the stationary solution (\[eq:xi-reactive\]) for an infinitely large full-mesh graph. Bound (\[eq:bound-reactive\]) is rough and uses no information about the topology. A better bound can be obtained if one considers the degree of node $i$; in this case, we have: $$\label{eq:bound-reactive-1} x_i^* < \frac{1 - \left [ 1 - \frac{\beta}{1 + \delta} \right ]^{k_i}}{1 - \left [ 1 - \frac{\beta}{1 + \delta} \right ]^{k_i}+\delta} \equiv u_i^1 < u_i^0$$ where $k_i$ is the degree of node $i$. In general, one can find progressively better bounds for $x_i^$ by using more information on the graph topology. In fact, let $$\label{eq:rec-for-u} u_i^n = \frac{1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta a_{ij} u_j^{n-1})}{1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta a_{ij} u_j^{n-1}) + \delta} $$ where $$u_i^0 = 1/(1+\delta).$$ Then $x_i^$ is bounded by $$\label{eq:bound-reactive-all} x_i^* < \ldots < u_i^{n} < \ldots < u_i^1 < u_i^0$$ for all $i$. For a formal definition and proof see theorem \[theorem-reactive-all\] in Appendix \[app-reactive\]. Using the similar arguments as in the proof of the theorem (\[theorem-reactive-all\]), it can be shown that $\lim_{n\to \infty} u_i^n = x_i^$ for all $i$. In this paper we are interested only for small $n$. A similar theorem to the theorem (\[theorem-reactive-all\]) can also be proved for lower bounds but only for those SIS processes for which $\beta > \delta$. The obvious lower bound is $x_i^>0$, but replacing 0 in a recurrent relation similar to the one in (\[eq:rec-for-u\]) will produce only 0s. Appendix \[app-reactive\] contains the theorem (\[theorem-reactive-all-1\]) for lower bounds of $x_i^$: $$\label{eq:bound-reactive-all-2} L_i^0 \leq L_i^1 \leq \ldots \leq L_i^{n} < \ldots \leq x_i^$$ for all $i$, which is analogous to theorem (\[theorem-reactive-all\]), and the bounds $L_i^n$ are defined as $$L_i^n = \frac{1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta a_{ij} L_j^{n-1})}{1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta a_{ij} L_j^{n-1}) + \delta} $$ where $$L_i^0 = 1 - \delta/\beta.$$ Note that the left-hand side of (\[eq:bound-reactive-all-2\]) is defined only for $\beta>\delta$, since $x_i^>0$. This property comes from (\[eq:stability-cond\]) since the graph associated with $L_i^0=x_{min}^$ is a path graph of size $2$ with $\lambda_{1,G}=1$. $L_i^n$ for all $n$ are also going to be defined only for $\beta > \delta$, since the a priori assumption is that the peripheral nodes have no probability of being infected. In order to obtain bounds for $\beta<\delta$, we take a different approach described in the following subsection. Lower bounds on the probability of being infective -------------------------------------------------- In the previous section we have derived upper bounds which are valid for all $\beta$ and $\delta$ and lower bounds valid only for the SIS processes for which $\beta > \delta$. Since this is a restriction, in this section we find lower bounds valid for all $\beta$ and $\delta$ by observing that if $G'=(V',E')$ is a subgraph of $G=(V,E)$, with $x_i^{}$ and $x_i^{'}$ being the stationary solution of (\[eq:xi-reactive\]) for the graph $G$ and $G'$ respectively for an arbitrary node $i \in V\cap V'$, then $x_i^{'} < x_i^{}$. In other words, as we remove edges (and nodes) from a graph, the probability of infection will decrease for each (remained) node. This is stated formally in lemma \[lemma-reactive-lower\] in Appendix \[app-reactive\]. Using this interesting property, we can derive lower bound for an arbitrary node by simply obtaining (numerically) the stationary solution of (\[eq:xi-reactive\]) for the 1-hop neighborhood starting at node $i$. Then $x_i^{'}$ is a lower bound for $x_i^{}$: $$\label{eq:bound-reactive-lower} l_i^1 \equiv x_i^{'}\leq x_i^$$ where $$x_i^{'} = \frac{1 - \left[ 1 - \frac{\beta^2 x_i^{'}}{\beta x_i^{'} + \delta} \right]^{k_i}}{1 - \left[ 1 - \frac{\beta^2 x_i^{'}}{\beta x_i^{'} + \delta} \right]^{k_i} + \delta}$$ is the stationary solution of (\[eq:xi-reactive\]) for the hub (central node) of a star graph $G'$ with $k_i+1$ nodes, $k_i$ being the degree of node $i$. Note that bound (\[eq:bound-reactive-lower\]) unlike bound (\[eq:bound-reactive\]) uses 1-hop topology information (the degree of the node) a priori, thus avoiding the problem when $\beta<\delta$. Consequently, one can find progressively better lower bounds for node $i$ by solving (\[eq:xi-reactive\]) for different subgraphs of $G$. To show this, we now define a class of subgraphs called a $p$-hop neighborhood. Let $i$ be an arbitrary node of the graph $G=(V,E)$, $i \in V$, and let $n_i = \max_{x} l(i,x)$ where $l(i,j)$ is the length of the shortest path between nodes $i$ and $j$. Let $V_i^0=\{ i \}$. We define a subgraph $G_i^p= (V_i^p, E_i^p)$ of $G=(V,E)$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned} V_i^p &=& \{ x \| x\in V, 0\leq l(i,x) \leq p \} \\ E_i^p &=& \{ (x,y)\| (x,y) \in E, x\in V_i^p, y\in V_i^{p-1} \}, \end{aligned}$$ where $p=1, \ldots, n_i + 1$. We say that $G_i^p$ is a $p$-hop neighborhood of node $i\in V$. (see Figure \[fig:subgraphs\]). For example, $G_i^1=(\{i\}\cup V_i ,E_i)$, where $E_i$ is the set of edges adjacent to node $i$, and $V_i$ is the set of all neighbors of $i$. In fact, $G_i^1$ is a star graph with $k_i$ leaves and root $i$. Note that $G_i^{n_i + 1}$ is the entire graph $G$ and that the first triangle can occur in $G_i^2$ but not in $G_i^1$. Finally, if $l_i^p$ is the probability of infection of node $i$ given its $p$-hop neighborhood, by theorem \[theorem-reactive-lower-all\] proven in Appendix \[app-reactive\], the probability of infection $x_i^$ given the entire graph $G$ is bounded by $$\label{eq:bound-reactive-lower-all} l_i^1 < l_i^2 < \ldots < l_i^{n_i+1} = x_i^$$ where $n_i+1$ is such that $E_i^{n_i + 1}=E$, i.e. the $n_i + 1$-hop neighborhood of node $i$ contains the entire graph $G$. Numerical results ----------------- In the previous section we have proved that $$l_i^p \leq x_i^ < u_i^n$$ for $i=1, \ldots N$, $p=1, \ldots n_i+1$, and $n=1,2, \ldots $. Note that only when $p=n_i+1$, $l_i^p = x_i^$; otherwise $l_i^p < x_i^$. The bounds $l_i^1$ and $u_i^1$ are obtained by considering only (first) neighbors of $i$. The bound $u_i^1$ depends on the degree of the node $i$, that is, the information contained in the 1-hop neighborhood of $G$ extracted by starting at node $i$, while for the bound $l_i^1$ one computes the SIS model on the subgraph $G_i^1$, which is the subgraph of neighbors of $i$. In a similar fashion, the bounds $l_i^2$ and $u_i^2$ are obtained by considering second neighbors of $i$ (neighbors of the first neighbors). The bound $u_i^2$ can be computed by using $u_j^1$ for all neighbors $j$ of $i$. Thus, $u_i^2$ reflects the topology of 2-hop neighborhood of $G$ extracted by starting at node $i$. Finally, for $n=n_i +1$, since $G_i^{n_i + 1}$ is the entire graph $G$, $u_i^{n_i+1}$ takes into account the topology of the whole network. Therefore, it makes sense to calculate the difference $d_i^p = u_i^p - l_i^p$, when $n=p$, and for small values of $p$. In this way, one could, at least numerically, answer one of the basic questions in mathematical epidemiology for any graph: what is the influence of the graph topology on disease spreading, or more precisely, on the probability that given node will be infected? Lower bounds are derived as stationary solution of the SIS process for the corresponding subgraphs. On the other hand, upper bounds are found by back-propagation using the equation (\[eq:rec-for-u\]). As a consequence, when $p=n_i+1$, $l_i^{n_i+1} =x_i^$ while $u_i^{n_i+1} > x_i^$ and thus $d_i^{n_i+1} > 0$. In fact, see remark 3.3, only when $\lim_{n \to \infty} \left( u_i^n \right) - l_i^{n_i+1} = 0$. In this section we study the Enron e-mail network obtained from [@jure-networkdata], running (\[eq:xi-SIS\]) on the network. The Enron e-mail network has 33696 nodes and 361622 edges with $\lambda_{1,A} = 118.4177$, and $\beta_{c} = 0.004222$ when $\delta=0.5$ for the reactive process. We study the upper and lower bounds of the expected density of infection $\rho = \sum_i x_i^* / N$ calculated as $$\begin{aligned} \hat{\rho_p} = \sum_{i=1}^N \frac{u_i^p}{N} \\ \breve{\rho_p} = \sum_{i=1}^N \frac{l_i^p}{N} \\\end{aligned}$$ for different values of $p$, as well as the average difference $\Delta \rho_p$ between the upper and lower bound for all nodes, $$\Delta \rho_p = \sum_{i=1}^N \frac{d_i^p}{N}.$$ We also calculate $d_i^p$ for 3 nodes: the node with minimum degree, the node with maximum degree, and a node with average degree. To have a better idea of how much local information is being used, Table \[table:avgsize\] depicts the size of a $p$-hop neighborhood for the Enron e-mail network, $\left\| E^p \right\|$ , as measured by the number of edges in the corresponding subgraph averaged over all nodes $i$, as well as its fraction of the total number of edges in the network. $p$ $\left\| E^p \right\|$ $\left\| E^p \right\| / \left\| E \right\|$ ----- ---------------------- ----------------------------------------- 1 10 0.0003 2 1538 0.004 3 45067 0.125 4 207496 0.574 : Average size of $p$-hop neighborhood for the Enron e-mail network. $\left\| E^p \right\|$ is an average of $\left\| E_i^p \right\|$ over all nodes $i$ and $\left\| E \right\|$ is the total number of edges in the network.[]{data-label="table:avgsize"} Figures \[fig:reactive\] and \[fig:gap-reactive\] summarize our results. As depicted in Figure \[fig:reactive\], the bounds are surprisingly tight even when only 2-hop topology information is being used. More precisely, we obtain a very good estimate for the infection density $\rho$ by summing over node-level estimates which are using only $0.4\%$ of the network topology on average (see Table \[table:avgsize\]). The upper bound $\hat{\rho_1}$ is also surprisingly tight given that it only uses the node’s degrees while having no information for the edges in the network. Figure \[fig:gap-reactive\] shows that the average difference $\Delta \rho_p$ between the bounds decreases as one considers 1-hop, 2-hop, and 3-hop topology information, as expected since the bounds around the stationary infection density $\rho = \sum_i x_i^* / N$ become tighter. Also the spreading becomes less topology dependent as the disease transmission parameter $\beta$ increases. When $\beta$ is close to $\beta_c$, $x_i^$ and consequently $\rho$, are close to zero as well. Therefore, as $\beta$ approaches $\beta_c$, it is expected that the value of $x_i^$ is influenced by the whole network. For the Enron network, as indicated in Figure \[fig:gap-reactive\], the average difference between the bounds calculated from 3-hop neighborhood is close to zero, $\Delta \rho_3 \leq 0.012$ for all $\beta$. Additionally, when $\beta > 0.4$, topology of only 2-hops away is relevant for the spreading process, $\Delta \rho_2 \leq 0.01$. The bounds calculated using only 1-hop topology, i.e. the nodes’ degrees are wide apart for all values of $\beta$ for the particular network, indicating that the specific degrees are highly influential in the spreading process. In this light, we examine the difference $d_i^p$ between the bounds for three randomly chosen nodes with particular degree: one with minimum degree, one with average degree, and one with maximum degree. Note that results vary greatly for the three types of nodes. The difference $d_i^p$ is smallest for the node with minimum degree reaching a maximum of 0.028 for all $\beta$ given only 2-hop topology information (0.4% of the entire network topology on average). It is also worth noting that the lower bound is very close to the actual result, with the difference being due to the upper bound requiring more information to converge. Interestingly, while the gap for the node with maximum degree quickly decreases with the increase of $\beta$, it can be large for specific values of $\beta$. In contrast to the minimum degree case, for the node with maximum degree, the difference is due to the lower bound not having converged, while the upper bound is quite tight. Another interesting result for the node with maximum degree is that as $\beta$ gets greater than 0.04, knowing only the neighbors of the node’s neighbors suffices for predicting the outcome of the infection. For the node with average degree, we observe two interesting results. Firstly, the difference $d_i^p$ exists for a relatively wide span of $\beta$ (as in the minimum degree case). The other result is that for some specific values of $\beta$, $d_i^p$ can be relatively large (as in the maximum degree case). However, the difference $d_i^p$ is smaller than 0.03 for all values of $\beta$ given the 3-hop topology information which constitutes approximately 12.5% of the total network topology on average. Finally, for all nodes, the bounds on the probability of being infective are tighter as $\beta \to 1$, and looser as $\beta \to \beta_c$. The conclusion from this is that as $\beta \to \beta_c$, network topology plays a bigger role in the dynamics of the spreading process. Contact process {#sec:4} =============== Bounds on the probability of being infective -------------------------------------------- For the contact process, since $r_{ij}=\frac{a_{ij}}{\sum_k{a_{ik}}}$, we rewrite (\[eq:xi-stat\]) as: $$\label{eq:xi-contact} x_i^* = \frac{\left[ 1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta \frac{a_{ij}x_j^}{\sum_k a_{ik}}) \right]}{\left[ 1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta \frac{a_{ij}x_j^}{\sum_k a_{ik}}) \right] + \delta}$$ From lemma \[lemma-contact\] and \[lemma-contact2\] (see Appendix \[app-contact\]) we have the following bounds for the stationary solution of (\[eq:xi-contact\]) $$\label{eq:bound-contact} l_i^0 \equiv \frac{1 - e^{-\beta x_i^}}{1 - e^{-\beta x_i^} + \delta} < x_i^* \leq 1 - \frac{\delta}{\beta} \equiv u_i^0$$ Note that the bound (\[eq:bound-contact\]) is independent of the specific network topology. Its left-hand and right-hand side correspond to the stationary solution of (\[eq:xi-contact\]) for an infinitely large full-mesh graph and a path graph of size 2 respectively. Similarly to the reactive process, better bounds can be obtained if we use a node’s degree: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:bound-contact-1} l_i^1 & \equiv & \frac{1 - \left [ 1 - \beta x_p \right ]^{k_i}}{1 - \left [ 1 - \beta x_p \right ]^{k_i}+\delta} < x_i^* \leq \nonumber \\ & \leq & \frac{1 - \left [ 1 - \beta + \delta \right ]^{k_i}}{1 - \left [ 1 - \beta + \delta \right ]^{k_i}+\delta} \equiv u_i^1\end{aligned}$$ where $k_i$ is the degree of node $i$ and $x_p$ is the solution of the equation: $$x=\frac{1 - e^{-\beta x}}{1 - e^{-\beta x} + \delta}$$ More generally, by using $n$-hop neighborhoods, the stationary solution of (\[eq:xi-contact\]) for an arbitrary node $i$, $x_i^$, is bounded by, $$\label{eq:bound-contact-all} l_i^0 < l_i^1 < \ldots < l_i^n < x_i^ \leq u_i^n \leq \ldots \leq u_i^1 \leq u_i^0$$ where $$\begin{aligned} l_i^n = \frac{1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta r_{ij} l_j^{n-1})}{1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta r_{ij} l_j^{n-1}) + \delta} \mbox{ and } \\ u_i^n = \frac{1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta r_{ij} u_j^{n-1})}{1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta r_{ij} u_j^{n-1}) + \delta} $$ and $$l_i^0 = \frac{1 - e^{-\beta x_i^}}{1 - e^{-\beta x_i^} + \delta} \mbox{ and } u_i^0 = 1 - \frac{\delta}{\beta}$$ For a formal definition and proof see theorem \[theorem-contact-all\] in Appendix \[app-contact\]. Note that here, unlike in the reactive process, the problem with $u_i^0 = 1 - \delta/\beta$ when $\delta>\beta$ is avoided since $\beta_c > \delta$. Numerical results ----------------- Again, it makes sense to calculate the difference $d_i^n = u_i^n - l_i^n$ between the upper and lower bound derived by using n-hop topology information for node $i$ to determine the dependence of the contact process on the specific network topology. Figures \[fig:contact\] and \[fig:gap-contact\] show the numerical results. As in the reactive process, we study the upper bound $\hat{\rho_p}$ and lower bound $\breve{\rho_p}$ on $\rho$, as well as the average difference between the upper and lower bounds $\Delta \rho_p$. We also study $d_i^p$ for 3 nodes: the node with minimum degree, a node with average degree, and the node with maximum degree. Note that $\beta_c = 0.5$ when $\delta = 0.5$. In general, the contact process is less dependent on the network topology than the reactive process, as the largest value of $\Delta \rho_1$ is an order of magnitude less than the corresponding value for the reactive process. The more topology information is included in the calculation of the bounds, the difference between them decreases. Also, the probabilities that each of the 3 examined nodes is infective are equally dependent on the network topology, since $d_i^n$ for $n = 1,2,3$ are similarly valued. Contrary to the reactive process, the bounds on the probability of being infective are tighter as $\beta \to \beta_c$ (see Figure \[fig:contact\]). In the Appendix \[app-limit\], we show that when $\beta$ is close to $\beta_{c}= \delta$, the probabilities of being infective have an analytical solution in closed form, they are no longer topology dependent, and are functions only of the spreading process parameters $\beta$ and $\delta$. Conclusions {#sec:conc} =========== In this paper we have derived the upper and lower bounds on the probability that a node is infective for the SIS model of infection spreading on networks, where the behavior of a node is modeled with a discrete-time Markov chain SIS model. We have considered the reactive and the contact process as two cases of the spreading process. For both processes we use the difference between upper and lower bounds on microscopic level to assess the dependence of the spreading processes on network topology. Numerical results are given on the Enron e-mail network. For both processes, the bounds are progressively better as one considers a larger $n-$hop neighborhood of a node. For the reactive process, both bounds on the probability that a node is infective are tighter as $\beta \to 1$ and their difference is largest for nodes with average degree. Conversely, the bounds on the probability that a node is infective for the contact process are tighter as $\beta \to \beta_c$. One of the main implications of the paper is that if $\beta$ is larger than its critical value (when $\beta$ is close to $\beta_c$ the probability of a node to be infective is anyway close to zero), one can estimate the probability of being infective using only local information (considering only $n-$hop local topology, for small $n$), without knowing the whole network. Consequently, from this local information one can also estimate the density of being infective on the whole network, as well as assess the extend to which the topology affects the outcome of the infection on macroscopic level. The results of this paper are easily extendable to other ergodic models (such as SIRS, for example) and are related to all types of spreading (idea, failure, rumor) [@rumor-model; @GoffmanNewill; @infoblogspace], regardless on the type of the spread agent. How these results can be extended to SIR model by considering SIRS model and taking one of its parameters to approach zero (or one) so that SIRS model in this limit approaches SIR model is a question for further research. Bounds for reactive process {#app-reactive} =========================== \[lemma-main\] Let $\Phi$ be the family of all possible simple and connected graphs $G=(V,E)$ with $\left\| V \right\| \geq 2$. Let $\mathbf{x}^(G)=[x_1^ x_2^* \ldots x_N^]$ be the stationary solution (\[eq:xi-stat\]) different from the origin for the graph $G \in \Phi$, $G=(V,E)$, where $N=\left\|V\right\|$. Let $x_{max}^=\max_{G\in \Phi}\max_i{\mathbf{x}^(G)}$. Then for all $i$, $x_i^$ is bounded by $$x_i^* < \frac{1}{1+\delta} \equiv u_i^0.$$ Let $\Delta$ be the set of neighbors of the node associated with the value $x_{max}^$. We will show that $x_j^=x_{max}^$ for all $j\in \Delta$ by using contradiction. Let the node associated with the value $x_{max}^$ be node $k$, i.e., $x_k^=x_{max}^$. Assume that $x_j^=x_{max}^$ for all $j\in \Delta$ is false. Then, there exists at least one node $i\in \Delta$ such that $x_i^<x_{max}^$. But, this means that $x_k^<x_{max}^$ since $$\frac{\partial x_k}{\partial x_i}=\frac{\beta\delta r_{ki}}{(f_k + \delta)^2}\prod_{j\in \Delta \setminus \{i\}}{\left(1-\beta r_{kj}x_j\right)}>0$$ which contradicts our first statement that $x_k^=x_{max}^$. Let $n=\left\|\Delta\right\|$. From (\[eq:xi-reactive\]) and the fact that $x_j^=x_{max}^$ for all $j\in \Delta$, we have: $$x_{max}^* = \frac{1 - \left(1 - \beta x_{max}^\right)^{n}}{1 - \left(1 - \beta x_{max}^\right)^{n} + \delta}$$ Since $\frac{\partial x_{max}^}{\partial n} > 0$, the maximum value of $x_{max}^$ is obtained at $n \to\infty$. Finally, the bound (\[eq:bound-reactive\]) comes directly from $$x_{max}^* = \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1 - \left(1 - \beta x_{max}^\right)^{n}}{1 - \left(1 - \beta x_{max}^\right)^{n} + \delta} = \frac{1}{1+\delta}$$ \[theorem-reactive-all\] Let $\Phi$ be the family of all possible simple and connected graphs $G=(V,E)$ with $\left\| V \right\| \geq 2$. Let $\mathbf{x}^(G)=[x_1^ x_2^* \ldots x_N^]$ be the stationary solution (\[eq:xi-reactive\]) different from the origin and let $i$ be an arbitrary node of the graph $G=(V,E)$, $i \in V$. Let $$ u_i^n = \frac{1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta a_{ij} u_j^{n-1})}{1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta a_{ij} u_j^{n-1}) + \delta} $$ where $$u_i^0 = 1/(1+\delta).$$ Then $x_i^$ is bounded by $$x_i^* < \ldots < u_i^{n} < \ldots < u_i^1 < u_i^0$$ for all $i$. We will first prove that $u_i^n < \ldots < u_i^1 < u_i^0$ by induction. Note that $u_i^0=u^0$ is topology independent, and $u^0 = \lim_{k_i \to \infty} u_i^1$ and since $\frac{\partial u_i^1}{\partial k_i}>0$ we have that $u_i^1 < u^0$ for all $i$. Now assume that $u_i^p < u_i^{p-1}$ holds for all $i$ and $p=2,3,\dots,n-1$. Since $\frac{\partial u_i^n}{\partial u_j^{n-1}}>0$ and $u_j^{n-1} < u_j^{n-2}$ it follows that $u_i^{n} < u_i^{n-1}$ for all $i$. We will prove that $x_i^* < u_i^n$ in a similar fashion. From Lemma \[lemma-main\] we have that $x_i^* < u_i^0=u^0$ for all $i$. Now assume that $x_i^* < u_i^p$ holds for all $i$ and $p=1,2,\dots,n-1$. Note that $x_i^$ is $u_i^n$ with $u_j^{n-1}$ replaced by the smaller $x_j^$ ($x_j^* < u_j^{n-1}$). Since $\frac{\partial x_i^}{\partial x_j^}>0$ it follows that $x_i^* < u_i^n$ for all $i$. \[theorem-reactive-all-1\] Let $\Phi$ be the family of all possible simple and connected graphs $G=(V,E)$ with $\left\| V \right\| \geq 2$. Let $\beta > \delta$. Let $\mathbf{x}^(G)=[x_1^ x_2^* \ldots x_N^]$ be the stationary solution (\[eq:xi-reactive\]) different from the origin and let $i$ be an arbitrary node of the graph $G=(V,E)$, $i \in V$. Let $$L_i^n = \frac{1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta a_{ij} L_j^{n-1})}{1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta a_{ij} L_j^{n-1}) + \delta} $$ where $$L_i^0 = 1 - \delta/\beta.$$ Then $x_i^$ is bounded by $$L_i^0 \leq L_i^1 \leq \ldots \leq L_i^{n} < \ldots \leq x_i^$$ for all $i$. \[lemma-reactive-lower\] Let $G'=(V',E')$ be a subgraph of $G=(V,E)$. Let node $i \in V\cap V'$ and let $x_i^{}$ and $x_i^{'}$ be the stationary solution of (\[eq:xi-reactive\]) different from the origin associated with the node $i$ for the graph $G$ and $G'$ respectively. Then $x_i^{'} < x_i^{}$. Without loss of generality, assume that only one edge $e$ between nodes $i$ and $j$ is removed from $G$ in order to obtain $G'$. Starting from the stationary solution $\textbf{x}^{}(G)$, and from node $i$’s point of view, the edge removal can be interpreted as a change in $x_j$ from $x_j^$ to $0$. Then, from Lemma \[lemma-main\] we have a negative change in $x_i$ which will propagate and imply negative changes in $x_k$ for all $k \in V'$ with each iteration of (\[eq:xi-reactive\]). On the other hand, removing a node can be interpreted as a removal of its edges. \[theorem-reactive-lower-all\] Consider an arbitrary node $i$ of the graph $G=(V,E)$ and let $G_i^p=(V_i^p,E_i^p)$ be the $p$-hop neighborhood of $G$ extracted by starting at node $i$. Let $n_i = \max_{x} l(i,x)$ and let $\mathbf{x}^(G)=[x_1^* x_2^* \ldots x_N^]$ and $\mathbf{x}(G_i^p)^=[l_1^p l_2^p \ldots l_{n}^p]$ be the stationary solution of (\[eq:xi-reactive\]) different from the origin for the graphs $G=(V,E)$ and $G_i^p=(V_i^p,E_i^p)$, respectively. Then $x_i^$ is bounded by $$l_i^1 < l_i^2 < \ldots < l_i^{n_i+1} = x_i^$$ for all $i\in V$. $l_i^{p-1} < l_i^{p}$ for all $p=2,3,\dots, n_i+1$ comes directly from Lemma \[lemma-reactive-lower\]. Bounds for reactive process {#app-contact} =========================== \[lemma-contact\] Let $\Phi$ be the family of all possible simple unweighted connected graphs. Let $\mathbf{x}^(G)=[x_1^ x_2^* \ldots x_n^]$ be the stationary solution (\[eq:xi-contact\]) different from the origin for the graph $G \in \Phi$. Let $x_{min}^=\min_{G\in \Phi}\min_i{\mathbf{x}^(G)}$ and $x_{max}^=\max_{G\in \Phi}\max_i{\mathbf{x}^(G)}$. Let $\Gamma$ and $\Delta$ be the set of neighbors of the node associated with the value $x_{min}^$ and $x_{max}^$ respectively. Then $\left\|\Gamma\right\|\to\infty$ and $\left\|\Delta\right\|=1$. Let $x_{lim}^$ be either $x_{min}^$ or $x_{max}^$ and let the number of its neighbours be $n$. From Lemma \[lemma-main\] we have: $$x_{lim}^* = \frac{1 - \left(1 - \frac{\beta x_{lim}^}{n}\right)^{n}}{1 - \left(1 - \frac{\beta x_{lim}^}{n}\right)^{n} + \delta}$$ Since $\frac{\partial x_{lim}^}{\partial n} < 0$, the minimum value of $x_{lim}^$ is obtained at $n=\left\|\Gamma\right\|\to\infty$ and the maximum at $n=\left\|\Delta\right\|=1$ since the graph must be connected. \[lemma-contact2\] Let $\mathbf{x}^(G)=[x_1^ x_2^* \ldots x_N^]$ be the stationary solution of (\[eq:xi-contact\]) different from the origin. Then $x_i^$ is bounded by $$l_i^0 \equiv \frac{1 - e^{-\beta x_i^}}{1 - e^{-\beta x_i^} + \delta} < x_i^* \leq 1 - \frac{\delta}{\beta} \equiv u_i^0$$ for all $i$. From Lemma \[lemma-contact\] the bounds come directly from the solution of the equations $$x_{min}^* = \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1 - \left(1 - \frac{\beta x_{min}^}{n}\right)^{n}}{1 - \left(1 - \frac{\beta x_{min}^}{n}\right)^{n} + \delta}$$ $$x_{max}^* = \frac{\beta x_{max}^}{\beta x_{max}^ + \delta}$$ \[theorem-contact-all\] Let $\mathbf{x}^(G)=[x_1^ x_2^* \ldots x_N^]$ be the stationary solution of (\[eq:xi-contact\]) different from the origin and let $$\begin{aligned} l_i^n = \frac{1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta r_{ij} l_j^{n-1})}{1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta r_{ij} l_j^{n-1}) + \delta} \mbox{ and } \\ u_i^n = \frac{1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta r_{ij} u_j^{n-1})}{1 - \prod_{j=1}^N (1 - \beta r_{ij} u_j^{n-1}) + \delta} $$ where $$l_i^0 = \frac{1 - e^{-\beta x_i^}}{1 - e^{-\beta x_i^} + \delta} \mbox{ and } u_i^0 = 1 - \frac{\delta}{\beta}$$ then $x_i^$ is bounded by $$l_i^0 < l_i^1 < \ldots < l_i^n < x_i^* \leq u_i^n \leq \ldots \leq u_i^1 \leq u_i^0$$ for all $i$. The proof is completely analogous to that of Theorem \[theorem-reactive-all\]. Analytical solution for the contact process in the limit $\beta \to \beta_c$ {#app-limit} ============================================================================ When $\beta \rightarrow \beta_{c}$ (but $\beta > \beta_{c}$) then the probability $x_i^$ that node $i$ is infective is $x_i^ \approx \varepsilon_i$, where $0 \leq \varepsilon_i \ll 1$, and from (\[eq:xi-stat\]) (neglecting second order terms in $\varepsilon$) one gets $$\delta \varepsilon_i = (1-\varepsilon_i) \beta \sum_j r_{ij} \varepsilon_j. \label{eq:xi-epsilon}$$ Let $y = [\varepsilon_1 \ldots \varepsilon_N]$ and $D_y=[d_{ij}]$ be a diagonal matrix such that $d_{ii} = 1 - \varepsilon_i$ and $d_{ij}=0$ for $i \neq j$. The last equation can be written in matrix form as $$\frac{\delta}{\beta} y = D_y R y,$$ or $$\left[ D_y R - \frac{\delta}{\beta} I_N \right] y =0.$$ Assuming that $\varepsilon_i \neq 0$ for all $i$, the last equation reduces to $ D_y R - \frac{\delta}{\beta} I_N =0$, which, since $\sum_j r_{ij}= 1$, has a solution $\varepsilon_i = 1 - {\delta}/{\beta}$ for all $i$. Therefore, when $\beta > \beta_{c}= \delta$ and the nodes’ probabilities $x_i^$ of being infective are small, the $x_i^$’s have an analytical solution in closed form, they are no longer topology dependent, and are functions only of the spreading process parameters $\beta$ and $\delta$. [99]{} M. E. J. Newman, Physical Review E 66, 016128 (2002). R. Pastor-Satorras and A. Vespignani, Physical Review Letters 86, 3200 (2001). R. Pastor-Satorras and A. Vespignani, Physical Review E 63, 066117 (2001). V. M. Eguíluz and K. Klemm, Physical Review Letters 89, 108701 (2002). Y. Wang, D. Chakrabarti, C. Wang, and C. Faloutsos, In Proc. Symp. Reliable and Distributed Systems, Florence, Italy, Oct. 2003. M. Draief, A. Ganesh and L. Massoulie, Threshold for virus spread on Networks, Ann. Appl. Probab. Volume 18, Number 2, 359–378 (2008) M. Barthelemy, A. Barrat, R. Pastor-Satorras, and A. Vespignani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 17870 (2004). J. Gomez-Gardenes, V. Latora, Y. Moreno, and E. Profumo, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1399-1404 (2008). B. Guerra and J. Gomez-Gardenes, Phys. Rev. E. 82, 035101(R) (2010). D. Chakrabarti, Y. Wang, C. Wang, J. Leskovec, and C. Faloutsos, Epidemic Thresholds in Real Networks, ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. secur. Vol. 10, 13, (2008) S. Gomez, A. Arenas, J. Borge-Holthoefer, S. Meloni and Y. Moreno, Discrete-time Markov chain approach to contact-based disease spreading in complex networks, EPL 89, 38009 (2010) S. Meloni, A. Arenas, and Y. Moreno, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 16897-16902 (2009). S. Gómez, J. Gómez-Gardeñes, Y. Moreno and A. Arenas, Physical Review E 84, 036105 (2011). M. Deijfen, Epidemics and vaccination on weighted graphs, Mathematical Biosciences, in press (2011) C. Castellano and R. Pastor-Satorras, Physical Review Letters 105, 218701 (2010) R. Parshani, S. Carmi and S. Havlin, Physical Review Letters 104, 258701 (2010) J. Marro and R. Dickman, Nonequilibrium phase transitions in lattice models, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) 1999. C. Castellano C. and R. Pastor-Satorras, Non-mean- field behavior of the contact process on scale-free networks, Phys. Rev. Lett., 96 (2006) 038701. C. Castellano and R. Pastor-Satorras, Routes to thermodynamic limit on scale-free networks, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100 (2008) 148701. L. K. Gallos and P. Argyrakis, Absence of Kinetic Effects in Reaction-diffusion processes in scale-free Networks, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92 (2004) 138301. M. Catanzaro, M. Boguna and R. Pastor-Satorras, Diffusion-annihilation processes in complex networks, Phys. Rev. E, 71 (2005) 056104. V. Colizza, R. Pastor-Satorras and A. Vespignani, Reaction-diffusion processes and metapopulation models in heterogeneous networks, Nature Physics, 3 (2007) 276. http://snap.stanford.edu/data/index.html D. Trpevski, W. K-S. Tang and Lj. Kocarev, A Model for Rumor Spreading over Networks, Physical Review E 81, 056102 (2010). W. Goffman, V. A. Newill, Generalization of Epidemic Theory: An Application to the Transmission of Ideas, Nature 204, 225-228 (1964) D. Gruhl, R. Guha, D. Liben-Nowell and A. Tomkins, Information Diffusion Through Blogspace, Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web, ACM New York, NY, USA (2004)	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We address the question of how small can the quasiparticle decay rate be at low energies in undoped graphene, where kinematical constraints are known to prevent the decay into particle-hole excitations. For this purpose, we study the renormalization of the phonon dispersion by many-body effects, which turns out to be very strong in the case of the out-of-plane phonons at the $K$ point of the spectrum. We show that these evolve into a branch of very soft modes that provide the relevant channel for quasiparticle decay, at energies below the scale of the optical phonon modes. In this regime, we find that the decay rate is proportional to the cube of the quasiparticle energy. This implies that a crossover should be observed in transport properties from the linear dependence characteristic of the high-energy regime to the much slower decay rate due to the soft phonon modes.' address: \| $^a$Instituto de Estructura de la Materia, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Serrano 123, 28006 Madrid, Spain\ $^b$Dipartimento di Scienza dei Materiali, Università di Milano-Bicocca, Via Cozzi 53, 20125 Milano, Italy author: - 'J. González$^a$ and E. Perfetto$^b$\' title: Unconventional quasiparticle lifetime in undoped graphene --- The recent fabrication of single atomic layers of carbon has attracted a lot of attention, as this material (so-called graphene) provides the experimental realization of a system where the low-energy electronic excitations behave as massless Dirac fermions[@geim; @kim]. The main results reported in Refs. and can be understood as a reflection of the linear dependence on momentum of the quasiparticle energy $\varepsilon ({\bf k})$. The honeycomb lattice structure of graphene is actually known to lead to a bandstructure with conical shape $\varepsilon ({\bf k}) = \pm v_F \|{\bf k}\|$ around the corners of the hexagonal Brillouin zone, with conduction and valence bands meeting at the Dirac points. The relativistic-like invariance arising from the massless Dirac quasiparticles has been shown to be at the origin of a number of remarkable electronic properties, like the finite lower bound of the conductivity at the charge neutrality point[@paco; @kat; @twor; @mac], the anomalous integer Hall effect[@paco; @ando; @gus], and the absence of backscattering in the presence of long-range scatterers[@suzu]. More recently, the many-body properties of the graphene layer have been also investigated. One of the relevant issues addressed is whether the quasiparticle properties have to correspond to the expected behavior for a Fermi liquid in two dimensions[@prbr; @sarma]. In this regard, it has been pointed out that the $e$-$e$ interactions lead to quite different quasiparticle features in graphene depending on whether the material is doped or not[@sarma]. This can be understood from the particular kinematical constraints of the conical dispersion, that prevent the Dirac quasiparticles from decaying into interband particle-hole excitations[@hwang]. In doped graphene, intraband processes are responsible for the quasiparticle decay, leading to a quadratic dependence on energy of the decay rate[@sarma]. On the other hand, when the Fermi level is at the charge neutrality point, the electron self-energy has a linear dependence on frequency. However, the maximum energy released in the scattering of a quasiparticle with momentum transfer ${\bf q}$ is at the boundary of the continuum of particle-hole excitations, which have energy $\ge v_F \|{\bf q}\|$. In situations where the Coulomb interaction remains singular in the limit ${\bf q} \rightarrow 0$, as it happens in the layers of bulk graphite, a finite spread in the momentum of the quasiparticles is enough to give rise to a finite decay rate[@unconv]. This mechanism must rely however on some effect extrinsic to the 2D system (disorder, for instance), and it would be absent anyhow as soon as the Coulomb interaction is screened beyond a certain distance. In this paper we address the question of whether the quasiparticle decay rate may actually vanish in a graphene layer with the Fermi level tuned at the charge neutrality point. This study is relevant as it faces the possibility of having an electron liquid made of extremely long-lived quasiparticles. Thus, we will look for many-body effects which may give rise to suitable gapless excitations and consequent quasiparticle decay channels in undoped graphene. It is known that, in the absence of doping, the 2D system does not support plasmon excitations[@unconv]. Yet the polarization of the electron liquid is singular at low energies, and this may be the source of potential instabilities. We will see that there is actually a significant renormalization of the interactions at the large momentum-transfer $K$ connecting the two inequivalent Dirac points in graphene. At such large momentum, the singular behavior of the electron polarization tends to amplify the effects of the electron-phonon interaction, which prevails over the Coulomb interaction. Thus, we will show that gapless phonon branches may appear at the $K$ point when graphene is lying on a substrate. The resulting low-energy phonon modes provide then the relevant mechanism for the decay of quasiparticles in undoped graphene, though with a very low decay rate that turns out to be proportional to the cube of the quasiparticle energy. We begin by considering the hamiltonian for Dirac quasiparticles in graphene, at energies below the scale of $\sim 1$ eV for which the dispersion can be taken as linear: $$H_0 = v_F \int d^2 k \; \Psi^{(a) \dagger} ({\bf k}) \: \mbox{\boldmath $\gamma $}^{(a)} \cdot {\bf k} \: \Psi^{(a)} ({\bf k})$$ In the above expression, a sum is implicit over the index $a$ accounting for the two different valleys and corresponding Dirac spinors $\Psi^{(a)} $ at opposite corners $K, -K$ in the graphene Brillouin zone. $\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma $}^{(a)}$ are different sets of Pauli matrices for $a = 1, 2$, which must be chosen according to the appropriate chirality of the modes at $K, -K$ as $\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma $}^{(1)} \equiv ( \sigma_x , \sigma_y )$, $\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma $}^{(2)} \equiv ( -\sigma_x , \sigma_y )$ [@ando]. As a first step in the development of the many-body theory, we will assume that the quasiparticles interact through a Coulomb potential $$V_0 ({\bf q}) = \frac{e^2}{ 2\kappa \|{\bf q}\| } \label{pot}$$ with a dielectric constant $\kappa $ dictated by the coupling to the substrate. As is well-known, the quasiparticles of the 2D system provide very limited screening of the Coulomb potential in (\[pot\]). This effect can be assessed by computing the polarization $$\begin{aligned} \Pi_0^{(a,b)} ({\bf q}, i \overline{\omega}_q ) & = & 4 \: {\rm Tr } \int \frac{d^2 k}{(2 \pi)^2} \int \frac{d \overline{\omega}_k}{2 \pi} \: \nonumber \\ & & G^{(a)} ({\bf k}+{\bf q}, i\overline{\omega}_k + i\overline{\omega}_q) \: G^{(b)} ({\bf k}, i\overline{\omega}_k ) \label{pol}\end{aligned}$$ with Dirac propagators $G^{(a)} ({\bf k}, i \overline{\omega}_k ) = 1/( i \overline{\omega}_k - v_F \mbox{\boldmath $\gamma $}^{(a)} \cdot {\bf k} )$. At small momentum-transfer, the trace in (\[pol\]) is taken over excitations in the same valley $a=b$, with the result that ${\rm Tr } ( i \overline{\omega}_q + v_F \mbox{\boldmath $\gamma $}^{(a)} \cdot {\bf q} ) ( i \overline{\omega}_k + v_F \mbox{\boldmath $\gamma $}^{(a)} \cdot {\bf k} ) = - 2\overline{\omega}_q \overline{\omega}_k + 2 v_F^2 {\bf q} \cdot {\bf k} $. This leads to an expression for the intravalley polarization $ \Pi_0^{(a,a)} ({\bf q}, i \overline{\omega}_q ) = - {\bf q}^2 / 8 \sqrt{v_F^2 {\bf q}^2 + \overline{\omega}_q^2 }$ [@np]. Going back to real frequency $\omega_q = i \overline{\omega}_q $, we find a divergence of the polarization at $\omega_q = v_F \|{\bf q}\|$. This marks actually the threshold for the creation of particle-hole pairs in the electron liquid. The particle-hole continuum is above the maximum energy $v_F \|{\bf q}\|$ released in the scattering of a quasiparticle with momentum transfer ${\bf q}$. This explains that the quasiparticle decay into particle-hole pairs is forbidden in the case of undoped graphene. In the case of intervalley scattering of quasiparticles, the polarization is also affected by a similar divergence at $\omega_q = v_F \|{\bf q}\|$, where ${\bf q}$ stands now for a small deviation around the large momentum $K$. The computation of the polarization (\[pol\]) with $a \neq b$ leads to the trace ${\rm Tr } ( i \overline{\omega}_q + v_F \mbox{\boldmath $\gamma $}^{(a)} \cdot {\bf q} ) ( i \overline{\omega}_k + v_F \mbox{\boldmath $\gamma $}^{(b)} \cdot {\bf k} ) = - 2\overline{\omega}_q \overline{\omega}_k - 2 v_F^2 q_x k_x + 2 v_F^2 q_y k_y $. This can be assimilated to the above computation for $a = b$ if the $y$ component of each momentum is exchanged with the frequency $\overline{\omega }$, and an overall $-$ sign is introduced. It can be checked by direct calculation that the result for the intervalley polarization corresponds actually to operating that transformation in the above expression for $ \Pi_0^{(a,a)}$, that is, $ \Pi_0^{(1,2)} ({\bf q}, i \overline{\omega}_q ) = (p_x^2 + \overline{\omega}_q^2 / v_F^2) / 8 \sqrt{v_F^2 {\bf q}^2 + \overline{\omega}_q^2 } $. The polarization thus obtained shows a preferred direction in momentum space, which is a reflection of having considered the scattering between two Dirac valleys along the $x$ direction. The result physically sensible can be obtained by averaging over the processes involving the three equivalent nearest-neighbor valleys of the $K$ point. These include in particular the valleys rotated by an angle of $\pm 2\pi /3 $ with respect to the $x$-axis. Taking into account the three different contributions, we get the final result for the intervalley polarization $$\widetilde{\Pi}_0 ({\bf q}, \omega_q ) = \frac{{\bf q}^2 /2 - \omega_q^2 / v_F^2} {8 \sqrt{v_F^2 {\bf q}^2 - \omega_q^2 } } \label{inter}$$ The polarization (\[inter\]) does not give rise to any singularity when renormalizing the Coulomb interaction, as the Coulomb potential gets dressed at large momentum-transfer $K$ in the form $V_0 ({\bf q}) \approx e^2/(2\kappa K - \widetilde{\Pi}_0 ({\bf q}, \omega_q ))$. On the contrary, the singular behavior of the intervalley polarization may lead to important effects in the phonon sector. This consideration is relevant for lattice vibrations coupling to the total electron charge, as it happens in the case of the out-of-plane phonons. The electron-phonon interaction can be analyzed in terms of the atomic deformation potential induced by the lattice vibrations[@adp]. When graphene is lying on a substrate, the mirror symmetry of the vibrations perpendicular to the carbon layer is broken, and the on-site deformation potential induces a linear coupling of the out-of-plane phonons to the total electron charge. If we denote by $c^{\dagger}_{\bf q}, c_{\bf q}$ the creation and annihilation operators for the modes around the $K$ point of a branch of out-of-plane phonons, we can describe the phonon sector by means of kinetic and interaction terms in the hamiltonian: $$\begin{aligned} H_{\rm ph} & = & \int d^2 q \: \omega_0 ({\bf q}) \: c^{\dagger}_{\bf q} c_{\bf q} \nonumber \\ H_{\rm e-ph} & = & g \int d^2 k d^2 q \Psi^{(a) \dagger}({\bf k+q}) \Psi^{(b)} ({\bf k}) ( c_{\bf q} + c^{\dagger}_{-{\bf q}} ) \;\;\;\; \label{ep}\end{aligned}$$ For the characterization of the phonon branch, it will be enough to approximate the energy of the out-of-plane phonons about the $K$ point by $\omega_0 \approx 70$ meV. The electron-phonon coupling $g$ can be obtained as the atomic deformation potential (of the order of a few eV) times $1/\sqrt{m_C \omega_0}$ ($m_C$ being the carbon atomic mass) [@adp]. The intervalley polarization induces a strong renormalization of the out-of-plane phonons in graphene. It has been already pointed out that the interaction with the electronic degrees of freedom may give rise to significant Kohn anomalies in the dispersion of in-plane optical phonons[@ka1; @ka2]. The coupling to these branches is given in general by the modulation of the transfer integral between nearest-neighbor atoms in the carbon lattice. In our framework, this gives rise to an electron-phonon vertex proportional to the matrix $\sigma_x $. When introduced in the computation of the trace in the polarization, such a vertex gives rise to simple scalar products in $({\bf q}, \overline{\omega}_q )$ space, leading to a susceptibility proportional to $\sqrt{v_F^2{\bf q}^2 - \omega_q^2 }$. However, in the case of phonons coupling to the total electron charge, the particle-hole polarization (\[inter\]) induces a more profound anomaly in the phonon dispersion. If we approximate the bare phonon propagator about the $K$ point by $D_0 ({\bf q}, \omega ) \approx 2 \omega_0 /(\omega^2 - \omega_0^2 + i \epsilon )$, the renormalized propagator $D ({\bf q}, \omega )$ dressed with the particle-hole polarization becomes $$D ({\bf q}, \omega ) \approx \frac{2 \omega_0 }{\omega^2 - \omega_0^2 + i \epsilon - 2 \omega_0 g^2 \widetilde{\Pi}_0 ({\bf q}, \omega ) } \label{dr}$$ The renormalized phonon energies are found by setting to zero the denominator of the propagator (\[dr\]), which leads to the equation $$\omega^2 - \omega_0^2 - \frac{g^2}{ v_F^2} \omega_0 \frac{v_F^2{\bf q}^2 /2 - \omega^2 } {4 \sqrt{v_F^2 {\bf q}^2 - \omega^2}} = 0 \label{pole}$$ It can be checked that the phonon dispersion thus computed becomes gapless at ${\bf q} = 0$, adopting the form of a low-energy branch below the continuum of particle-hole excitations as shown in Fig. \[one\]. At this point, it becomes pertinent however to assess the effects of the Coulomb interaction on the renormalization of the phonon properties. The Coulomb and the phonon-mediated interaction have to be considered on the same footing when analyzing their role in the renormalization of the phonon propagator. Thus, we can define an intervalley particle-hole susceptibility $\widetilde{\Pi} ({\bf q}, \omega_q )$ dressed by the effect of the Coulomb interaction and, therefore, satisfying the equation $$\widetilde{\Pi} = \widetilde{\Pi}_0 + \widetilde{\Pi}_0 V_0 \widetilde{\Pi} \label{susc}$$ In terms of this susceptibility, the renormalized phonon propagator $D ({\bf q}, \omega )$ can be obtained as $$D^{-1} = D_0^{-1} - g^2 \widetilde{\Pi} \label{full}$$ Combining the solution of (\[susc\]) with (\[full\]), we arrive at the final expression $$D ({\bf q}, \omega ) = \frac{2 \omega_0 (1 - \frac{e^2}{2\kappa K} \widetilde{\Pi}_0 ({\bf q}, \omega ))} {\omega^2 - \omega^2_0 + i \epsilon - ((\omega^2 - \omega^2_0)\frac{e^2}{2\kappa K} + 2\omega_0 g^2) \widetilde{\Pi}_0 ({\bf q}, \omega )} \label{prop}$$ The strength of the phonon-mediated interaction is given by the dimensionless coupling $g^2/v_F^2$, which can be estimated as $\sim 0.1$. This is smaller than the strength of the Coulomb interaction in typical graphene samples, where $e^2/\kappa v_F \sim 1$. However, the latter enters in the denominator of (\[prop\]) with a relative weight $\omega_0 /4v_F K $, which is of the order of $\sim 0.001$. Therefore, we see that the Coulomb interaction is not able to balance the effect of the strong renormalization of the phonon propagator at the large momentum transfer $K$. We find then that, when graphene is tuned at the charge neutrality point, there are phonon modes with very low energy around the $K$ point, arising as a consequence of the strong renormalization from the coupling to particle-hole excitations. Strictly speaking, the phonon branches become gapless only at zero temperature in the undoped system. Away from the charge neutrality point and at finite temperature, the divergence of the polarization in (\[inter\]) will be cut off by either the thermal energy or the effective chemical potential of the system. Above such infrared scales, the phonon dispersion will follow anyhow the trend represented in Fig. \[one\]. The phonon energy $\omega_{\rm ph} ({\bf q})$ obtained from the renormalized propagator is actually given by $$\omega_{\rm ph} ({\bf q}) \approx v_F \|{\bf q}\| - \left( \frac{g^2}{8 v_F^2 } \right)^2 \frac{v_F^3 \|{\bf q}\|^3 }{2 \omega_0^2 } + \ldots \label{linear}$$ We stress that this phonon branch lies in any event away from the continuum of particle-hole excitations, opening the possibility to observe well-defined phonon modes of very low energy at the $K$ point of graphene. The existence of the soft phonon branch leads to a channel for the decay of quasiparticles in undoped graphene. The maximum energy that can be released by a quasiparticle in a scattering process at any low momentum-transfer is enough to hit the phonon branch (\[linear\]), so that electron quasiparticles can decay into this type of phonon modes down to arbitrarily low energies (at zero temperature). The quasiparticle decay rate $\tau^{-1} $ can be computed from the electron self-energy $\Sigma^{(a)} ({\bf k}, \omega_k)$ as $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\tau^{-1} = - {\rm Im} \; \Sigma^{(a)} ({\bf k}, v_F \|{\bf k}\| ) } \nonumber \\ & & \approx {\rm Im} \; i g^2 \int \frac{d^2 q}{(2 \pi )^2} \frac{d \omega_q }{2 \pi } G^{(b)} ({\bf k}-{\bf q}, v_F \|{\bf k}\| - \omega_q) D ({\bf q}, \omega_q ) \;\;\;\;\;\;\; \label{im}\end{aligned}$$ which amounts to making the convolution of the imaginary part of the electron propagator with that of $D ({\bf q}, \omega_q )$. In Eq. (\[im\]), the imaginary part of $G^{(b)}$ enforces the constraint $\omega_q = v_F \|{\bf k}\| - v_F \|{\bf k} - {\bf q}\|$. For that frequency, the phonon propagator picks up an imaginary contribution only from the phonon branch (\[linear\]). We have actually $$\tau^{-1} \approx \frac{\pi }{2} g^2 \int \frac{d^2 q}{(2 \pi )^2} \; \delta ( Q({\bf q}, \Omega_{{\bf q}}) )$$ where $\Omega_{{\bf q}} \equiv v_F\|{\bf k}\| - v_F\|{\bf k} - {\bf q}\|$ and $$Q({\bf q}, \Omega_{{\bf q}}) = \frac{\Omega_{{\bf q}}^2 - \omega_0^2}{2 \omega_0} - \frac{g^2}{v_F^2} \frac{ v_F^2{\bf q}^2/2 - \Omega_{{\bf q}}^2 } { 8\sqrt{v_F^2 {\bf q}^2 - \Omega_{{\bf q}}^2} }$$ The integral over ${\bf q}$ can be done by trading the azimuthal variable of integration $\phi $ by $\Omega_{{\bf q}}$. Thus we get $$\begin{aligned} \tau^{-1} & \approx & \frac{1}{2 \pi } g^2 \int_0^{\|{\bf k}\|} dq \: \|{\bf q}\| \int_0^{\|{\bf q}\|} d \Omega_{{\bf q}} \nonumber \\ & & \;\;\;\;\;\;\; \left\| \frac{\partial \phi }{\partial \Omega_{{\bf q}}} \right\| \; \left\| \frac{\partial Q }{\partial \Omega_{{\bf q}}} \right\|^{-1} \delta (\Omega_{{\bf q}} - \omega_{\rm ph} ({\bf q}) ) \label{tau}\end{aligned}$$ The expression (\[tau\]) leads to different behaviors depending on whether the quasiparticle energy is well above or below the scale $\omega_0$. In the range where $v_F \|{\bf k}\| \gg \omega_0$, it is easy to see that the Jacobian $\|\partial \phi / \partial \Omega_{{\bf q}}\|$ scales as $\sim \|{\bf k}\|/ \|{\bf q}\| \sqrt{4{\bf k}^2 - {\bf q}^2}$, while $\|\partial Q / \partial \Omega_{{\bf q}}\|^{-1}$ does not scale with momentum. The quasiparticle decay rate shows then a linear dependence on energy $\tau^{-1} \sim (g^2/v_F^2)v_F \|{\bf k}\|$, in agreement with previous analyses of the decay due to optical phonons[@giust]. On the other hand, when the quasiparticle energy is below $\omega_0$, we find that $\|\partial \phi / \partial \Omega_{{\bf q}}\|$ scales as $\sim \omega_0 \sqrt{\|{\bf k}\| - \|{\bf q}\|} / \sqrt{\|{\bf k}\|} v_F^2{\bf q}^2$. Moreover, we also have $\|\partial Q / \partial \Omega_{{\bf q}}\|^{-1} \sim v_F^3\|{\bf q}\|^3/\omega_0^3$. We get then a decay rate $$\tau^{-1} \approx \frac{1}{16 \pi } \frac{g^4}{v_F} \frac{\|{\bf k}\|^3}{\omega_0^2} \int_0^1 dx \: x^2 \sqrt{1-x} \label{cube}$$ We arrive at the result that, in the case of undoped graphene, the quasiparticle decay rate cannot vanish at low energies, even below the scale $\omega_0$ of the out-of-plane phonons, where it must be proportional to the cube of the quasiparticle energy. The behavior (\[cube\]) differs significantly from the rate obtained for a long-range Coulomb interaction, which is proportional to the quasiparticle energy[@sarma; @unconv]. We remark that the two behaviors correspond actually to quite different conditions. When the Coulomb interaction remains long-ranged, as in the layers of bulk graphite, the singular character of the potential (\[pot\]) leads to a jump in the electron self-energy at $\omega_k = v_F \|{\bf k}\|$. A spread in momentum of the quasiparticles (induced for instance by disorder) may be invoked to obtain a finite quasiparticle decay rate by taking the limit $\omega_k = v_F \|{\bf k}\| + 0^+$. We have to bear in mind however that, in graphene, the divergence of the Coulomb potential may be cut off by some finite screening length $l$. If we assume a potential of the form $V_0 ({\bf q}) = e^2/\sqrt{ {\bf q}^2 + l^{-2} }$, we can estimate the quasiparticle decay rate to lowest order in the Coulomb interaction as $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\tau^{-1} \sim \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0 } e^4 \int_0^{\|{\bf k}\|} dq \: \|{\bf q}\| \int_{\|{\bf q}\|}^{\|{\bf q}\|+ \epsilon} d \Omega_{{\bf q}} } \nonumber \\ & & \frac{\sqrt{\|{\bf k}\| - \|{\bf q}\|}}{\sqrt{\|{\bf k}\| \|{\bf q}\|} \sqrt{\epsilon - (\Omega_{{\bf q}} - v_F \|{\bf q}\|)}} \frac{{\bf q}^2}{({\bf q}^2 + l^{-2}) \sqrt{\Omega_{{\bf q}}^2 - v_F^2 {\bf q}^2}} \;\;\;\;\;\;\; \label{c3}\end{aligned}$$ We see that the decay rate in this approach turns out to be proportional to $(e^2/v_F)^2 v_F l^2 \|{\bf k}\|^3$. It is only after sending the screening length to infinity that the divergence of the Coulomb potential at ${\bf q} = 0$ is able to change the scaling of the integrand in (\[c3\]), leading to a decay rate proportional to the quasiparticle energy. In conclusion, we have shown that the dispersion of phonons that couple to the total electron density undergoes a strong renormalization when graphene is tuned to the charge neutrality point. This reflects in the behavior of the out-of-plane phonons, which turn out to develop a gapless branch at the $K$ point of the spectrum. In situations where graphene is very lightly doped, the mentioned renormalization will still give rise to a branch of very soft phonons, with a small gap proportional to the effective chemical potential (as measured from the charge neutrality point). We have seen that this branch provides the relevant channel for the decay of quasiparticles below the typical scale of the out-of-plane phonons, $\omega_0 \approx 70$ meV. Thus, even at such low energies, the quasiparticle decay rate does not vanish in undoped graphene, though it becomes very suppressed, with a dependence proportional to the cube of the quasiparticle energy. The present analysis may then be useful to interpret the results of transport experiments in undoped or very lightly doped graphene, where a crossover should be observed from the linear decay rate characteristic of the high-energy regime to the much slower cubic dependence found in the paper. We thank F. Guinea and F. Sols for very fruitful discussions. The financial support of the Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (Spain) through grant FIS2005-05478-C02-02 is gratefully acknowledged. E.P. is also financially supported by CNISM and Fondazione Cariplo-n.Prot.0018524. [99]{} K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, M. I. Katsnelson, I. V. Grigorieva, S. V. Dubonos and A. A. Firsov, Nature [438]{}, 197 (2005). Y. Zhang, Y.-W. Tan, H. L. Stormer and P. Kim, Nature [438]{}, 201 (2005). N. M. R. Peres, F. Guinea and A. H. Castro Neto, Phys. Rev. B [73]{}, 125411 (2006). M. I. Katsnelson, Eur. Phys. J. B [51]{}, 157 (2006). J. Tworzydlo, B. Trauzettel, M. Titov, A. Rycerz and C. W. J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. Lett. [96]{}, 246802 (2006). K. Nomura and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. [98]{}, 076602 (2007). Y. Zheng and T. Ando, Phys. Rev. B [65]{}, 245420 (2002). V. P. Gusynin and S. G. Sharapov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [95]{}, 146801 (2005). H. Suzuura and T. Ando, Phys. Rev. Lett. [89]{}, 266603 (2002). J. González, F. Guinea and M. A. H. Vozmediano, Phys. Rev. B [59]{}, R2474 (1999). S. Das Sarma, E. H. Hwang and W.-K. Tse, Phys. Rev. B [75]{}, 121406(R) (2007). E. H. Hwang, B. Y.-K. Hu, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B [76]{}, 115434 (2007). J. González, F. Guinea and M. A. H. Vozmediano, Phys. Rev. Lett. [77]{}, 3589 (1996). J. González, F. Guinea and M. A. H. Vozmediano, Nucl. Phys. B [424]{}, 595 (1994). J. Jiang [et al.]{}, Phys. Rev. B [72]{}, 235408 (2005). A. H. Castro Neto and F. Guinea, Phys. Rev. B [75]{}, 045404 (2007). W.-K. Tse, B. Y.-K. Hu, and S. Das Sarma, report arXiv:0801.1291 . C.-H. Park, F. Giustino, M. L. Cohen, and S. G. Louie, Phys. Rev. Lett. [99]{}, 086804 (2007).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'For a set of distances $D=\{d_1,\dotsc,d_k\}$ a set $A$ is called $D$-avoiding if no pair of points of $A$ is at distance $d_i$ for some $i$. We show that the density of $A$ is exponentially small in $k$ provided the ratios $d_1/d_2$, $d_2/d_3$, …, $d_{k-1}/d_k$ are all small enough. This resolves a question of Székely, and generalizes a theorem of Furstenberg-Katznelson-Weiss, Falconer-Marstrand, and Bourgain. Several more results on $D$-avoiding sets are presented.' author: - Boris Bukh bibliography: - 'forbdist.bib' title: 'Measurable sets with excluded distances[^1]' --- Introduction ============ The problem of determining the least number of colors required to color the points of the plane ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ so that no pair of points at distance $1$ is colored in the same color was first investigated by Nelson and Hadwiger in 1940s. This number, which we denote by $\chi_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(\{1\})$, is called the chromatic number of ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ because it is the chromatic number of the graph whose vertices are the points of ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ and the edges are pairs of points that are distance $1$ apart. We denote this graph by $G_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(\{1\})$. In the dimension two, there has been no improvement on the bounds $4\leq \chi_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}(\{1\})\leq 7$ in the past forty-five years [@cite:hadwiger; @cite:moser_moser]. In higher dimensions, however, Frankl and Wilson [@cite:frankl_wilson] showed that the chromatic number grows exponentially in the dimension, $\chi_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\bigl(\{1\}\bigr)\geq (1.207\ldots+o(1)\bigr)^d$, confirming an earlier conjecture of Erdős. The paper of Frankl and Wilson in conjunction with the earlier work of Ray-Chaudhuri and Wilson[@cite:rayc_wilson] laid down the theory of set families with restricted intersection, which led to many other results including the disproof of Borsuk’s conjecture by Kahn and Kalai [@cite:kahn_kalai]. It was first shown by Erdős and de Bruijn [@cite:erdos_debruijn] that the chromatic number of any infinite graph, and $G_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(\{1\})$ in particular, is the maximum of the chromatic numbers of its finite subgraphs, provided the maximum is finite. The proof relied on the axiom of choice, which suggested that the chromatic number might depend on the underlying axiom system. This was partially confirmed by Falconer [@cite:falconer_coloring] who showed that there is no coloring of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ into four colors such that each color class is a Lebesgue measurable set and no pairs of points at distance $1$ have the same color. Since as shown by Solovay [@cite:solovay] the axiom that all subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}$ are Lebesgue measurable is consistent with the usual Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory without the axiom of choice, $\chi_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}(\{1\})=4$ is unprovable in the set theory without the axiom of choice. Thus, we denote by $\chi^m_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(\{1\})$ the least number of colors required to color ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ so that no points at distance $1$ are assigned the same color, and each color class is a measurable set. A set with no pairs of points at distance $1$ is going to be called $\{1\}$-avoiding. The most natural way to show that $\chi^m_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}({\{1\}})$ is large is by showing that no color class can be large. Denote by $\bar{d}(A)$ the upper limit density of $A$ (which is formally defined in section \[sec\_notation\]). Let $m_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(\{1\})=\sup \bar{d}(A)$ be the supremum over all measurable $\{1\}$-avoiding sets. Then $\chi^m_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(\{1\})\leq 1/m_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(\{1\})$. Unfortunately, Falconer’s proof that $\chi^m_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}(\{1\})\geq 5$ does not show that $m_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}(\{1\})<1/4$. The best known bounds are $0.229365\leq m_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}(\{1\})\leq 12/43$ (see [@cite:scheinerman_ullman_book p. 61] and [@cite:szekely_thesis] respectively), and it is a conjecture of Erdős that $m_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}(\{1\})<1/4$ [@cite:szekely]. The problem of forbidding more than one distance was first studied by Sz[é]{}kely in his thesis [@cite:szekely_thesis]. There he established the first bounds on $\chi^m_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(D)$ and $m_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(D)$ which denote the analogues of $\chi^m_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(\{1\})$ and $m_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(\{1\})$, respectively, where a finite set of distances $D=\{d_1,\dotsc,d_k\}$ is forbidden. Székely conjectured that in dimension $d\geq 2$ for any set $A$ with $\bar{d}(A)>0$ there is a $d_0$ such that all the distances greater than $d_0$ occur among the points of $A$. The conjecture was proved by Furstenberg, Katznelson and Weiss [@cite:fkw]. Their proof was ergodic-theoretic. Later Bourgain found a harmonic-analytic proof [@cite:bourgain], and Falconer and Marstrand gave a direct geometric proof [@cite:falconer_marstrand]. Székely also conjectured that if $d_1,d_2,\dotsc$ is a sequence converging to $0$, then $m_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(\{d_1,\dotsc,d_k\})\to 0$ as $k\to\infty$. This was proved by Falconer [@cite:falconer_small] and Bourgain [@cite:bourgain]. It is not known how large $\chi_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(D)$ can be for a set $D$ of given size. It has been long known that $\sup_{{\lvert D\rvert}=k} \chi_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}(D)\geq c k\sqrt{\log k}$ [@cite:cfg_unsolved p. 180]. The only known upper bound $\sup_{{\lvert D\rvert}=k} \chi_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(D)\leq \chi_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(\{1\})^k$ comes from the observation that the coloring, which is a product of colorings that avoid $D_1$ and $D_2$, avoids both $D_1$ and $D_2$. Croft, Falconer and Guy asked whether $\sup_{{\lvert D\rvert}=k}\chi_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(D)$ is exponential in $k$ [@cite:cfg_unsolved Prob. G11]. Erdős conjectured that $\sup_{{\lvert D\rvert}=k}\chi_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(D)$ is polynomial in $k$ [@cite:erdos_polygrowth]. In this paper we answer the question of Croft, Falconer and Guy in the measurable setting by showing that in the dimension $d\geq 2$ as the ratios $d_1/d_2,d_2/d_3,\dotsc,d_{k-1}/d_k$ all tend to infinity $m_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(D)$ tends to $m(\{1\})^k$, and thus $\sup_{{\lvert D\rvert}=k}\chi^m_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(D) \geq 1/m(\{1\})^k$. We will also show that $m_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(D)\geq m(\{1\})^k$ for every set of $k$ distances $D$, answering question of Székely [@cite:szekely p. 657], who asked for the value of $\inf_{{\lvert D\rvert}=k} m_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(D)$. This also generalizes the above-mentioned theorems of Furstenberg-Katznelson-Weiss and Falconer. Indeed, to deduce Furstenberg-Katznelson-Weiss theorem suppose there is a set $A$ with $\bar{d}(A)>0$ and a sequence $d_1,d_2,\dotsc$ going to infinity such that the distance $d_i$ does not occur between points of $A$. Then there is a subsequence such that $d_{i_2}/d_{i_1},d_{i_3}/d_{i_2},\dotsc$ tends to infinity, implying $\bar{d}(A)\leq m(\{d_{i_1},\dotsc,\})\leq m(\{1\})^k$ for any positive integer $k$. In fact our result is stronger: \[smpand\] Suppose $d\geq 2$ and let $D_1,\dotsc,D_k\subset {\mathbb{R}}^+$ be arbitrary finite sets. If the ratios $t_1/t_2,t_2/t_3,\dotsc,t_{k-1}/t_k$ tend to infinity, then $$m_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(t_1\cdot D_1 \cup \dotsb \cup t_k\cdot D_k)\to \prod_{i=1}^k m_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(D_i).$$ It is conceivable that there might be denser and denser $D$-avoiding sets whose density approaches $m_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(D)$ without there being a $D$-avoiding set of density $m_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(D)$. However, that is not the case. We show that there is a set which not just achieves this density, but whose measure cannot be increased by an alteration on a bounded subset. Moreover, we show that the constants $m_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(D)$ can in principle be computed for any finite set $D$. However, the high time complexity of our algorithm prohibits us from settling the question whether $m_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}(\{1\})<1/4$. The principal tool of the paper is the so-called zooming-out lemma stating that under the appropriate conditions we can ignore the small-scale details of the measurable sets in question. In this sense, it is similar to the celebrated Szemerédi regularity lemma. The Szemerédi regularity lemma implies that for the purpose of counting subgraphs every graph can be replaced by a much smaller “reduced graph” [@komlos_simonovits_reglemm]. The zooming-out lemma states that every measurable set can be replaced by a “zoomed-out set” which captures some of information about counting (by an appropriate integral) pairs of points that are at a given distance away. The 1-dimensional case and the main idea ======================================== Before delving into the proof of the results in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ it is instructive to examine the situation in ${\mathbb{Z}}$, for it is much simpler, of interest on its own right, and illustrates some of the ideas used in the main results. Throughout the paper we identify sets with their characteristic functions, i.e., for a set $A$ we define $A(x)=1$ if $x\in A$ and $A(x)=0$ if $x\not\in A$. In this section we use the notation $[a..b]$ to denote the interval of the integers from $a$ to $b$, i.e., $[a..b]={\mathbb{Z}}\cap[a,b]$. For a set $A\subset {\mathbb{Z}}$ define upper and lower densities by $$\bar{d}(A)=\limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac{{\lvert A\cap [-n..n]\rvert}}{2n+1},\qquad \underbar{d}(A)=\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{{\lvert A\cap [-n..n]\rvert}}{2n+1}.$$ The set $A$ is $D$-avoiding if $(A-A)\cap D=\emptyset$, where $A-A=\{a_1-a_2 : a_1,a_2\in A\}$ is the difference set of $A$. Define $m(D)=\sup \bar{d}(A)$ where the supremum is over all $D$-avoiding sets. The simple-minded analogue of theorem \[smpand\] is false. If $A$ is $\{1\}$-avoiding set, then $A(x-1)+A(x)\leq 1$ and thus $2{\lvert A\cap[-n..n]\rvert}\leq \sum_{k=-n}^{n+1} \bigl(A(x-1)+A(x)\bigr)\leq 2n+2$ showing that $m(\{1\})\leq 1/2$. On the other hand, the set of even integers shows that $m(\{1\})=1/2$. However, for every odd integer $t$ the set of even integers shows that $m\bigl(\{1\}\cup t\cdot\{1\}\bigr) =m(\{1,t\})=1/2$. This example also shows why the theorem \[smpand\] is itself false in ${\mathbb{R}}^1$. In ${\mathbb{R}}^1$ the integration of the inequality $A(x)+A(x+1)\leq 1$ yields $m(\{1\})\leq 1/2$. The set $\bigcup_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}}[2k,2k+1)$ shows that $m(\{1\})=1/2$, and the same set shows that $m(\{1,t\})=1/2$ for every odd integer $t$. The version of theorem \[smpand\] that works in one dimension involves excluding thickened sets, in order to avoid this kind of congruential obstacles. For a set $D\subset {\mathbb{Z}}$ we denote by $D^k$ the $k$-neighborhood of $D$, i.e., $D^k=\{x\in{\mathbb{Z}}: {\lvert x-y\rvert}\leq k\text{ for some } y\in D\}$. \[ideatheorem\] For every finite set $D_1\subset {\mathbb{Z}}$ there is a $k$ such that for every finite non-empty set $D_2\subset {\mathbb{Z}}$ we have $$m\left(D_1\cup (t\cdot D_2)^k\right)<m(D_1)m(D_2)$$ for every positive integer $t$. Denote $\operatorname{diam}D=\max_{d\in D} {\lvert d\rvert}$. Let $k$ be any even integer so that $\operatorname{diam}D_1-k m(D_1)\leq -1$. Suppose $A$ is $D_1\cup (t\cdot D_2)^k$-avoiding. Then the set $A^{k/2}$ is $t\cdot D_2$-avoiding. To see that suppose $x_1,x_2\in A^{k/2}$ is a pair of elements such that $x_1-x_2\in t\cdot D_2$. By the definition of $A^{k/2}$ there are $y_1,y_2\in A$ with ${\lvert x_1-y_1\rvert}\leq k/2$ and ${\lvert x_2-y_2\rvert}\leq k/2$. By the triangle inequality $y_1-y_2\in (t\cdot D_2)^k$, which is a contradiction. Write the set $A^{k/2}$ as a union of disjoint intervals $A^{k/2}=[a_1..b_1]\cup[a_2..b_2]\cup\dotsb$ where for no $i,j$ we have $b_i+1=a_j$. Each of these intervals has length at least $k$. If $q$ is the smallest element of $D_2$, then none of these intervals has length exceeding $tq$, for $A^{k/2}$ is $\{tq\}$-avoiding. The density of $A^{k/2}$ does not exceed $m(t\cdot D_2)=m(D_2)$. The set $A$ is contained $A^{k/2}$, so it suffices to bound the density of $A$ on each of the intervals $[a_i..b_i]$. By translating the interval $[a_i..b_i]$ it suffices to consider the case $[a_i..b_i]=[0..n-1]$. So, suppose $A'\subset[0..n-1]$ is $D_1$-avoiding and ${\lvert A'\rvert}=s$. Then $\tilde{A}=A'+(n+\operatorname{diam}D_1){\mathbb{Z}}=\bigcup_{t\in{\mathbb{Z}}} \bigl(A'+(n+\operatorname{diam}D_1)t\bigr)$ is $D_1$-avoiding because the copies of a $D_1$-avoiding set $A'$ are too far from each other for there to be elements $x,y$ in different copies such that $x-y\in D_1$. Since $\tilde{A}$ has density $s/(n+\operatorname{diam}D_1)\leq m(D_1)$, we infer $s\leq m(D_1)n+\operatorname{diam}D_1$. Now let us turn back to the proof of the theorem. For each interval $[a_i..b_i]$ the subintervals $[a_i..a_i+k/2-1]$ and $[b_i-k/2+1..b_i]$ do not meet $A$. Thus each interval in $A^{k/2}$ of length $n$ contains no more than $m(D_1)(n-k)+\operatorname{diam}D_1\leq m(D_1)n-1\leq (m(D_1)-1/tq)n$ elements of $A$. Similarly no more than $m(t\cdot D_2)r+\operatorname{diam}(t\cdot D_2)=m(D_2)r+t\operatorname{diam}D_2$ elements belong to $A^{k/2}$ in any interval of length $r$. Let $n$ be an arbitrary positive integer. Consider $B=\bigcup_{[a_i..b_i]\subset[-n..n]} [a_i..b_i]$. Since at most two intervals contain elements in $[-n..n]$, but not contained in $[-n..n]$, we have ${\lvert B\rvert}\geq {\lvert [-n..n]\cap A\rvert}-2tq$. Hence, $${\lvert [-n..n]\cap A\rvert} \leq {\lvert B\rvert}+2tq\leq \bigl(m(D_2)(2n+1)+t\operatorname{diam}D_2\bigr)\bigl(m(D_1)-1/tq\bigr)+2tq.$$ Letting $n\to\infty$ we conclude that $\bar{d}(A)\leq m(D_2)\bigl(m(D_1)-1/tq\bigr)<m(D_1)m(D_2)$. As remarked above the reason why theorem \[smpand\] fails in the dimension one is because the largest $D$-avoiding set can be periodic (in fact there is always a set of density $m(D)$ which is periodic as shown by Cantor and Gordon [@cite:cantor_gordon_missingdistances]), and thus avoid many more distances than required of it. By the theorem of Furstenberg, Katznelson and Weiss [@cite:fkw] this cannot happen in higher dimensions because any periodic set has positive density, and all sufficiently large distances occur in sets of positive density. So, it is not surprising that in the higher dimensions it becomes possible to carry out a proof very similar in spirit to the proof of theorem \[ideatheorem\] above, but technically more complicated. The approach employed in this paper is rooted in the proof of Bourgain [@cite:bourgain] of the Furstenberg-Katznelson-Weiss theorem. Notation {#sec_notation} ======== Throughout the rest of the paper the dimension $d\geq 2$ is going to be fixed, so we will often omit the dependency on $d$ from our notation. For a measurable set $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ the notation ${{\lvert }\rvert}{A}$ denotes the measure of $A$. The notation $Q(x,r)$ denotes the open axis-parallel cube of side length $r$ centered at the point $x$. For a set $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ and a bounded domain $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ the density of $A$ on $\Omega$ is $$d_{\Omega}(A)=\frac{{{\lvert }\rvert}{A \cap \Omega}}{{{\lvert }\rvert}{\Omega}}.$$ The upper and lower limit densities of $A$ are $$\bar{d}(A)=\limsup_{R\to\infty} d_{Q(0,R)}(A),\qquad \underbar{d}(A)=\liminf_{R\to\infty} d_{Q(0,R)}(A).$$ Whenever $\bar{d}(A)=\underbar{d}(A)$ we write $d(A)=\bar{d}(A)=\underbar{d}(A)$. Note that we measure the densities with respect to cubes, and not balls as it is usually done. Whereas, in general these densities might be different, corollary \[density\_indep\] below implies that our results do not depend on the kind of density chosen, and the proofs are cleaner for the density measured on cubes since there are fewer edge effects one needs to worry about. The advantage of using cubes centered at the origin lies in less cluttered notation. However, since the properties we consider in this paper are translation-invariant, we incur no loss of generality. Being interested in the largest $D$-avoiding sets, we define $$m(D)=\sup_{A\text{ is $D$-avoiding}} \bar{d}(A).$$ More generally, we will be looking at the properties of sets that are more general than the property of being $D$-avoiding. So, we let ${\mathfrak{M}}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ denote the family of all the measurable subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ and call a function $P\colon {\mathfrak{M}}({\mathbb{R}}^d) \to \{0,1\}$ a property. If $P(A)=1$, we say that $A$ has the property $P$, and if $P(A)=0$, we say that $A$ does not have it. We define $$m(P)=\sup_{P(A)=1}\bar{d}(A),\qquad m_{\Omega}(P)=\sup_{P(A)=1} d_{\Omega}(A).$$ For a property $P$ and a real number $t>0$ the property $t\cdot P$ is the property that holds for $A$ precisely when the property $P$ holds for $(1/t)\cdot A$. This is in agreement with the definition of $t\cdot D$-avoiding set as a set $A$ such that $(1/t)\cdot A$ is $D$-avoiding. Note that the function $m$ is scale-invariant: for every $t>0$ we have $m(t\cdot P)=m(P)$. If $P_1$ and $P_2$ are two properties, then $P_1 {\text{ AND }}P_2$ denotes the property asserting that both $P_1$ and $P_2$ hold, i.e., $(P_1 {\text{ AND }}P_2)(A)= P_1(A)P_2(A)$. In particular, if $P_1$ and $P_2$ are the properties of being $D_1$- and $D_2$-avoiding respectively, then $P_1 {\text{ AND }}P_2$ is the property of being $D_1\cup D_2$-avoiding. Supersaturable properties ========================= In this section we prove basic theorems about a class of properties for which the analogue of theorem \[smpand\] holds. As explained in the introduction, the crucial tool is the ability to ignore the fine details of the sets. The intuition here is that given a set $A$ and a large real number $t$ in order to understand whether the set has points which are at distance $t$ apart we should zoom-out away from the set $A$ and look at a scale comparable to $t$. If we think of the set $A$ as colored black on the otherwise white background, then the very fine details of $A$ will blur into some shade of gray. The zooming-out lemma says that for our purposes if the shade is not too light, then we can treat gray points as if they were black. More formally, for each $\delta>0$ and ${\varepsilon}>0$ we define a zooming-out operator ${\mathcal{Z}}_\delta({\varepsilon})$ acting on ${\mathfrak{M}}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ by $${\mathcal{Z}}_\delta({\varepsilon}) A = \left\{x \in {\mathbb{R}}^d : {\lvert Q(x,\delta)\cap A\rvert}>{\varepsilon}{\lvert Q(x,\delta)\rvert}\right\}.$$ One can think of the zooming-out operator as the replacement for the operation of thickening sets $A\mapsto A^{k/2}$ in the integers. In the sequel we use the following easy properties of the zooming-out operator which we now state. \[Zmproplemma\] 1. \[Zmpropone\] ${\mathcal{Z}}_{\delta}({\varepsilon})A+Q(0,(t-1)\delta) \subset {\mathcal{Z}}_{t\delta}(t^{-d}{\varepsilon})A$ for any $t\geq 1$. 2. \[Zmproptwo\] ${\mathcal{Z}}_{\delta_1}({\varepsilon}_1){\mathcal{Z}}_{\delta_2}({\varepsilon}_2)A \subset {\mathcal{Z}}_{\delta_1+\delta_2}\left({\varepsilon}_1{\varepsilon}_2 \frac{\delta_1^d \delta_2^d}{(\delta_1+\delta_2)^d\min(\delta_1,\delta_2)^d}\right)A$. The claim \[Zmpropone\] is clear, so we show \[Zmproptwo\]. If $x\in {\mathcal{Z}}_{\delta_1}({\varepsilon}_1){\mathcal{Z}}_{\delta_2}({\varepsilon}_2)A$, then $${\varepsilon}_1\delta_1^d\leq \int {\mathcal{Z}}_{\delta_2}({\varepsilon}_2)A(y)Q(x,\delta_1)(y)\,dy.$$ Since for all $y$ we have $${\varepsilon}_2\delta_2^d {\mathcal{Z}}_{\delta_2}({\varepsilon}_2)A(y) \leq \int A(z)Q(y,\delta_2)(z)\,dz,$$ it follows that $${\varepsilon}_1{\varepsilon}_2\delta_1^d\delta_2^d\leq \int A(z) {{\lvert }\rvert}{Q(z,\delta_2)\cap Q(x,\delta_1)}\,dz\leq \min(\delta_1,\delta_2)^d {{\lvert }\rvert}{A\cap Q(x,\delta_1+\delta_2)}.$$ Therefore $x\in {\mathcal{Z}}_{\delta_1+\delta_2}\left({\varepsilon}_1{\varepsilon}_2 \frac{\delta_1^d \delta_2^d}{(\delta_1+\delta_2)^d\min(\delta_1,\delta_2)^d}\right)A$ as desired. We say that a property $P$ is supersaturable if there is a function $I_P\colon {\mathfrak{M}}({\mathbb{R}}^d)\to [0,\infty]$ such that the following seven conditions are satisfied: 1. \[sups\_nontriviality\] $0<m(P)$. 2. \[sups\_monotone\] $I_P(A)$ is monotone nondecreasing and $P$ is monotone, i.e., $I_P(A)\geq I_P(B)$ and $P(A)\leq P(B)$ if $A\supset B$. 3. \[sups\_positivity\] $I_P(A)>0$ implies that $A$ does not have the property $P$. 4. \[sups\_translation\] Both $P$ and $I_P$ are translation-invariant: $P(A)=P(A+x)$ and $I_P(A)=I_P(A+x)$ for every $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^d$. 5. \[sups\_locality\] There is a real number, which we denote by $\operatorname{diam}(P)$, such that if $A_1$ and $A_2$ are sets which are at distance at least $\operatorname{diam}(P)$ away from each other, then $I_P(A_1\cup A_2)\geq I_P(A_1)+I_P(A_2)$ and $A_1\cup A_2$ has the property $P$ iff both $A_1$ and $A_2$ have the property $P$ . 6. \[sups\_zoomability\] There is an ${\varepsilon}>0$ and a strictly positive function $f$, such that if ${\mathcal{Z}}_\delta(1-{\varepsilon})A$ does not have the property $P$, then $I_P(A)\geq f(\delta)$. 7. (Zooming-out lemma) \[sups\_zoomingout\] If $A\subset Q(0,R)$ then $I_P(A)\geq g_P({\varepsilon}) I_P({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta({\varepsilon})A)- h_P({\varepsilon},\delta)R^d$, where $g_P$ is positive and $h_P({\varepsilon},\delta)\to 0$ as $\delta\to 0$ for any fixed ${\varepsilon}>0$. We call $I_P$ a saturation function for the property $P$. An example of supersaturable property to keep in mind is the property of being $\{1\}$-avoiding, for which the saturation function can be chosen to be $I(A)=\iint A(x)A(x+y)\,d\sigma(y)\,dx$ where $\sigma$ is the uniform measure on the unit circle, and here for the second time we use the convention that a set $A$ is identified with the characteristic function of $A$. In this example, with the exception of the zooming-out lemma all the conditions are not hard to check, and the zooming-out lemma will be proved in section \[zoomout\_sect\]. More generally in theorem \[distsatur\] we will show that the property of being $D$-avoiding is an example of a supersaturable property. The proof of theorem is independent of the results in this section, and might be read before this section. The motivation for the definition of the supersaturable properties is that not only $I_P(A)>0$ implies that $A$ does not have the property $P$, but also $\bar{d}(A)>m(P)$ implies that $I_P(A)>0$. The latter statement is the content of the following lemma. Let $P$ be a supersaturable property. For every ${\varepsilon}_1,{\varepsilon}_2>0$ there is a constant $c=c({\varepsilon}_1,{\varepsilon}_2)>0$ such that for any $R>0$ there is $\delta_0=\delta_0({\varepsilon}_1,{\varepsilon}_2,R)$ such that the following holds. For any $\delta\leq\delta_0$ and any measurable set $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ if $$d_{Q(0,R)}({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta({\varepsilon}_1)A)>m_{Q(0,R)}(P)(1+{\varepsilon}_2),$$ then $$I_P(A)\geq c R^d.$$ In particular, $A$ does not have the property $P$. Moreover, $\delta_0({\varepsilon}_1,{\varepsilon}_2,R)$ is a monotone non-decreasing function of $R$ for any fixed ${\varepsilon}_1,{\varepsilon}_2$. Before proving the supersaturation lemma, we need two lemmas. The first lemma shows that the rate of convergence in the definition of $m(P)$ cannot be too slow, whereas the second lemma assures us that we need not to worry about small values of $R$. \[ratefact\] Let $P$ be a property satisfying the conditions \[sups\_monotone\], \[sups\_translation\] and \[sups\_locality\]. If $A$ has the property $P$, then $$m(P)\geq d_{Q(0,R)}(A)\Big/\left(1+\frac{\operatorname{diam}P}{R}\right)^d.$$ Set $A'=A\cap Q(0,R)$. Then the tiling $T=A'+(R+\operatorname{diam}P){\mathbb{Z}}^d$ has the property $P$ because the distance between the translates of $A'$ is $\operatorname{diam}P$ and $A'$ has the property $P$. Since $m(P)\geq d(T)$, the lemma follows. \[Rtozero\] Let $P$ be a property satisfying conditions \[sups\_nontriviality\], \[sups\_monotone\] and \[sups\_translation\]. Then $\lim_{r\to 0} m_{Q(0,r)}(P)=1$. Assume the contrary. We will show there is no set of positive measure with property $P$, contradicting condition \[sups\_nontriviality\]. Suppose there is a set $A$ of positive measure with property $P$. By the Lebesgue density theorem there is a point $p$ such that $d_{Q(p,r)}(A)$ tends to $1$ as $r$ tends to $0$. By condition \[sups\_translation\] we may assume that $p=0$. Then the set $Q(0,r)\cap A$ is a subset of $Q(0,r)$ having property $P$. Since the density of this set tends to $1$ as $r$ tends to zero we have reached a contradiction. Since the condition of the lemma refers only to the set $Q(0,R)\cap{\mathcal{Z}}_\delta({\varepsilon}_1)A$ we can assume without any loss of generality that $A\subset Q(0,R+2\delta)$. By lemma \[Rtozero\] for every ${\varepsilon}_2$ there is $R_{\text{min}}({\varepsilon}_2)>0$ such that if $R\leq R_{\text{min}}({\varepsilon}_2)$, then $m_{Q(0,R)}(P)>1/(1+{\varepsilon}_2)$. Thus if $R\leq R_{\text{min}}({\varepsilon}_2)$, then the premise of the supersaturation lemma cannot hold since no set can have density $m_{Q(0,R)}(P)(1+{\varepsilon}_2)>1$. Hence we can assume that $R\geq R_{\text{min}}({\varepsilon}_2)>0$ throughout the proof. In the course of the proof of the supersaturation lemma we will prove following three statements: - ${\mathtt{Lemma}}({\varepsilon}_1,{\varepsilon}_2)$ is the statement that the supersaturation lemma holds for some specific ${\varepsilon}_1$ and ${\varepsilon}_2$. - ${\mathtt{Lemma}}'({\varepsilon}_2)$ is the statement that if $A\subset Q(0,R)$ with $d_{Q(0,R)}(A)\geq m_{Q(0,R)}(P)(1+{\varepsilon}_2)$, then the inequality $I_P(A)\geq c' R^d$ holds with $c'=c'({\varepsilon}_2)>0$. - ${\mathtt{WeakLemma}}(1-{\varepsilon}_T,{\varepsilon}_2)$ is the statement that for ${\varepsilon}_1=1-{\varepsilon}_T$ the conditions of the supersaturation lemma imply the weaker conclusion in which the constant $c$ is allowed to depend not only on ${\varepsilon}_2$ but also on $\delta$. Here ${\varepsilon}_T$ is a positive number which depends only on the property $P$. First, we will establish ${\mathtt{WeakLemma}}(1-{\varepsilon}_T,{\varepsilon}_2)$ for every ${\varepsilon}_2>0$. Then we will show that ${\mathtt{Lemma}}'({\varepsilon}_2)$ implies ${\mathtt{Lemma}}({\varepsilon}_1,{\varepsilon}_2)$ for any ${\varepsilon}_1>0$. Finally, we will demonstrate that ${\mathtt{Lemma}}({\varepsilon}_2 {\varepsilon}_T m_{Q(0,R)}(P)/4,(1+{\varepsilon}_T/8){\varepsilon}_2)$ and ${\mathtt{WeakLemma}}(1-{\varepsilon}_T,{\varepsilon}_2/2)$ together imply ${\mathtt{Lemma}}'({\varepsilon}_2)$. Since for ${\varepsilon}_2\geq 1/m_{Q(0,R)}(P)$ the ${\mathtt{Lemma}}'({\varepsilon}_2)$ is vacuously true, all of these imply ${\mathtt{Lemma}}'({\varepsilon}_2)$ for all ${\varepsilon}_2>0$ by induction on $\bigl\lceil \log_{1+{\varepsilon}_T/8} \frac{1}{{\varepsilon}_2} \bigr\rceil$. Then the proof will be complete. [${\mathtt{\mathbf{WeakLemma}}}(1-{\varepsilon}_T,{\varepsilon}_2)$: ]{}We let ${\varepsilon}_T$ to be the ${\varepsilon}$ whose existence is postulated in the condition \[sups\_zoomability\]. We set $\delta_0=\operatorname{diam}P$. Choose $R'$ so large that $$\left(\frac{R'}{R'-3\operatorname{diam}P}\right)^d\leq \min\left(1+\frac{m_{Q(0,R)}(P){\varepsilon}_2}{4}, \frac{1+{\varepsilon}_2/2}{1+{\varepsilon}_2/3} \right).$$ If $R\leq \frac{8d}{m_{Q(0,R)}(P){\varepsilon}_2}R'$ then since ${\mathcal{Z}}_\delta(1-{\varepsilon}_T)(A)$ does not have the property $P$, the condition \[sups\_zoomability\] tells us $I_P(A)\geq f(\delta)\geq c(\delta,{\varepsilon}_2)R^d$ provided $c$ is chosen small enough. So, assume $R>\frac{8d}{m_{Q(0,R)}(P){\varepsilon}_2}R'$. Let $k= {\lfloor R/R'\rfloor}$. Let $\mathcal{C}_1$ be a collection of $k^d$ disjoint cubes inside $Q(0,R)$ of side length $R'$ each. Let $\mathcal{C}_2= \{Q(x,R'-3\operatorname{diam}P) : Q(x,R')\in \mathcal{C}_1\}$. Then $$\begin{aligned} d_{\bigcup \mathcal{C}_2}({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta(1-{\varepsilon}_T)A)&\geq \frac{ {{\lvert }\rvert}{Q(0,R)}d_{Q(0,R)}({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta(1-{\varepsilon}_T)A) -{{\lvert }\rvert}{Q(0,R)\setminus \bigcup \mathcal{C}_2}}{{{\lvert }\rvert}{\bigcup \mathcal{C}_2}}\\ &=1- \bigl(1-d_{Q(0,R)}({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta(1-{\varepsilon}_T)A)\bigr) \frac{R^d}{{{\lvert }\rvert}{\bigcup \mathcal{C}_1}}\cdot \frac{{{\lvert }\rvert}{\bigcup \mathcal{C}_1}}{{{\lvert }\rvert}{\bigcup \mathcal{C}_2}}\\ &\geq 1- \bigl(1-d_{Q(0,R)}({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta(1-{\varepsilon}_T)A)\bigr) \frac{R^d}{(R-R')^d}\cdot \left(\frac{R'}{R'-3\operatorname{diam}P}\right)^d\\ &\geq 1- \bigl(1-d_{Q(0,R)}({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta(1-{\varepsilon}_T)A)\bigr) \frac{1}{1-\frac{m_{Q(0,R)}(P){\varepsilon}_2}{8}}\cdot \left(1+\frac{m_{Q(0,R)}(P){\varepsilon}_2}{4}\right)\\ &\geq 1- \bigl(1-d_{Q(0,R)}({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta(1-{\varepsilon}_T)A)\bigr) \left(1+\frac{m_{Q(0,R)}(P){\varepsilon}_2}{2}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where in the last inequality we used that $m_{Q(0,R)}(P){\varepsilon}_2<1$. Thus $$\begin{aligned} d_{\bigcup \mathcal{C}_2}({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta(1-{\varepsilon}_T)A)&\geq d_{Q(0,R)}({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta(1-{\varepsilon}_T)A)-\frac{m_{Q(0,R)}(P){\varepsilon}_2}{2}\\ &\geq m_{Q(0,R)}(P)(1+{\varepsilon}_2/2)\\&\geq m(P)(1+{\varepsilon}_2/2).\\ \intertext{From lemma~\ref{ratefact}, and the choice of $R'$ we get} d_{\bigcup \mathcal{C}_2}({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta(1-{\varepsilon}_T)A)&\geq m_{Q(0,R'-3\operatorname{diam}P)}(P)(1+{\varepsilon}_2/3)\end{aligned}$$ Let $\mathcal{C}_3=\{Q(x,R'-3\operatorname{diam}P)\in\mathcal{C}_2 : d_{Q(x,R'-3\operatorname{diam}P)}({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta(1-{\varepsilon}_T)A)>m_{Q(0,R'-3\operatorname{diam}P)}(P)(1+{\varepsilon}_2/6)\}$. Set $n={\lvert \mathcal{C}_3\rvert}$. Then $$\label{presumone} k^d m_{Q(0,R'-3\operatorname{diam}P)}(P)(1+{\varepsilon}_2/3)\leq n+(k^d-n)m_{Q(0,R'-3\operatorname{diam}P)}(P)(1+{\varepsilon}_2/6).$$ Since by lemma \[ratefact\] $$\begin{aligned} m_{Q(0,R'-3\operatorname{diam}P)}(P)(1+{\varepsilon}_2/6) &\leq m(P)\left(1+\frac{3\operatorname{diam}P}{R'-3\operatorname{diam}P}\right)^d (1+{\varepsilon}_2/6)\\ &\leq m_{Q(0,R)}(P)(1+{\varepsilon}_2/2)<1,\end{aligned}$$ the inequality implies $$n\geq k^d\frac{m_{Q(0,R'-3\operatorname{diam}P)}(P){\varepsilon}_2/6}{1-m_{Q(0,R'-3\operatorname{diam}P)}(P)(1+{\varepsilon}_2/6)}.$$ Since $\delta\leq \delta_0=\operatorname{diam}P$ we have $Q(x,R'-3\operatorname{diam}P)\cap {\mathcal{Z}}_\delta(1-{\varepsilon}_T)A\subset {\mathcal{Z}}_\delta(1-{\varepsilon}_T)\bigl(Q(x,R'-\operatorname{diam}P)\cap A\bigr)$. Therefore if $Q(x,R'-3\operatorname{diam}P)\in \mathcal{C}_3$, then the condition \[sups\_zoomability\] implies $I_P(Q(x,R'-\operatorname{diam}P)\cap A)\geq f(\delta)$. Since $Q(x_1,R'-\operatorname{diam}P)$ and $Q(x_2,R'-\operatorname{diam}P)$ are at distance at least $\operatorname{diam}P$ for distinct $Q(x_1,R'-3\operatorname{diam}P),Q(x_2,R'-3\operatorname{diam}P)\in \mathcal{C}_3$, we can apply the condition \[sups\_locality\] to deduce $$I_P\left(A\cap \bigcup_{Q(x,R'-3\operatorname{diam}P)\in \mathcal{C}_3} Q(x,R'-\operatorname{diam}P)\right)\geq c(\delta,{\varepsilon}_2) R^d.$$ The monotonicity condition \[sups\_monotone\] allows us to conclude that $I_P(A)\geq c(\delta,{\varepsilon}_2) R^d$. [${\mathtt{\mathbf{Lemma}}}'({\varepsilon}_2)$ implies ${\mathtt{\mathbf{Lemma}}}({\varepsilon}_1,{\varepsilon}_2)$: ]{} Suppose a set $A$ satisfies conditions of ${\mathtt{Lemma}}({\varepsilon}_1,{\varepsilon}_2)$. Then the zooming-out lemma and ${\mathtt{Lemma}}'({\varepsilon}_2)$ tell us that $$I_P(A) \geq g({\varepsilon}_1) I_P({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta({\varepsilon}_1) A)-c_6 h({\varepsilon}_1,\delta) (R+\delta)^d \geq g({\varepsilon}_1) c'({\varepsilon}_2) R^d-c_6 h({\varepsilon}_1,\delta) (R+\delta)^d.$$ If $\delta$ small enough, we obtain that $I_P(A)\geq c({\varepsilon}_1,{\varepsilon}_2)R^d$. [${\mathtt{\mathbf{Lemma}}}({\varepsilon}_2 {\varepsilon}_T m_{Q(0,R)}(P)/4,(1+{\varepsilon}_T/8){\varepsilon}_2)$ and ${\mathtt{\mathbf{WeakLemma}}}(1-{\varepsilon}_T,{\varepsilon}_2/2)$ imply ${\mathtt{\mathbf{Lemma}}}'({\varepsilon}_2)$: ]{}With hindsight we set ${\varepsilon}_1={\varepsilon}_2 {\varepsilon}_T m_{Q(0,R)}(P)/4$. Condition \[sups\_nontriviality\] asserts that $m(P)>0$ ensuring that ${\varepsilon}_1>0$. Recall that $R\geq R_{\text{min}}=R_{\text{min}}({\varepsilon}_2)$ and let $$\delta=\min\bigl(\operatorname{diam}P,R_{\text{min}}{\varepsilon}_1/25d, \delta_0({\varepsilon}_1,(1+{\varepsilon}_T/8){\varepsilon}_2,R_{\text{min}})\bigr).$$ Suppose we have a set $A$ satisfying the conditions of ${\mathtt{Lemma}}'({\varepsilon}_2)$. If $A$ also satisfies the conditions of ${\mathtt{WeakLemma}}(1-{\varepsilon}_T,{\varepsilon}_2/2)$, then $I_P(A)$ is as large as it should be, and we are done. Hence, the conditions of ${\mathtt{Lemma}}(1-{\varepsilon}_T,{\varepsilon}_2/2)$ do not hold. Since $\delta\leq \operatorname{diam}P$, and $\delta_0$ in ${\mathtt{WeakLemma}}(1-{\varepsilon}_T,{\varepsilon}_2/2)$ is equal to $\operatorname{diam}P$, the only way in which the conditions of ${\mathtt{Lemma}}(1-{\varepsilon}_T,{\varepsilon}_2/2)$ can fail is $$d_{Q(0,R)}({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta(1-{\varepsilon}_T)A)\leq m_{Q(0,R)}(P)(1+{\varepsilon}_2/2).$$ Since the average density of $A$ is at least $m_{Q(0,R)}(P)(1+{\varepsilon}_2)$ and the inequality above says that the density of points that are centers of cubes of large density is no more than $m_{Q(0,R)}(P)(1+{\varepsilon}_2/2)$, there should be many points that are centers of cubes with medium density ${\varepsilon}_1$. For this we need to first relate ${{\lvert }\rvert}{A}$ to ${{\lvert }\rvert}{{\mathcal{Z}}_\delta({\varepsilon}_1)A}$. For that we need to allow for the edge effects due to averaging over the cube of edge length $R+2\delta$ rather than $R$. Since $A\subset Q(0,R+2\delta)$, $$\begin{aligned} {{\lvert }\rvert}{A}&\leq {\lvert A\cap Q(0,R-2\delta)\rvert}+ 4d\delta (R+2\delta)^{d-1}\\&\leq \left({\varepsilon}_1+(1-{\varepsilon}_T)d_{Q(0,R)}({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta({\varepsilon}_1)A)+{\varepsilon}_T d_{Q(0,R)}({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta(1-{\varepsilon}_T)A)\right)R^d+5d\delta R^{d-1}.\\ \intertext{The definition of $A$ gives us} {{\lvert }\rvert}{A}&\geq m_{Q(0,R)}(P)(1+{\varepsilon}_2)R^d.\end{aligned}$$ The two inequalities together yield $$\begin{aligned} d_{Q(0,R)}({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta({\varepsilon}_1)A)&\geq \frac{m_{Q(0,R)}(P)\bigl(1-{\varepsilon}_T+{\varepsilon}_2(1-{\varepsilon}_T/2)\bigr)-{\varepsilon}_1-5d\delta/R}{1-{\varepsilon}_T}.\end{aligned}$$ Our choice of ${\varepsilon}_1$ and $\delta$, made in the beginning of the proof, assures us that the left side is at least $m_{Q(0,R)}(P)(1+(1+{\varepsilon}_T/8){\varepsilon}_2)$. Thus, we can apply ${\mathtt{Lemma}}\bigl({\varepsilon}_1,(1+{\varepsilon}_T/8){\varepsilon}_2\bigr)$, and get the desired bound on $I_P(A)$. This completes the proof of the final implication, and thus the supersaturation lemma is proved. One can combine the supersaturation lemma with lemma \[ratefact\] to obtain a weak form of supersaturation lemma which is easier to apply: Let $P$ be a supersaturable property. For every ${\varepsilon}_1,{\varepsilon}_2>0$ there are $\delta_0=\delta_0({\varepsilon}_1,{\varepsilon}_2)>0$ and $R_0=R_0({\varepsilon}_2)>0$ such that for any $\delta\leq \delta_0$ and $R\geq R_0$ and any measurable set $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ if $$d_{Q(0,R)}({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta({\varepsilon}_1)A)>m(P)(1+{\varepsilon}_2),$$ then $$I_P(A)\geq c R^d$$ for some constant $c=c({\varepsilon}_1,{\varepsilon}_2)>0$ independent of $\delta$ and $A$. Choose $R_0$ to be large enough so that $m_{Q(0,R)}(P)\leq m(P)(1+{\varepsilon}_2/2)$ for $R\geq R_0$. Set $\delta_0=\delta_0({\varepsilon}_1,{\varepsilon}_2,R_0)$. The monotonicity of $\delta_0({\varepsilon}_1,{\varepsilon}_2,R)$ in the supersaturation lemma then insures that any choice of $\delta\leq \delta_0$ and $R\geq R_0$ satisfies the conditions of the supersaturation lemma. \[lwrand\] If $P_1$ and $P_2$ are properties satisfying the conditions \[sups\_translation\] and \[sups\_locality\], then $m(P_1 {\text{ AND }}P_2)\geq m(P_1)m(P_2)$. Fix ${\varepsilon}>0$. Take $R$ to be a large enough function of ${\varepsilon}$. Then pick a set $A_1$ with property $P_1$ such that $\bar{d}(A_1)\geq m(P_1)(1-{\varepsilon})$. By averaging there is a cube $Q(x,R-\operatorname{diam}P_1)$ such that $d_{Q(x,R-\operatorname{diam}P_1)}(A_1)\geq m(P_1)(1-2{\varepsilon})$. Then the proof of lemma \[ratefact\] shows existence of a periodic set $A_1'$ with property $P_1$ of period $R$ with $d(A_1')\geq m(P_1)(1-3{\varepsilon})$. Similarly, we can construct a periodic set $A_2'$ with property $P_2$ with period $R$ and $d(A_2')\geq m(P_2)(1-3{\varepsilon})$. Then averaging $d\bigl((A_1'+x)\cap A_2'\bigr)$ over $x\in Q(0,R)$ yields existence of an $x_0$ such that $d\bigl((A_1'+x_0)\cap A_2'\bigr) \geq m(P_1)m(P_2)(1-3{\varepsilon})^2$. Since ${\varepsilon}$ was arbitrary, the lemma follows. \[ANDclosedness\] If $P_1$ and $P_2$ are any two supersaturable properties, then so is $P_1 {\text{ AND }}P_2$. Let $I_{P_1}$ and $I_{P_2}$ be the saturation functions for $P_1$ and $P_2$. Then $I_{P_1}+I_{P_2}$ is a saturation function for $P_1{\text{ AND }}P_2$. The condition \[sups\_nontriviality\] follows from the lemma above. The conditions \[sups\_monotone\], \[sups\_positivity\], \[sups\_translation\] and \[sups\_zoomingout\] follow from the corresponding conditions for $P_1$ and $P_2$. For the conditions \[sups\_locality\] and \[sups\_zoomability\] we can take $\operatorname{diam}(P_1 {\text{ AND }}P_2)=\max(\operatorname{diam}P_1,\operatorname{diam}P_2)$ and ${\varepsilon}(P_1{\text{ AND }}P_2)=\min\bigl({\varepsilon}(P_1),{\varepsilon}(P_2)\bigr)$ respectively. Now we are ready to derive a generalization of theorem \[smpand\]: \[ANDthm\] Suppose $P_1,\dotsc,P_n$ are supersaturable properties. Then $$m(t_1\cdot P_1 {\text{ AND }}\dotsb {\text{ AND }}t_n \cdot P_n)\to \prod_{i=1}^n m(P_i)$$ if for all $i\neq j$ the limit of $t_i/t_j$ is either $0$ or $\infty$. The inequality $m(t_1\cdot P_1 {\text{ AND }}\dotsb {\text{ AND }}t_n \cdot P_n)\geq \prod_{i=1}^n m(P_i)$ follows from lemma \[lwrand\] and scale-invariance of $m$ by induction on $n$. For the proof of the opposite inequality we permute $P_1,\dotsc,P_n$ and the corresponding variables $t_1,\dotsc,t_n$ so that $t_{i+1}/t_i\to 0$ for all $i$. Furthermore, we scale $t$’s so that $t_1=1$. Fix an arbitrary ${\varepsilon}>0$. Let $\delta$ be the minimum of $\delta_0({\varepsilon},{\varepsilon})$ over all the properties $P_1,\dotsc,P_{n-1}$, where $\delta_0$ is as in the statement of the weak supersaturation lemma. Consider any set $A$ with the property $t_1\cdot P_1 {\text{ AND }}\dotsb {\text{ AND }}t_n\cdot P_n$. Write $A_1=A$. The weak supersaturation lemma applied to this set and the property $P_1$ asserts that $$\bar{d}({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta({\varepsilon})A_1) \leq m(P_1)(1+{\varepsilon}).$$ For each point $x\in {\mathcal{Z}}_\delta({\varepsilon})A_1$ the set $Q(x,\delta)\cap A_1$ has the property $t_2\cdot P_2 {\text{ AND }}\dotsb {\text{ AND }}t_n \cdot P_n$. Therefore, the set $A_2=(1/t_2)\cdot \bigl((A_1-x)\cap Q(0,\delta)\bigr)$ has the property $P_2 {\text{ AND }}(t_3/t_2)\cdot P_3 \dotsb {\text{ AND }}(t_n/t_2)\cdot P_n$. The set $A_2$ is contained in the cube $Q(0,\delta/t_2)$. Since $t_2\to 0$ we can assume that $t_2$ is small enough so that we can apply the weak supersaturation lemma to the set $A_2$ and property $P_2$ to get$$d_{Q(0,\delta/t_2)}({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta({\varepsilon})A_2) \leq m(P_2)(1+{\varepsilon}).$$ Repeating the argument, we eventually arrive at the inequalities $$d_{Q(0,\delta/t_{n-1})}({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta({\varepsilon})A_{n-1}) \leq m(P_{n-1})(1+{\varepsilon})\\$$ and $$\begin{aligned} d_{Q(0,\delta/t_n)} (A_n)&\leq m(P_n)(1+{\varepsilon}).\end{aligned}$$ These two inequalities mean that the density of $A_{n-1}$ on cubes of size $\delta$ is no more than ${\varepsilon}$ except a set of density no more than $m(P_{n-1})(1+{\varepsilon})$ on which the density is no more than $m(P_n)(1+{\varepsilon})$. Hence, averaging implies that $$\begin{aligned} d_{Q(0,\delta/t_{n-1})}(A_{n-1}) &\leq m(P_{n-1})m(P_n)(1+{\varepsilon})^2+{\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ Then by similarly unfolding the recursion, one arrives at the inequality $$\bar{d}(A_1)\leq \prod_{i=1}^n m(P_i) (1+{\varepsilon})^n+\mathcal{O}({\varepsilon}).$$ Since ${\varepsilon}$ is arbitrary, this implies that $m(t_1\cdot P_1 {\text{ AND }}\dotsb {\text{ AND }}t_n\cdot P_n)\to\prod_{i=1}^n m(P_i)$. The definition of $m(P)$ leaves unclear whether there is “a largest” set with property $P$ or there are larger and larger sets. If the property in question is the property of not containing a copy of a finite subset in a given family, then a largest set exists in a very strong sense. A property $P$ is said to be finite if there is a family $\mathcal{P}$ of finite sets such that $A$ has the property $P$ iff no set in $\mathcal{P}$ is a subset of $A$. If in addition the diameter of sets in $\mathcal{P}$ is bounded, then the property $P$ is said to be boundedly finite. We call a measurable set $A\subset \Omega$ having property $P$ locally optimal for the property $P$ with respect to a measurable set $\Omega$ if the following condition holds for every bounded measurable set $S$: there is no measurable set $A'\subset\Omega$ with property $P$ such that $A\cap ({\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus S)=A'\cap ({\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus S)$ such that ${{\lvert }\rvert}{A'\cap S}>{{\lvert }\rvert}{A\cap S}$. If $\Omega={\mathbb{R}}^d$, then we simply say that $A$ is locally optimal for $P$. \[locoptthm\] If $P$ is any boundedly finite supersaturable property and $\Omega$ is a measurable set, then there is a locally optimal set for $P$ with respect to $\Omega$. The proof of theorem \[locoptthm\] requires an appropriate compactness result. A characteristic function of any set lies in $L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, which is a dual of $L^1({\mathbb{R}}^d)$. The space $L^1({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ induces a weak\* topology on $L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ which is the topology in which $f_1,f_2,\dotsc\to f$ when $\int f_k g\to\int fg$ as $k\to\infty$ for all $g\in L^1({\mathbb{R}}^d)$. \[weakstarlim\] If $P$ is a finite supersaturable property, and $A_1,A_2,\dotsc$ is a sequence of sets with property $P$ whose characteristic functions converge in the weak\* topology of $L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^d)$. Then there is a nonnegative function $A\in L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ such that $A_1,A_2,\dotsc\to A$ in the weak\* topology, and $\operatorname{supp}A=\{x : A(x)>0\}$ has the property $P$. Since $A_1,A_2,\dotsc$ converge, they converge to some function, which we will call $A$. The Lebesgue differentiation theorem states that $$\label{lebdiff} \lim_{\delta\to 0}\frac{1}{{{\lvert }\rvert}{Q(x,\delta)}}\int_{Q(x,\delta)}{\lvert A(y)-A(x)\rvert}\,dy=0\qquad\text{for almost every $x$}.$$ By setting $A$ to $0$ on a set of measure zero if necessary, we can assume that this holds whenever $A(x)>0$ and $A$ is nonnegative. We will show that this modified function $A$ satisfies the conclusion of the lemma. Suppose that on the contrary that the set $\operatorname{supp}A$ lacked the property $P$. Then by finiteness of $P$ there would be a finite set $X=\{x_1,\dotsc,x_n\}\subset \operatorname{supp}A$ such that every set containing $X$ lacks $P$. Let ${\varepsilon}=\min_{1\leq j\leq n} A(x_j)$. Let ${\varepsilon}_T$ be the ${\varepsilon}$ whose existence is postulated in the condition \[sups\_zoomability\]. By there is $\delta$ such that for every $1\leq j\leq n$ the set $\{y\in Q(x_j,\delta) : {\lvert A(y)-A(x_j)\rvert}>{\varepsilon}/4\}$ is of measure not exceeding $\tfrac{1}{4}{\varepsilon}_T{\varepsilon}\delta^d/24$. Let $\delta'>0$ be any number small enough so that $(1-\delta'/\delta)^d>2/3$. Let $Y_j=\{z\in Q(x_j,\delta-\delta') : \int_{Q(z,\delta')}{\lvert A(y)-A(x_j)\rvert}\,dy >{\varepsilon}\delta'^d/4\}$. Since $$\begin{aligned} \int_{Q(x_j,\delta)} {\lvert A(y)-A(x_j)\rvert}\,dy&\geq \int_{Q(x,\delta-2\delta')} \frac{1}{\delta'^d} \int_{Q(z,\delta')}{\lvert A(y)-A(x_j)\rvert}\,dy\,dz\\ &\geq {{\lvert }\rvert}{Y_j}\frac{{\varepsilon}}{4},\end{aligned}$$ it follows that ${{\lvert }\rvert}{Y_j}\leq {\varepsilon}_T \delta^d/6$. Let $$W_j=\{y\in Q(x,\delta) : {\lvert d_{Q(y,\delta')}(A_k)-\frac{1}{\delta'^d}\int_{Q(y,\delta')}A(z)\,dz\rvert}>{\varepsilon}/4\}.$$ Choose $R$ to be so large that $Q(x_j,2\delta)\subset Q(0,R)$ for all $1\leq j\leq n$. By the definition of weak\* convergence for every $x$ we have ${{\lvert }\rvert}{A_{k}\cap Q(x,\delta')}=\int_{Q(x,\delta')} A_k(y)\,dy \to \int_{Q(x,\delta')} A(y)\,dy$ as $k\to\infty$. So choose $k$ so large that ${\lvert W_j\rvert}\leq {\varepsilon}_T \delta^d/6$. Thus for $y\in Q(x_j,\delta)\setminus(Y_j\cup W_j)$ we have $d_{Q(y,\delta')}(A_k)\geq {\varepsilon}/2$. Since ${{\lvert }\rvert}{Y_j\cup W_j}\leq {\varepsilon}_T(\delta-\delta')^d/2$, we can also write this as $x_j\in{\mathcal{Z}}_{\delta}(1-{\varepsilon}_T/2) {\mathcal{Z}}_{\delta'}({\varepsilon}/2)\bigl(A_{k}\cap Q(0,R)\bigr)$. Let $t=\sqrt[d]{\frac{1-{\varepsilon}_T/2}{1-{\varepsilon}_T}}$. By lemma \[Zmproplemma\] $$Q(x_j,(t-1)\delta)\subset {\mathcal{Z}}_{t\delta}(1-{\varepsilon}_T) {\mathcal{Z}}_{\delta'}({\varepsilon}/2)\bigl(A_{k}\cap Q(0,R)\bigr).$$ Since $x_j\in Q(x_j,(t-1)\delta)$, from the condition \[sups\_zoomability\] we infer $I_P\bigl({\mathcal{Z}}_{\delta'}({\varepsilon}/2)(A_{k}\cap Q(0,R)\bigr)>f(t\delta)$. By the zooming-out lemma \[sups\_zoomingout\] we have $$I_P\bigl(A_{k}\cap Q(0,R)\bigr)\geq g_P({\varepsilon}/2) f(t\delta)-h_P({\varepsilon}/2,\delta')R^d.$$ Since $\delta'$ is independent of both ${\varepsilon}$ and $\delta$, for sufficiently small $\delta'$ we would have that $I_P(A_{k})\geq I_P\bigl(A_{k}\cap Q(0,R)\bigr)>0$ contradicting the assumption that $A_{k}$ had the property $P$. The contradiction shows that $\operatorname{supp}A$ has the property $P$. Let $A_1,A_2\dotsc\subset \Omega$ be a sequence of sets, each having the property $P$, such that $$d_{\Omega\cap Q(0,i)}(A_i)\geq m_{\Omega\cap Q(0,i)}(P)-2^{-i}.$$ We can and will assume that $A_i\subset \Omega\cap Q(0,i)$. The Banach-Alaoglu theorem states that the closed ball in the dual of a Banach space is compact in weak\* topology[@cite:rudin_funanal theorem 3.15]. Thus there is a subsequence $A_{i_1},A_{i_2},\dotsc$ which converges in weak\* topology. By lemma above there is a limit $A$ of the subsequence such that the set $\operatorname{supp}A$ has the property $P$. The set $\operatorname{supp}A$ is the desired locally optimal set. Indeed, suppose that is not so, and there are $R$, and ${\varepsilon}>0$, and a set $A'\subset \Omega$ such that ${{\lvert }\rvert}{A'\cap Q(0,R)}\geq {{\lvert }\rvert}{\operatorname{supp}A\cap Q(0,R)}+{\varepsilon}$ and $A'\setminus Q(0,R)=\operatorname{supp}A\setminus Q(0,R)$. Since $P$ is boundedly finite, there is a $R'$ and a family of sets $\mathcal{P}$ of diameter at most $R'$ each such that a set does not have the property $P$ precisely when the set contains a member of $\mathcal{P}$. Let $f$ be the characteristic function of $Q(0,R)\cap\operatorname{supp}A$. By the definition of weak\* convergence there are arbitrarily large $k$ so that $$\begin{aligned} &\left\lvert\int f(x)\bigl(A_{i_k}(x)-A(x)\bigr)\,dx\right\rvert\leq {\varepsilon}/4, \\\intertext{and} &\left\lvert\int_{Q(0,R)} \bigl(A_{i_k}(x)-A(x)\bigr)\,dx\right\rvert\leq {\varepsilon}/4.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\tilde{A}=\bigl(A'\cap Q(0,R)\bigr)\cup\Bigl(\operatorname{supp}A\cap A_{i_k}\cap \bigl(Q(0,R+R')\setminus Q(0,R)\bigr)\Bigr) \cup \bigl(A_{i_k}\setminus Q(0,R+R')\bigr)$. Note that $\tilde{A}\cap Q(0,R+R')\subset A'\cap Q(0,R+R')$. If $\tilde{A}$ did not have the property $P$, then there would be a finite set $X\subset \tilde{A}$ such that every set containing $X$ does not have the property $P$. By the definition of $R'$, we would have that either $X$ is a subset of either $\bigl(A'\cap Q(0,R)\bigr)\cup\Bigl(\operatorname{supp}A\cap A_{i_k}\cap \bigl(Q(0,R+R')\setminus Q(0,R)\bigr)\Bigr)$ or $\Bigl(\operatorname{supp}A\cap A_{i_k}\cap \bigl(Q(0,R+R')\setminus Q(0,R)\bigr)\Bigr) \cup \bigl(A_{i_k}\setminus Q(0,R+R')\bigr)$. Since the former is a subset of $A'$ and the latter is a subset of $A_{i_k}$, we would reach a contradiction with the assumption that $A'$ and $A_{i_k}$ both have the property $P$. Thus, $\tilde{A}$ has the property $P$. On the other hand, $$\begin{aligned} {{\lvert }\rvert}{\tilde{A}}&={{\lvert }\rvert}{A'\cap Q(0,R)}+ \Bigl\lvert\operatorname{supp}A\cap A_{i_k}\cap \bigl(Q(0,R+R')\setminus Q(0,R)\bigr)\Bigr\rvert +{{\lvert }\rvert}{A_{i_k}\setminus Q(0,R+R')}\\ &\geq {\varepsilon}+{{\lvert }\rvert}{\operatorname{supp}A\cap Q(0,R+R')\cap A_{i_k}}+ {{\lvert }\rvert}{A_{i_k}\setminus Q(0,R+R')}\\ &= {\varepsilon}+\int f(x) \bigl(A_{i_k}(x)-A(x)\bigr)\,dx+ \int_{Q(0,R+R')} \bigl(A(x)-A_{i_k}(x)\bigr)\,dx \\&\qquad+{{\lvert }\rvert}{A_{i_k}\cap Q(0,R+R')}+{{\lvert }\rvert}{A_{i_k}\setminus Q(0,R+R')}\\ &\geq {\varepsilon}/2+{{\lvert }\rvert}{A_{i_k}}.\end{aligned}$$ If $k$ was chosen large enough, we obtain $d_{\Omega\cap Q(0,i_k)}(\tilde{A}) \geq m_{\Omega\cap Q(0,i_k)}(P)-2^{-i_k}+i_k^{-d}{\varepsilon}/2> m_{\Omega\cap Q(0,i_k)}(P)$. The contradiction implies that $\operatorname{supp}A$ is locally optimal. \[density\_indep\] If $P$ is any boundedly finite supersaturable property, then there is a set $A$ with property $P$ such that for any open bounded set $\Omega$ $$\lim_{t\to\infty} d_{t\cdot \Omega}(A)=m(P).$$ It follows from Whitney decomposition, for example, that we can write $\Omega$ as a union of countably many disjoint open cubes and a set of measure zero, i.e., $\Omega=Z\cup \bigcup_{i\geq 0} Q(x_i,r_i)$ where $Z$ is of measure zero. Let ${\varepsilon}>0$ be arbitrary and let $A$ be a locally optimal set for the property $P$. Choose $n$ to be large enough so that ${{\lvert }\rvert}{\bigcup_{i>n} Q(x_i,r_i)}<{\varepsilon}$. By lemma \[ratefact\] the measure of $\bigl(t\cdot Q(x_i,r_i)\bigr)\cap A=Q(t x_i,t r_i)\cap A$ cannot exceed ${{\lvert }\rvert}{Q(t x_i,t r_i+\operatorname{diam}P)}m(P)$. By the local optimality of $A$ the measure of $Q(t x_i,t r_i)\cap A$ cannot be any less than ${{\lvert }\rvert}{Q(t x_i,t r_i-2\operatorname{diam}P)}m(P)$. Hence $${{\lvert }\rvert}{Q(t x_i,t r_i)\cap A}={{\lvert }\rvert}{Q(tx_i,tr_i)}m(P)\bigl(1+\mathcal{O}(1/r_i t)\bigr).$$ Summing over $i$ with $i\leq n$ we obtain $$\bigl\lvert{{\lvert }\rvert}{(t\cdot \Omega)\cap A}-{{\lvert }\rvert}{t\cdot \Omega}m(P)\bigr\rvert<{\varepsilon}+ \mathcal{O}\bigl(\tfrac{1}{t}\sum_{i\leq n} \tfrac{1}{r_i}\bigr).$$ Since $t$ goes to infinity and ${\varepsilon}$ is arbitrary, the corollary follows. Zooming-out lemma {#zoomout_sect} ================= In this section we establish that several properties including the property of being $D$-avoiding are supersaturable. We shall use Fourier transform on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ which is defined via $$\hat{f}(\xi)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} f(x)e^{-2\pi i \langle x,\xi\rangle}\,dx,\qquad \hat{\sigma}(\xi)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} e^{-2\pi i \langle x,\xi\rangle}\,d\sigma(x)$$ for a function $f$ or a Borel measure $\sigma$, respectively. For functions $f,g\in L^1\cap L^\infty$ and a measure $\sigma\in \mathcal{M}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ the convolutions are defined by $(fg)(y)=\int f(y-x)g(x)\,dx$ and $(f\sigma)=\int f(y-x)\,d\sigma(x)$, which satisfy the following well-known identities $$\label{eq:idts} \begin{aligned} \widehat{fg}(\xi)&=\hat{f}(\xi)\hat{g}(\xi),&\qquad&& \int f(x)g(x)\,dx&=\int \hat{f}(\xi)\hat{g}(-\xi)\,d\xi,\\ \widehat{f\sigma}(\xi)&=\hat{f}(\xi)\hat{\sigma}(\xi),&&& \int f(x)d\sigma(x)&=\int \hat{f}(-\xi)\hat{\sigma}(\xi)\,d\xi. \end{aligned}$$ A probability measure $\sigma\in\mathcal{M}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ with support $\operatorname{supp}\sigma$ is admissible if $\sigma$ is symmetric around $0$, has compact support, $0\not\in \operatorname{supp}\sigma$, and $\hat{\sigma}(\xi)\to 0$ as ${\lvert \xi\rvert}\to \infty$. We say that a set $A$ is $\sigma$-avoiding if there are no points $x,y\in A$ such that $x-y\in \operatorname{supp}\sigma$. For example, the property of being $\{1\}$-avoiding in Euclidean distance is the same as being $\sigma$-avoiding for $\sigma$ being the surface measure on the unit sphere. We can assume without loss of generality that $\sigma$ is symmetric around $0$. Indeed if we let $\sigma'(A)=\bigl(\sigma(A)+\sigma(-A)\bigr)/2$, then being $\sigma'$-avoiding is same as being $\sigma$-avoiding. Define the saturation function for the property of being $\sigma$-avoiding by $I_\sigma(A)=\int A(x)A(x+y)\,d\sigma(y)\,dx$. The saturation function is well-defined by Tonelli’s theorem. Write $Q_\delta$ for the function $Q_\delta(x)=\delta^{-d} Q(0,\delta)(x)$. \[convlem\] There is an absolute constant $c_1$ such that if $\sigma\in \mathcal{M}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ is a probability measure, then for every $T>0$ $$\left\lvert\iint f(x)g(x+y)\,d\sigma(y)\,dx-\iint f(x)(gQ_\delta)(x+y)\,d\sigma(y)\,dx\right\rvert\leq \left(c_1\delta^{2}T^2+ \sup_{{\lvert \xi\rvert}>T}2{\lvert \hat{\sigma}(\xi)\rvert} \right){\lVert f\rVert}_{L^2}{\lVert g\rVert}_{L^2}.$$ Applying we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \iint f(x) g(x+y)\,d\sigma(y)\,dx&=\int f(x) \int g(x+y)\,d\sigma(y)\,dx=\iint f(x)e^{-2\pi i\langle -x,\xi\rangle}\hat{g}(\xi)\hat{\sigma}(-\xi)\,dx\,d\xi\\&=\int \hat{f}(-\xi)\hat{g}(\xi)\hat{\sigma}(-\xi)\,d\xi\end{aligned}$$ Since ${\lvert \widehat{Q_\delta}(\xi)-1\rvert}\leq c_1 \delta^2 {\lvert \xi\rvert}^2$ and ${\lvert \widehat{Q_\delta}(\xi)\rvert}\leq {\lvert \widehat{Q_\delta}(0)\rvert}=1$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \left\lvert\iint f(x)\bigl(g(x+y)-(gQ_\delta)(x+y)\bigr)\,d\sigma(y)\,dx\right\rvert &=\left\lvert\int \hat{f}(-\xi)\hat{g}(\xi)\bigl(1-\widehat{Q_\delta}(\xi)\bigr)\hat{\sigma}(-\xi) \,d\xi\right\rvert\\ &\leq c_1\delta^2 T^2{\lVert \sigma\rVert} \int_{{\lvert \xi\rvert}<T} \left\lvert\hat{f}(-\xi)\hat{g}(\xi)\right\rvert\,d\xi \\ &\quad+\sup_{{\lvert \xi\rvert}>T}2{\lvert \hat{\sigma}(\xi)\rvert}\int_{{\lvert \xi\rvert}\geq T} \left\lvert\hat{f}(-\xi)\hat{g}(\xi)\right\rvert\,d\xi\end{aligned}$$ Cauchy-Schwarz and Parseval imply that $\int {\lvert \hat{f}(\xi)\hat{g}(\xi)\rvert}\leq {\lVert \hat{f}\rVert}_{L^2} {\lVert \hat{g}\rVert}_{L^2}={\lVert f\rVert}_{L^2}{\lVert g\rVert}_{L^2}$, completing the proof. If a probability measure $\sigma\in \mathcal{M}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ is admissible, then the property of being $\sigma$-avoiding satisfies the condition \[sups\_zoomingout\]. Suppose $A\subset Q(0,R)$. By the definition of ${\mathcal{Z}}_\delta({\varepsilon})A$ we have $${\varepsilon}{\mathcal{Z}}_\delta({\varepsilon})A(x)\leq (AQ_\delta)(x)$$ which implies $${\varepsilon}^2 I_\sigma\bigl({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta({\varepsilon})A\bigr)\leq \iint (AQ_\delta)(x)(AQ_\delta)(x+y)\,d\sigma(y)\,dx.$$ Since $\sigma$ is symmetric around $0$, we have $$\iint (AQ_\delta)(x)A(x+y)\,d\sigma(y)\,dx= \iint A(x)(AQ_\delta)(x+y)\,d\sigma(y)\,dx$$ and the lemma \[convlem\] applied twice yields $$\begin{aligned} &\left\lvert\iint (AQ_\delta)(x)(AQ_\delta)(x+y)\,d\sigma(y)\,dx- \iint A(x)A(x+y)\,d\sigma(y)\,dx\right\rvert\\ &\qquad\leq \left\lvert\iint (AQ_\delta)(x)(AQ_\delta)(x+y)\,d\sigma(y)\,dx- \iint (AQ_\delta)(x)A(x+y)\,d\sigma(y)\,dx\right\rvert \\&\qquad\quad+ \left\lvert\iint (AQ_\delta)(x)A(x+y)\,d\sigma(y)\,dx- \iint A(x)A(x+y)\,d\sigma(y)\,dx\right\rvert\\ &\qquad\leq \left(c_1\delta^{2}T^2+ \sup_{{\lvert \xi\rvert}>T}2{\lvert \hat{\sigma}(\xi)\rvert} \right)\left({\lVert A\rVert}_{L^2}{\lVert AQ_\delta\rVert}_{L^2}+{\lVert A\rVert}_{L^2}^2\right)\end{aligned}$$ Since ${\lVert A\rVert}_{L^2}^2={\lvert A\rvert}\leq R^d$ and $ {\lVert AQ_d\rVert}_{L^2}={\lVert \hat{A} \widehat{Q_d}\rVert}_{L^2} \leq {\lVert \hat{A}\rVert}_{L^2}={\lVert A\rVert}_{L^2}$, it follows that $$I_\sigma(A)\geq {\varepsilon}^2 I_\sigma({\mathcal{Z}}_\delta({\varepsilon})A)- 2\left(c_1\delta^{2}T^2+ \sup_{{\lvert \xi\rvert}>T}2{\lvert \hat{\sigma}(\xi)\rvert} \right)R^d.$$ If we let $T=\delta^{-1/2}$, the condition $\hat{\sigma}(\xi)\to 0$ as ${\lvert \xi\rvert}\to\infty$ implies the condition \[sups\_zoomingout\]. With the zooming-out lemma in place we are ready to show supersaturability: \[distsatur\] If $\sigma\in \mathcal{M}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ is admissible, then the property of being $\sigma$-avoiding is supersaturable. The conditions \[sups\_monotone\], \[sups\_positivity\], \[sups\_translation\] are obvious. The compact support of $\sigma$ implies the condition \[sups\_locality\]. Since $0\not\in \operatorname{supp}\sigma$ there is an ${\varepsilon}>0$ such that $Q(0,{\varepsilon})\cap \operatorname{supp}\sigma=\emptyset$. Then the set $Q(0,{\varepsilon}/2)+\operatorname{diam}(\operatorname{supp}\sigma) {\mathbb{Z}}^d$ has positive density and is $\sigma$-avoiding. Thus the condition \[sups\_nontriviality\] is fulfilled. Finally to verify the condition \[sups\_zoomability\] let ${\varepsilon}=1/4$ and suppose ${\mathcal{Z}}_\delta(1-{\varepsilon})A$ is not $\sigma$-avoiding. Then there are $x_0,y_0\in {\mathcal{Z}}_\delta(1-{\varepsilon})A$ such that $x_0-y_0\in \operatorname{supp}\sigma$. Then for every $z\in Q(0,\delta/8d)$ the set $(A-x_0-z)\cap (A-y_0)\cap Q(0,\delta)$ has measure at least $\delta^d(1-2{\varepsilon}-2d/8d)=\delta^d/4$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned} I_\sigma(A)&=\int A(x)A(x+y)d\sigma(y)\,dx\\ &\geq \iint_{x\in Q(x_0,\delta/8d)} A(x)A(x+y)\,dx\,d\sigma(y)\\ &\geq \frac{\delta^d}{4}\sigma\bigl(Q(y_0-x_0,\delta/8d)\bigr)\end{aligned}$$ which is positive since $y_0-x_0\in \operatorname{supp}\sigma$. In particular since the surface measure on the unit sphere in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ with $L^p$ norm for $1<p<\infty$ and $d\geq 2$ satisfies the condition of the theorem, the property of being $\{1\}$-avoiding in $L^p$ is supersaturable property not only for the usual Euclidean distance, but also in $L^p$ for $1<p<\infty$. By lemma \[ANDclosedness\] the property of being $D$-avoiding for a finite set $D\subset {\mathbb{R}}^+$ is also of this form. To avoid the false impression that the property of being $\sigma$-avoiding is the only supersaturable property, we demonstrate another class of natural supersaturable properties. For symmetric probability measures $\sigma_1,\sigma_2\in\mathcal{M}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ say that a set $A$ is $\sigma_1 {\text{ OR }}\sigma_2$-avoiding if for every point $x\in A$ either there is no point $y\in A$ such that $x-y\in\operatorname{supp}\sigma_1$ or there is no point $y\in A$ such that $x-y\in \sigma_2$. \[ORsatur\] If $\sigma_1,\sigma_2$ are two admissible measures, then the property of being $\sigma_1{\text{ OR }}\sigma_2$-avoiding is supersaturable with the saturation function $I_{\sigma_1 {\text{ OR }}\sigma_2}(A)=\iiint A(x)A(x+y_1)A(x+y_2) \,d\sigma_1(y_1)\,d\sigma_2(y_2)\,dx$. The conditions \[sups\_nontriviality\] through \[sups\_zoomability\] are checked in the same way as in the theorem \[distsatur\]. We will show that \[sups\_zoomingout\] is satisfied. Since $\sigma_1$ is a probability measure, we have $\int A(x+y_1)\,d\sigma_1(y)\leq 1$ for every $x$. Therefore, lemma \[convlem\] implies the inequality $$\begin{aligned} \notag &\left\lvert \iiint A(x)A(x+y_1)\bigl(A(x+y_2)-(AQ_{2\delta})(x+y_2)\bigr) \,d\sigma_1(y_1)\,d\sigma_2(y_2)\,dx \right\rvert \\\label{eqORone} &\qquad\leq \left(4c_1\delta^{2}T^2+ \sup_{{\lvert \xi\rvert}>T}2{\lvert \hat{\sigma}_2(\xi)\rvert} \right){\lVert A\rVert}_{L^2}^2.\\ \intertext{Similarly,} &\notag\left\lvert \iiint A(x)\bigl(A(x+y_1)-(AQ_{2\delta})(x+y_1)\bigr)(AQ_{2\delta})(x+y_2) \,d\sigma_1(y_1)\,d\sigma_2(y_2)\,dx \right\rvert\\\label{eqORtwo}&\qquad\leq \left(4c_1\delta^{2}T^2+ \sup_{{\lvert \xi\rvert}>T}2{\lvert \hat{\sigma}_1(\xi)\rvert} \right){\lVert A\rVert}_{L^2}^2.\end{aligned}$$ Define translation operator by $(\mathcal{T}_x f)(z)=f(z-x)$. Set $I'(f)=\iint f(y_1)f(y_2) \,d\sigma_1(y_1)\,d\sigma_2(y_2)$. Then the inequalities and imply that $$\label{triagineq} I_{\sigma_1{\text{ OR }}\sigma_2}(A)\geq \int A(x)I'(\mathcal{T}_x AQ_{2\delta})\,dx- \left(8c_1\delta^{2}T^2+ \sup_{{\lvert \xi\rvert}>T}2{\lvert \hat{\sigma}_1(\xi)\rvert}+ \sup_{{\lvert \xi\rvert}>T}2{\lvert \hat{\sigma}_2(\xi)\rvert} \right)R^d.$$ Since for every $y\in Q(x,\delta)$ we have $(\mathcal{T}_x AQ_\delta)(z)\leq (2^d\mathcal{T}_y AQ_{2\delta})(z)$ and $I'$ is monotone, it follows that $$\label{transferineq} \begin{aligned} \int A(x)I'(\mathcal{T}_x AQ_{2\delta})\,dx &\geq 4^{-d}\delta^{-d} \iint_{y\in Q(x,\delta)}A(x)I'(\mathcal{T}_y AQ_{\delta})\,dx\,dy\\ &=4^{-d}\delta^{-d} \iint_{y\in Q(0,\delta)}(\mathcal{T}_y A)(x)I'(\mathcal{T}_x AQ_{\delta})\,dx\,dy\\ &=4^{-d}\int (AQ_\delta)(x)I'(\mathcal{T}_x AQ_{\delta})\,dx\\ &\geq 4^{-d}{\varepsilon}^{3}I_{\sigma_1 {\text{ OR }}\sigma_2}({\mathcal{Z}}_{\delta}({\varepsilon})A) \end{aligned}$$ If we set $T=\delta^{-1/2}$, the inequalities and together imply the condition \[sups\_zoomingout\]. Applications ============ This section is devoted to two applications of the general results proved above. \[ORthm\] Let $\sigma_1,\sigma_2$ be a pair of admissible measures. Let $P_1,P_2,P_1{\text{ OR }}t\cdot P_2$ denote the properties of being $\sigma_1$-avoiding, $\sigma_2$-avoiding and $\sigma_1{\text{ OR }}t\cdot \sigma_2$-avoiding, respectively. Then $$\lim_{t\to\infty} m(P_1{\text{ OR }}t\cdot P_2)=\max\bigl(m(P_1),m(P_2)\bigr).$$ \[computthm\] There is an algorithm that given as input ${\varepsilon}>0$ and a finite set $D$ of distances outputs $m(D)$ with absolute error at most ${\varepsilon}$. Before proving the theorem \[ORthm\] we need some notation and a lemma. If a set $A$ is $\sigma$-avoiding for admissible measure $\sigma$, we set $F(A)=\{x\in {\mathbb{R}}^d : x-y\in \operatorname{supp}\sigma\text{ for some }y\in A\}$ and $S(A)=F(A)\cup A$. Intuitively, if we try to enlarge $A$ to another $\sigma$-avoiding set, then $F(A)$ is the sets which is forbidden by $A$ and $S(A)$ is the set which is already “occupied” by $A$. Write $\operatorname{diam}\sigma=\max_{x\in\operatorname{supp}\sigma} {\lvert x\rvert}$. Let $P$ be the property of being $\sigma$-avoiding. For every $\sigma$-avoiding set $A$ we have $d_{Q(0,R)}(A)<m(P) \Bigl(d_{Q(0,R)}\bigl(S(A)\bigr)+(1+\operatorname{diam}\sigma/R)^d-1\Bigr)$. We use the same trick that was used in the proof of lemma \[ratefact\]. The set $A_1=\bigl(A\cap Q(0,R)\bigr)+(R+\operatorname{diam}\sigma){\mathbb{Z}}^d$ is $\sigma$-avoiding and $S(A_1)\subset \Bigl(\bigl(S(A)\cap Q(0,R)\bigr)\cup\bigl(Q(0,R+\operatorname{diam}\sigma)\setminus Q(0,R)\bigr)\bigr)+(R+\operatorname{diam}\sigma){\mathbb{Z}}^d$. Let $\alpha=d(A_1)/d(S(A_1))$. Since $d(S(A_1))\leq d_{Q(0,R)}(S(A))/(1+\operatorname{diam}\sigma/R)^d +\bigl(1-1/(1+\operatorname{diam}\sigma/R)^d\bigr)$ and $d(A_1)\geq d_{Q(0,R)}(A)/(1+\operatorname{diam}\sigma/R)^d$, it suffices to show that $\alpha\leq m(P)$. Let $\gamma=1-d(S(A_1))$ be the proportion of ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ which is not occupied yet. Choose a vector $x$ uniformly at random from $Q(0,R+\operatorname{diam}\sigma)$. For any set $X$ periodic with fundamental region $Q(0,R+\operatorname{diam}\sigma)$ we have that $E\bigl[d\bigl((X+x)\setminus S(A_1)\bigr)\bigr]= \gamma d(X)$ where $E$ denotes the expectation. Let $A_2=A_1\cup \bigl((A_1+x)\setminus S(A_1)\bigr)$. Then $E\bigl[d(A_2)\bigr]=d(A_1)+\gamma d(A_1)$, and $E\bigl[d\bigl(S(A_2)\bigr)\bigr]=d\bigl(S(A_1)\bigr)+\gamma d(S(A_1))$. Hence $E\bigl[\alpha d\bigl(S(A_2)\bigr)-d(A_2)\bigr]=0$. It follows that the set $\bigl\{x\in Q(0,R+\operatorname{diam}\sigma) : \alpha d\bigl(S(A_2)\bigr)-d(A_2)\leq 0\bigr\}$ has non-zero measure. In particular, it contains an element which is not a period of the set $A_1$. Thus, we can ensure $d(A_2)>d(A_1)$. Similarly we can build an increasing sequence $A_1,A_2,A_3,\dotsc$ of $\sigma$-avoiding sets such that $d(A_k)/d\bigl(S(A_k)\bigr)\geq \alpha$. If the set $S(\bigcup_k A_k)$ had density $1$, then we would be done, but that need not be the case. We use compactness lemma \[weakstarlim\] to circumvent this. So, suppose $\alpha>m(P)$. Let $\mathcal{A}$ be the family of all $\sigma$-avoiding sets $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ which are periodic with the fundamental region $Q(0,R+\operatorname{diam}\sigma)$. Let $\mathcal{A}'$ be those of them that satisfy $d(A)/d\bigl(S(A)\bigr)\geq \alpha$. Let $\beta=\sup_{A\in\mathcal{A}'} d(A)$. Note that by the argument above the supremum is not achieved. Let $A_1,A_2\dotsc\in\mathcal{A}'$ be a sequence such that $d(A_i)\to \beta$. By passing to a subsequence if needed, assume that the sequence $A_1,A_2,\dotsc,$ converges in the weak\* topology of $L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^d)$. By lemma \[weakstarlim\] there is a weak\* limit $A$ of the sequence such that $\operatorname{supp}A$ is $\sigma$-avoiding. Let $Y_i= A_i\setminus \operatorname{supp}A$. We claim that $d(Y_i)\to 0$ as $i\to\infty$. Suppose that there was a subsequence $Y_{i_1},Y_{i_2},\dotsc$ on which $d(Y_i)>{\varepsilon}>0$. Banach-Alaoglu tells us that, by passing to a subsequence again if needed, we can assume that $Y_{i_1},Y_{i_2},\dotsc$ converges to some function $Y$ in weak\* topology. Since ${{\lvert }\rvert}{\operatorname{supp}Y\cap \operatorname{supp}A}=0$, we conclude that $\lim \int_{\operatorname{supp}Y} \bigl(A(x)-A_i(x)\bigr)\,dx<-{\varepsilon}<0$ which contradicts the definition of the weak\* convergence. Thus, $d(Y_i)\to 0$. Therefore, the sequence $A_i\cap \operatorname{supp}A$ converges to $A$ in the weak\* topology. Next we show that $$\label{limorin} d\bigl(F(\operatorname{supp}A)\setminus F(A_i)\bigr)\to 0\qquad\text{ as }i\to\infty.$$ Pick an ${\varepsilon}>0$. We will first cover almost all of the set $F(\operatorname{supp}A)$ by cubes on which $F(\operatorname{supp}A)$ has density at least $1-{\varepsilon}$. Then we will show that $F(A_i)$ has density at least $1-3{\varepsilon}$ on each of the cubes provided $i$ is large. Let $ \mathcal{Q}=\bigl\{Q(x,r) : d_{Q(x,r)}\bigl(F(\operatorname{supp}A)\bigr)>1-{\varepsilon}\bigr\}$, and let $\mathcal{C}$ be a family of all collections of cubes from $\mathcal{Q}$ which are pairwise disjoint. By Hausdorff maximum principle there is a maximal collection $\mathcal{M}$ in $\mathcal{C}$. Then $W=F(\operatorname{supp}A)\setminus \bigcup \mathcal{M}$ is of measure null. Indeed, if ${{\lvert }\rvert}{W}>0$ then by Lebesgue density for almost every $x\in W$ we would have $\lim_{\delta\to 0} d_{Q(x,\delta)}(W)=1$, which implies that there is $x$ and $\delta$ such that $d_{Q(x,\delta)}(W)>1-{\varepsilon}$. That contradiction shows that the desired covering exists. Now let $Q(x_0,r)$ be any cube in the covering. Let $f(x)= \int A(x+y)\,d\sigma(y)$. The function $f$ is defined almost everywhere by Tonelli’s theorem. Let $Z=\{x\in Q(x_0,r)\cap F(\operatorname{supp}A): f(x)=0\}$. The set $Z$ is of measure null. Indeed, if ${{\lvert }\rvert}{Z}>0$, then by Lebesgue density theorem there would exist an $x\in F(\operatorname{supp}A)$ such that $x\in {\mathcal{Z}}_\delta(2/3)Z$ for all sufficiently small $\delta$. Let $y\in A$ be such that ${\lvert x-y\rvert}\in\operatorname{supp}\sigma$. Then since every point of $\operatorname{supp}A$ is a point of density, there are arbitrarily small $\delta$ such that $y\in{\mathcal{Z}}_\delta(2/3)(\operatorname{supp}A)$. Thus, $\iint_{Q(x,\delta)} f(x)\,dx>0$. This contradicts the definition of $Z$ and so ${{\lvert }\rvert}{Z}=0$. Therefore, there is a ${\varepsilon}'$ such that the measure of $\{x\in Q(x_0,r)\cap F(\operatorname{supp}A) : f(x)<{\varepsilon}'\}$ does not exceed ${\varepsilon}r^d$. Therefore, if $d_{Q(x_0,r)}(Y)\geq 3{\varepsilon}$, then $\iint Y(x)A(x+y)\,d\sigma(y)\,dx>{\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}' r^d$. Suppose there are arbitrarily large $i$’s such that $F(A_i)$ has density less then $1-3{\varepsilon}$ on $Q(x_0,r)$. Let $Y_i=Q(x_0,r)\setminus F(A_i)$. Then $\iint Y_i(x)A(x+y)\,d\sigma(y)\,dx>{\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}' r^d$. Let $W_i=A_i\cap Q(x_0,r+2\operatorname{diam}P+1)$. Clearly, $\iint Y_i(x)W_i(x+y)\,d\sigma(y)\,dx=0$. For small enough $\delta$ lemma \[convlem\] implies that $$\label{convor} \begin{aligned} \iint Y_i(x)(W_iQ_\delta)(x+y)\,d\sigma(y)\,dx&\leq {\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}' r^d/4\\ \iint Y_i(x)(AQ_\delta)(x+y)\,d\sigma(y)\,dx&\geq {\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}' r^d/2. \end{aligned}$$ For any $\delta<1$ and for large enough $i$ we have have ${\lvert (W_iQ_\delta)(x)-(A_iQ_\delta)(x)\rvert}\leq \frac{1}{9}{\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}'r^d (R+2\operatorname{diam}P+1)^{-d}$ for all $x\in Q(x,r+2\operatorname{diam}P)$ except a set of measure $\tfrac{1}{9}{\varepsilon}'{\varepsilon}'r^d$. Then $$\left\lvert\iint Y_i(x+y)(A_iQ_\delta-W_iQ_\delta)(x)\,d\sigma(y)\,dx\right\rvert\leq \tfrac{2}{9}{\varepsilon}'{\varepsilon}'r^d,$$ which contradicts \[convor\]. Therefore, $F(W_i)$ has density at least $1-3{\varepsilon}$ on $Q(x_0,r)$ for all sufficiently large $i$. By we get $$d\bigl(F(\operatorname{supp}A)\bigr)\leq \liminf_{i\to\infty} d\bigl(F(A_i)\bigr) \leq \liminf_{i\to\infty} \left(\frac{1}{\alpha}-1\right)d(A_i)=\left(\frac{1}{\alpha}-1\right)\beta.$$ Since $$d(\operatorname{supp}A)\geq \frac{1}{{{\lvert }\rvert}{Q(0,R+\operatorname{diam}\sigma)}}\int_{Q(0,R+\operatorname{diam}\sigma)}A(x)\,dx=\beta,$$ we conclude that $$\alpha d\bigl(F(\operatorname{supp}A)\bigr)\leq (1-\alpha)\beta+\alpha d(\operatorname{supp}A)\leq d(\operatorname{supp}A)$$ implying that $\operatorname{supp}A\in\mathcal{A}'$, which contradicts the assumption that the supremum in the definition of $\beta$ is not achieved. The inequality $m(P_1{\text{ OR }}P_2)\geq \max\bigl(m(P_1),m(P_2)\bigr)$ is obvious. Let ${\varepsilon}>0$ be arbitrary. Let $R=\tfrac{5d}{{\varepsilon}}\operatorname{diam}P_2$. We will show that $\limsup_{t\to 0} m_{Q(0,R)}\bigl((1/t)\cdot P_1{\text{ OR }}P_2\bigr) \leq \max\bigl(m(P_1),m(P_2)\bigr)+{\varepsilon}$. Suppose the contrary. Let $t_1,t_2\dotsc$ be a sequence of $t$’s going to infinity for which $m_{Q(0,R)}\bigl((1/t_i)\cdot P_1{\text{ OR }}P_2\bigr) \geq \max\bigl(m(P_1),m(P_2)\bigr)+{\varepsilon}$. Let $A_i$ be a locally optimal set for the property $(1/t_i)\cdot P_1{\text{ OR }}P_2$. Let $A_i^1= \{x\in A_i : \forall y\in A_i\ {\lvert x-y\rvert}\not\in \tfrac{1}{t_i}\cdot \operatorname{supp}\sigma_1\}$, and $A_i^2=A_i\setminus A_i^1$. Note that $A_i^1$ is $\sigma_1$-avoiding. By passing to a subsequence if necessary we can assume that the sequences $\{A_i^1\}_{i=1}^\infty$ and $\{A_i^2\}_{i=1}^\infty$ converge in weak\. By lemma \[weakstarlim\] there is a limit $A^2$ of the sequence $\{A_i^2\}_{i=1}^\infty$ such that $\operatorname{supp}A^2$ is $\sigma_2$-avoiding, and every point of $\operatorname{supp}A^2$ is a density point as in the Lebesgue density theorem. Let $A^1$ be a limit of $\{A_i^1\}_{i=1}^\infty$. Moreover we can set $A^1$ to zero wherever the conclusion of Lebesgue differentiation theorem fails. We claim that $\operatorname{supp}A^1\cap F(\operatorname{supp}A^2)=\emptyset$. Suppose that is not the case. Then there are points $a_2\in \operatorname{supp}A_2$ and $a_1\in \operatorname{supp}A_1$ such that ${\lvert a_2-a_1\rvert}\in \operatorname{supp}\sigma_2$. Pick a small enough $\delta$ so that $Q(0,\delta)\cap \operatorname{supp}\sigma_2=\emptyset$. Then $\bigl(Q(0,\delta)\cap A^1_i\bigr)\cup A^2_i$ is $\sigma_2$-avoiding for every $i$. Since the conclusion of Lebesgue differentiation theorem holds for every point of $\bigl(Q(0,\delta)\cap \operatorname{supp}A^1\bigr)\cup \operatorname{supp}A^2$ by the argument of theorem \[weakstarlim\] the set $\bigl(Q(0,\delta)\cap \operatorname{supp}A^1\bigr)\cup \operatorname{supp}A^2$ is $\sigma_2$-avoiding. This proves the claim. Furthermore, $A^1(x)\leq m(P_1)$ for all $x$. Indeed, suppose $A^1(x_0)\geq m(P_1)(1+{\varepsilon})$. Since $A^1$ satisfies the conclusion of Lebesgue differentiation theorem at $x_0$, we can choose $\delta$ small enough so that $\delta^{-d}\int_{Q(x_0,\delta)}A^1(x)\,dx \geq m(P_1)(1+{\varepsilon}/2)$. Then for all sufficiently large $i$ by lemma \[ratefact\] we have $$d_{Q(x_0,\delta)}(A_i^1)\geq m(P_1)\left(1+\frac{{\varepsilon}}{3}\right) \geq m_{Q(x_0,\delta)}(\tfrac{1}{t_i}\cdot P_1) \left(1+\frac{{\varepsilon}}{3}\right)\Big/\left(1+\frac{\operatorname{diam}P_1}{t_i\delta}\right)^d > m_{Q(x_0,\delta)}(P_1)$$ which is in contradiction with the fact that $A^1_i$ is $\sigma_1$-avoiding. Let $\alpha=d_{Q(0,R)}\bigl(F(\operatorname{supp}A^2)\bigr)$. Therefore by the lemma above $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{i\to\infty} d_{Q(0,R)}(A_i)&=\frac{1}{{{\lvert }\rvert}{Q(0,R)}} \int \bigl(A^1(x)+A^2(x)\bigr)\,dx\\ &\leq \alpha m_{Q(0,R)}(P_2)\left(1+\frac{\operatorname{diam}P_2}{R}\right)^d+ (1+\operatorname{diam}P_2/R)^d-1+(1-\alpha)m(P_1)\\ &\leq \max\bigl(m(P_1),m(P_2)\bigr)+{\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ Since ${\varepsilon}$ was arbitrary, the proof is complete. Note that the proofs of zooming-out lemma and supersaturation lemma are effective: the dependencies between all the constants are effectively computable. For integer $k$ partition $Q(0,1)$ into $k^d$ cubes in the natural way. Say a set $A$ is $k$-granular if $A$ is union of some of these cubes. Let $\mathcal{G}_k$ be the collection of $k$-granular sets. Let $\mathcal{P}_k=\{A+{\mathbb{Z}}^d : Z\in \mathcal{G}_k\}$. The following simple algorithm outputs $m(D)$ within absolute error $8{\varepsilon}$. 1. If ${\varepsilon}>1/10$, set ${\varepsilon}=1/10$. 2. Make the following assignments: $$\begin{aligned} r&=\min D,\\ \tilde{m}&=\left(\frac{rd^{-1/2}}{rd^{-1/2}+\operatorname{diam}D}\right)^d,\\ {\varepsilon}_2&={\varepsilon}^{2d},\\ {\varepsilon}_1&=\tilde{m}{\varepsilon}^{2d}.\end{aligned}$$ 3. Set $\delta_0$ and $R_0$ to the values whose existence is asserted by the weak supersaturation lemma with ${\varepsilon}_1$ and ${\varepsilon}_2$ as above. 4. Make the following assignments $$\begin{aligned} R&=\max\left(R_0,\frac{d\operatorname{diam}D}{{\varepsilon}^{2d}}\right),\\ k&=\max\left(\lceil 1/{\varepsilon}\rceil,\lceil 1/\delta_0\rceil \right).\end{aligned}$$ 5. Let $P$ be the property of being $(1/R)\cdot D$-avoiding. By checking each set in $\mathcal{P}_{k^2}$ compute $$m'=\max_{\substack{A\in \mathcal{P}_{k^2}\\P(A)=1}}d(A).$$ 6. Output $m'$. The first step of the algorithm allows us to assume that ${\varepsilon}\leq 1/10$ in our analysis. Note that since $Q(0,rd^{-1/2})+(rd^{-1/2}+\operatorname{diam}D){\mathbb{Z}}^d$ is $D$-avoiding, we have $\tilde{m}\leq m(D)$. Clearly, $m'\leq m(t\cdot D)=m(D)$. We will show that $m'\geq m(D)(1-8{\varepsilon})$. By theorems \[locoptthm\] and \[density\_indep\] there is a $D$-avoiding set of density $m(D)$. Thus, by the proof of lemma \[ratefact\] there is a periodic $D$-avoiding set $A$ with the period $R$ and density $d(A)\geq m(D)/\left(1+{\varepsilon}^{2d}/d\right)^d\geq m(D)(1-{\varepsilon}^{2d})$. Let $A'={\mathcal{Z}}_{1/k}(1-{\varepsilon}^d)A$. If $d(A')\leq m(D)(1-3{\varepsilon}^d)$ then $$m(D)(1-{\varepsilon}^{2d})\leq d(A)\leq {\varepsilon}^d d(A')+ d({\mathcal{Z}}_{1/k}({\varepsilon}_1)A)(1-{\varepsilon}^d)+ {\varepsilon}_1$$ implies that $$d({\mathcal{Z}}_{1/k}({\varepsilon}_1)A)\geq \frac{m(D)(1-{\varepsilon}^d+{\varepsilon}^{2d})}{1-{\varepsilon}} \geq m(D)(1+{\varepsilon}^{2d})$$ and weak supersaturation lemma tells us that $A$ is not $D$-avoiding. Thus $d(A')\geq m(D)(1-3{\varepsilon}^d)$. Consider the set $(A'+x)\cap (R/k){\mathbb{Z}}^d$ for a vector $x$ chosen uniformly at random from $Q(0,R/k)$. By averaging there is a choice of $x$ for which ${\lvert (A'+x)\cap (R/k){\mathbb{Z}}^d\rvert}\geq d(A')k^d$. Let $x_0$ be such a choice. Set $A''=\bigl((A'+x_0)\cap (R/k){\mathbb{Z}}^d\bigr)+ Q\bigl(0,(1-3^{1/d}{\varepsilon})R/k\bigr)$. The set $A''$ is $D$-avoiding. Indeed, suppose for some $x,y\in A''$ we have ${\lvert x-y\rvert}\in D$. Then $Q(x,3^{1/d}{\varepsilon}R/k)$ is contained in a cube of side length $1/k$ on which $A+x_0$ has density at least $1-{\varepsilon}^d$. Let $\tau=d_{Q(x,3^{1/d}{\varepsilon}R/k)}(A+x_0)$. Then $1-{\varepsilon}^d\leq 1-(1-\tau)(3^{1/d}{\varepsilon})^d$ implying $\tau\geq 2/3$. Similarly, for $d_{Q(y,3^{1/d}{\varepsilon}R/k)}(A+x_0)\geq 2/3$. Therefore $A$ is not $D$-avoiding. This contradiction proves that $A''$ is $D$-avoiding. The set $(1/R)\cdot A''$ is $(1/R)\cdot D$-avoiding and periodic with the fundamental region $Q(0,1)$. It is also a union of cubes of side length $(1-3^{1/d}{\varepsilon})/k$. Each such cube contains $k^2$-granular set of measure at least $[(1-3^{1/d}{\varepsilon})/k-2/k^2]^d$. Therefore $A''$ contains a $k^2$-granular set of density at least $d(A'')\left(1-\frac{2}{k(1-3^{1/d}{\varepsilon})}\right) \geq d(A'')(1-3/k)$ since ${\varepsilon}\leq 1/10$. Thus there is a $k^2$-granular set of density at least $m(D)(1-3{\varepsilon})(1-3^{1/d}{\varepsilon})(1-3{\varepsilon}^d)\geq m(D)(1-8{\varepsilon})$. Concluding remarks ================== Let $G$ be a finite graph, and suppose that for every edge $e\in E(G)$ there is an admissible measure $\sigma_e\in\mathcal{M}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$. Then we say that a copy of the graph $G$ occurs in a set $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ if there is a map $f\colon V(G)\to A$ such that for every edge $xy\in E(G)$ we have $f(x)-f(y)\in\operatorname{supp}\sigma_{xy}$. The theorems \[distsatur\] and \[ORsatur\] show that if $G$ is either a single edge or a path of length $2$, then the property of avoiding $G$ is supersaturable. The proof of theorem \[ORsatur\] can be easily modified to the case when $G$ is a star. I conjecture that the property of avoiding $G$ is supersaturable whenever $G$ is a tree. An example of Bourgain [@cite:bourgain] shows that the property of avoiding a triangle $K_3$ fails to be supersaturable. However, in his example the points of the triangle are forced to lie on the same line. Perhaps with an appropriate non-degeneracy condition the property of avoiding $K_3$ is supersaturable. Suppose $G_1$ and $G_2$ are two graphs as above. Let $r_1,r_2$ be two distinguished vertices in $G_1$ and $G_2$ respectively. Then $G_1{\text{ OR }}G_2$ is a graph which is obtained by identifying $r_1$ and $r_2$ in the disjoint union of $G_1$ and $G_2$. I believe that in the case when $G_1$ and $G_2$ are trees, the generalization of theorem \[ORthm\] holds: $m(G_1{\text{ OR }}t\cdot G_2)\to \max\bigl(m(G_1),m(G_2)\bigr)$ as $t\to\infty$. Further problems on configurations in sets of positive density and the survey of known results can be found in [@cite:resprobgeom §6.3]. The theorem \[smpand\] implies that the measurable chromatic number $\chi_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}^m(D)$ grows exponentially in ${\lvert D\rvert}$ provided the elements of $D$ grow fast enough. It is very likely that the usual chromatic number does not share this behavior. I conjecture that for any dimension $d$ if the elements of $D$ are algebraically independent over ${\mathbb{Q}}$, then the chromatic number $\chi_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(D)$ is bounded independently of what $D$ actually is. The conjecture is easily seen to be true when $d=1$ because the finite subgraphs of $G_{{\mathbb{R}}^1}(D)$ are subgraphs of the ${\lvert D\rvert}$-dimensional rectangular grid . The clique number* of a graph $G$, denoted $\omega(G)$, is the number of vertices in the largest complete subgraph of $G$. For $d\geq 2$ the only result that I can prove is There is a function $f(d)$ such that if the elements of $D$ are algebraically independent over ${\mathbb{Q}}$, then $\omega\bigl(G_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(D)\bigr)<f(d)$. Denote by $K_n$ the complete graph on $n$ vertices. Suppose $K_n$ is a subgraph of $G_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(D)$. Then let $X=\{x_1,x_2,\dotsc,x_n\}\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ be the vertices of this complete subgraph. Let $A=(a_{i,j})_{i,j=1}^n$ be an $n\times n$ matrix whose entries are $a_{i,j}=\operatorname{dist}(x_i,x_j)^2=\langle x_i-x_j,x_i-x_j\rangle =\langle x_i,x_i\rangle+\langle x_j,x_j\rangle-2\langle x_i,x_j\rangle$. The matrix $B=(b_{i,j})_{i,j=1}^n$ with $b_{i,j}=\langle x_i,x_i\rangle$ has rank $1$. The matrix $C=(c_{i,j})_{i,j=1}^n$ with $c_{i,j}=\langle x_i,x_j\rangle$ has rank at most $d$. Thus the rank of $A=B+B^{t}-2C$ is at most $d+2$. Consider any subset $X'\subset X$ of $d+3$ elements. Let $A'$ be the corresponding $(d+3)\times (d+3)$ submatrix of $A$. Let $r_1,\dotsc,r_k$ be the non-zero elements that occur in $A'$. Since $r_1,\dotsc,r_k$ are squares of algebraically independent numbers, they themselves are algebraically independent. Since $A'$ is not of the full rank, $\det A'=0$. Since the determinant is a polynomial function with rational coefficient in entries of $A'$, it follows that $\det A'=0$ whenever $\{r_1,\dotsc,r_k\}$ is replaced by any set of $k$ algebraically independent numbers. Therefore, $\det A'$ is zero as a polynomial in $r_1,\dotsc,r_k$. Since the matrix $A'$ is a symmetric matrix, each $r_i$ occurs at least twice. If each $r_i$ occurred exactly twice, then $\det A'(r_1,\dotsc,r_k)$, being the determinant of the general symmetric matrix with the zeros on the diagonal, would not be the zero polynomial. Thus, in every set of $d+3$ points at least one distance occurs twice. Color the edge $x_ix_j$ of the complete graph on $X$ by the distance between $x_i$ and $x_j$. The above asserts that there is no $K_{d+3}$ subgraph whose edges all colored differently. On the other hand, since the simplex on $d+2$ vertices does not embed isometrically in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, there is no monochromatically colored $K_{d+2}$ subgraph. By the canonical Ramsey theorem [@cite:canonical_ramsey] if $n$ is large enough, then there is a $Y= \{y_1,\dotsc,y_{d+4}\}\subset X$ such that the color of an edge $y_iy_j$ for $i<j$ depends only on $i$. Let $t_i=\operatorname{dist}(y_i,y_{i+1})^2$. The $(d+4)\times (d+4)$ matrix corresponding to $Y$ is $M=(m_{i,j})_{i,j=1}^{d+4}$ where $$m_{i,j}= \begin{cases} t_i,&\text{if }i<j,\\ t_j,&\text{if }i>j,\\ 0,&\text{if }i=j. \end{cases}$$ The matrix $M$ is of rank at least $d+3$. Indeed, let $r_i$ be the $i$’th column of $M$. Then for every $i=1,\dotsc,d+3$ the first $i-1$ coordinates of $r_{i+1}-r_i$ are zero, and $i$’th coordinate is non-zero. Thus the vectors $r_{i+1}-r_i$ span a vector space of dimension $d+3$ implying that $M$ is of rank at least $d+3$. Since $M$ is a submatrix of $A$, which is of rank at most $d+2$, we reached a contradiction. Acknowledgements. I would like to thank Uri Andrews and Pablo Candela-Pokorna for discussions that inspired this work. I am very grateful to Josef Cibulka and Jan Kynčl for a careful reading of an earlier version of the paper and many useful suggestions. [^1]: This work is a part of a Ph. D. thesis under the supervision of Benjamin Sudakov.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The colored HOMFLY polynomial is the quantum invariant of oriented links in $S^3$ associated with irreducible representations of the quantum group $U_q(\mathrm{sl}_N)$. In this paper, using an approach to calculate quantum invariants of links via cabling-projection rule, we derive a formula for the colored HOMFLY polynomial in terms of the characters of the Hecke algebras and Schur polynomials. The technique leads to a fairly simple formula for the colored HOMFLY polynomial of torus links. This formula allows us to test the Labastida-Mariño-Vafa conjecture, which reveals a deep relationship between Chern-Simons gauge theory and string theory, on torus links.' address: - 'Department of Mathematics, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA' - 'Department of Mathematics, Zhongshan University, Guangzhou 510275, China' author: - 'Xiao-Song Lin' - Hao Zheng title: \| On the Hecke algebras and\ the colored HOMFLY polynomial --- [^1] [^2] Introduction ============ In the abstract of his seminal paper [@Jones], V. Jones wrote: “By studying representations of the braid group satisfying a certain quadratic relation we obtain a polynomial invariant in two variables for oriented links. …The two-variable polynomial was first discovered by Freyd-Yetter, Lickorish-Millet, Ocneanu, Hoste, and Przytycki-Traczyk.” This two variable link polynomial $P_{\mathcal{L}}(t,\nu)$, commonly referred to as the HOMFLY polynomial for an oriented link ${\mathcal{L}}$ in $S^3$, is characterized by the following crossing changing formula: $$\begin{aligned} && P_\text{unknot}(t,\nu) = 1, \\ && \nu^{-1/2} P_{{\mathcal{L}}_+}(t,\nu) - \nu^{1/2} P_{{\mathcal{L}}_-}(t,\nu) = (t^{-1/2}-t^{1/2}) P_{{\mathcal{L}}_0}(t,\nu).\end{aligned}$$ Since then, this two variable link polynomial has been generalized to the quantum invariant associated with irreducible representations of the quantum group ${{U_q({\mathrm{sl}_N})}}$, with the variables $t^{1/2}=q^{-1}$ and $\nu^{1/2}=q^{-N}$. We will refer to this generalization as the colored HOMFLY polynomial. Despite the fact that the theory of quantum invariants of links is by now well developed, the computation of colored HOMFLY polynomial is still extremely challenging. Besides the trivial links, a general formula seems to exist in the mathematics literature only for the Hopf link [@Morton-Lukac]. In the physics literature, Witten’s Chern-Simons path integral with the gauge group ${\mathrm{SU}}_N$ [@Witten] offers an intrinsic but not rigorous definition of the colored HOMFLY polynomial. There is a conjectured relationship between the $1/N$ expansion of Chern-Simons theory and the Gromov-Witten invariants of certain non-compact Calabi-Yau 3-folds. See [@Gopakumar-Vafa][@Ooguri-Vafa] for example. Motivated by this conjectured relationship, Labastida, Mariño and Vafa proposed a precise conjecture about the structure of their reformulation of the colored HOMFLY polynomial [@Labastida-Marino2][@LMV]. See Section 5. A formula of the colored HOMFLY polynomial for torus knots is given in [@Labastida-Marino], which was used to test the Labastida-Mariño-Vafa conjecture on torus knots. In this paper, using an approach to calculate quantum invariants of links via cabling-projection rule, we derive a formula for the colored HOMFLY polynomial in terms of the characters of the Hecke algebras and Schur polynomials. See Theorem 4.3. An important feature of this formula is that the character of the Hecke algebra is free of the variable $\nu$ and the Schur polynomial is independent of the link ${\mathcal{L}}$. We think that this separation of the variable $\nu$ and the link ${\mathcal{L}}$ might be important for a possible proof of the Labastida-Mariño-Vafa conjecture. Our technique leads to a fairly simple formula for the colored HOMFLY polynomial of torus links. See Theorem 5.1. Using our formula, the Labastida-Mariño-Vafa conjecture can be test on several infinite families of torus links. Our calculation also suggests a new structure of the reformulated colored HOMFLY polynomial of torus links: it is equivalent to a family of polynomials in ${\mathbb{Z}}[t^{\pm1}]$ invariant under the transformation $t\rightarrow t^{-1}$. See Conjecture 6.2 and the examples following it. [Acknowledgments.]{} The authors would like to thank Professors Kefeng Liu and Jian Zhou for their interest in this work. Link invariants from quantum groups {#sec:inv} =================================== In this section, we give a brief review of the quantum group invariants of links. See [@Kassel][@RT][@Tur] for details. Let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be a complex simple Lie algebra and let $q$ be a nonzero complex number which is not a root of unity. Let ${{U_q({\mathfrak{g}})}}$ denote the quantum enveloping algebra of ${\mathfrak{g}}$. The ribbon category structure of the set of finite dimensional complex representations of ${{U_q({\mathfrak{g}})}}$ provides the following objects. 1\. Associated to each pair of ${{U_q({\mathfrak{g}})}}$-modules $V,W$ is a natural isomorphism (the braiding) ${\check{R}}_{V,W} : V \otimes W \to W \otimes V$ such that $$\label{eqn:cR} \begin{split} & {\check{R}}_{U \otimes V,W} = ({\check{R}}_{U,W} \otimes \operatorname{id}_V)(\operatorname{id}_U \otimes {\check{R}}_{V,W}), \\ & {\check{R}}_{U,V \otimes W} = (\operatorname{id}_V \otimes {\check{R}}_{U,W})({\check{R}}_{U,V} \otimes \operatorname{id}_W) \end{split}$$ hold for all ${{U_q({\mathfrak{g}})}}$-modules $U,V,W$. The naturality means $$(y \otimes x) {\check{R}}_{V,W} = {\check{R}}_{V',W'} (x \otimes y)$$ for $x \in \operatorname{Hom}_{{U_q({\mathfrak{g}})}}(V,V')$, $y\in \operatorname{Hom}_{{U_q({\mathfrak{g}})}}(W,W')$. These equalities imply the braiding relation $$\label{eqn:brading} \begin{split} ({\check{R}}_{V,W}\otimes \operatorname{id}_U) & (\operatorname{id}_V \otimes {\check{R}}_{U,W}) ({\check{R}}_{U,V} \otimes \operatorname{id}_W) \\ & = (\operatorname{id}_W \otimes {\check{R}}_{U,V}) ({\check{R}}_{U,W} \otimes \operatorname{id}_V) (\operatorname{id}_U \otimes {\check{R}}_{V,W}). \end{split}$$ 2\. There exists an element $K_{2\rho} \in {{U_q({\mathfrak{g}})}}$ (the enhancement of ${\check{R}}$, here $\rho$ means the half-sum of all positive roots of ${\mathfrak{g}}$) such that $$\label{eqn:k2rho} K_{2\rho} (v \otimes w) = K_{2\rho}(v) \otimes K_{2\rho}(w)$$ for $v \in V$, $w \in W$. Moreover, for every $z \in \operatorname{End}_{{U_q({\mathfrak{g}})}}(V \otimes W)$ with $z = \sum_i x_i \otimes y_i$, $x_i \in \operatorname{End}(V)$, $y_i \in \operatorname{End}(W)$ one has the [(partial) quantum trace]{} $$\operatorname{tr}_W(z) = \sum_i \operatorname{tr}(y_iK_{2\rho}) \cdot x_i \in \operatorname{End}_{{U_q({\mathfrak{g}})}}(V).$$ 3\. Associated to each ${{U_q({\mathfrak{g}})}}$-module $V$ is a natural isomorphism (the ribbon structure) $\theta_V : V \to V$ satisfying $$\label{eqn:theta} \theta_V^{\pm1} = \operatorname{tr}_V {\check{R}}_{V,V}^{\pm1}.$$ The naturality means $$x \cdot \theta_V = \theta_{V'} \cdot x$$ for $x \in \operatorname{Hom}_{{U_q({\mathfrak{g}})}}(V,V')$. \[\][$V$]{} \[\][$W$]{} \[\][${\mathcal{L}}$]{} \[\][$\beta$]{} ![image](fig1.eps) With these objects, one constructs the quantum group invariants of links as follows. Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be an oriented link with the components ${\mathcal{L}}_1,\dots,{\mathcal{L}}_l$ labeled by the ${{U_q({\mathfrak{g}})}}$-modules $V_1,\dots,V_l$, respectively. Choose a closed braid representative $\hat\beta$ of ${\mathcal{L}}$ with $\beta \in B_n$ being an $n$-strand braid. Assign to each positive (resp. negative) crossing of $\beta$ an isomorphism ${\check{R}}_{V,W}$ (resp. ${\check{R}}_{W,V}^{-1}$) where $V,W$ are the ${{U_q({\mathfrak{g}})}}$-modules labeling the two outgoing strands of the crossing. \[\][$V$]{} \[\][$W$]{} \[\][${\check{R}}_{V,W}$]{} \[\][${\check{R}}_{W,V}^{-1}$]{} ![image](fig2.eps) Then the braid $\beta$ gives rise to an isomorphism $$h_{V'_1,\dots,V'_n}(\beta) \in \operatorname{End}_{{U_q({\mathfrak{g}})}}(V'_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes V'_n),$$ where $V'_1,\dots,V'_n$ are the ${{U_q({\mathfrak{g}})}}$-modules labeling the strands of $\beta$, and the quantum trace $$\operatorname{tr}_{V'_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes V'_n} h_{V'_1,\dots,V'_n}(\beta)$$ defines a framing dependent link invariant of ${\mathcal{L}}$. The link shown in above figure has two components, labeled by $W$ and $V$ respectively. It is the closure of $\beta = \sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1 \in B_3$, which gives rise to an isomorphism $$h_{W,V,W}(\beta) = ({\check{R}}_{W,V}^{-1}\otimes\operatorname{id}_W) (\operatorname{id}_V\otimes{\check{R}}_{W,W}^{-1}) ({\check{R}}_{W,V}\otimes\operatorname{id}_W).$$ Thus the link invariant is $$\operatorname{tr}_{W \otimes V \otimes W} ({\check{R}}_{W,V}^{-1}\otimes\operatorname{id}_W) (\operatorname{id}_V\otimes{\check{R}}_{W,W}^{-1}) ({\check{R}}_{W,V}\otimes\operatorname{id}_W).$$ To eliminate the framing dependency, one should require the modules $V_1,\dots,V_l$ be irreducible, hence the isomorphisms $\theta_{V_1},\dots,\theta_{V_l}$ are multiples of identity and may be regarded as scalars. Let $w({\mathcal{L}}_i)$ be the [writhe]{} of ${\mathcal{L}}_i$ in $\beta$, i.e. the number of positive crossings minus the number of negative crossings. Then the quantity $$\label{eqn:inv_defn} I_{{\mathcal{L}};V_1,\dots,V_l} = \theta_{V_1}^{-w({\mathcal{L}}_1)} \cdots \theta_{V_l}^{-w({\mathcal{L}}_l)} \operatorname{tr}_{V'_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes V'_n} h_{V'_1,\dots,V'_n}(\beta)$$ defines a framing independent link invariant. When the link involved is the unknot, it is easy to see that $$I_{\text{unknot};V} = \operatorname{tr}_V \operatorname{id}_V.$$ This quantity is regarded as the quantum version of the classical dimension of $V$, referred to as the [quantum dimension]{} of $V$ and denoted by $\dim_q V$. Centralizer algebra and cabling-projection rule {#sec:central} =============================================== In general, the isomorphism ${\check{R}}_{V,W}$ is very complicated when the dimensions of $V,W$ are larger, so it is not practical to compute the link invariants from their definition. However, on the other hand, general representations of a simple Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$ (thus its quantum deformation ${{U_q({\mathfrak{g}})}}$) are often realized as components of tensor products of some simple ones. For example, irreducible representations of ${{U_q({\mathrm{sl}_N})}}$ are always the components of some tensor products of the fundamental representation. In this section, we follow this observation and develop a cabling-projection rule to break down the complexity of general ${\check{R}}$. For this purpose we need the notion of centralizer algebra. The centralizer algebras of the modules of simple Lie algebras have played an important role in representation theory. Parts of their quantum version were studied in [@BW][@LR][@Wen]. In the case of ${{U_q({\mathrm{sl}_N})}}$, the situation is desirable. The centralizer algebras are nothing but the subalgebras of the Hecke algebras of type $A$. Let $V$ be a ${{U_q({\mathfrak{g}})}}$-module. The [centralizer algebra]{} of ${{V^{\otimes n}}}$ is defined as $${\mathcal{C}}_n(V) = \operatorname{End}_{{U_q({\mathfrak{g}})}}({{V^{\otimes n}}}) = \{ x \in \operatorname{End}({{V^{\otimes n}}}) \mid xy = yx, \; \forall y \in {{U_q({\mathfrak{g}})}}\}.$$ It is immediate from definition that ${\mathcal{C}}_n(V)$ is a finite dimensional von Neumann algebra, i.e. the algebra is isomorphic to a direct sum of matrix algebras. Indeed, if ${{V^{\otimes n}}}$ admits the irreducible decomposition $$\label{eqn:decom_vn} {{V^{\otimes n}}}= \bigoplus_{\lambda \in \Lambda} d_\lambda \cdot V_\lambda,$$ by Schur’s lemma we have $$\label{eqn:decom_cn} {\mathcal{C}}_n(V) = \bigoplus_{\lambda \in \Lambda} {\mathcal{C}}_\lambda$$ where ${\mathcal{C}}_\lambda = \operatorname{End}_{{U_q({\mathfrak{g}})}}(d_\lambda V_\lambda)$ is a full $d_\lambda \times d_\lambda$ matrix algebra. Since each matrix algebra admits a unique irreducible representation, via above decomposition the irreducible representations of ${\mathcal{C}}_n(V)$ are naturally indexed by $\Lambda$. Let $\zeta^\lambda$ denote the character of the irreducible representation of ${\mathcal{C}}_n(V)$ indexed by $\lambda \in \Lambda$. \[lem:trace\] For every $x \in {\mathcal{C}}_n(V)$ we have $$\operatorname{tr}_{{V^{\otimes n}}}x = \sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda} \zeta^\lambda(x) \cdot \dim_q V_\lambda.$$ Let $\pi_\lambda$ be the unit of ${\mathcal{C}}_\lambda$. Then $\pi_\lambda x$ is a matrix in ${\mathcal{C}}_\lambda$, whose normal trace $\operatorname{tr}\pi_\lambda x$ is precisely $\zeta^\lambda(x)$. Therefore, $$\operatorname{tr}_{{V^{\otimes n}}}x = \sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda} \operatorname{tr}\pi_\lambda x \cdot \operatorname{tr}_{V_\lambda} \operatorname{id}_{V_\lambda} = \sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda} \zeta^\lambda(x) \cdot \dim_q V_\lambda.$$ A [projection (or idempotent)]{} of ${\mathcal{C}}_n(V)$ is an element $p \in {\mathcal{C}}_n(V)$ satisfying the idempotent equation $p^2 = p$. By definition, an element $p \in {\mathcal{C}}_n(V)$ is a projection if and only if it is, restricted on each ${\mathcal{C}}_\lambda$, diagonalizable and has the only possible eigenvalues $0$ and $1$. It is clear that for each projection $p \in {\mathcal{C}}_n(V)$, $$\label{eqn:proj_decom} p{{V^{\otimes n}}}\cong \bigoplus_{\lambda \in \Lambda} \zeta^\lambda(p) \cdot V_\lambda.$$ A projection $p \in {\mathcal{C}}_n(V)$ is called [minimal (or primitive)]{} if $p {{V^{\otimes n}}}\cong V_\lambda$ for some $\lambda \in \Lambda$. Let $h_V$ be the homomorphism $$h_V : {\mathbb{C}}B_n \to {\mathcal{C}}_n(V), \quad \sigma_i \mapsto \operatorname{id}_{{V^{\otimes (i-1)}}} \otimes R_{V,V} \otimes \operatorname{id}_{{V^{\otimes (n-i-1)}}}.$$ The following lemma makes it possible to recover general ${\check{R}}$, $\theta$ from specific ones. \[\][$\Delta_5^2$]{} \[\][$\chi_{3,4}$]{} ![image](fig3.eps) \[lem:theta\] Let $\Delta_n^2 = (\sigma_1\sigma_2\cdots\sigma_{n-1})^n \in B_n$ and $\chi_{n,n'} = \prod_{i=1}^{n'} (\sigma_{i+n-1}\sigma_{i+n-2}\cdots\sigma_i) \in B_{n+n'}$ denote the full twist braid and the $(n,n')$-crossing braid, respectively. Let $p \in {\mathcal{C}}_n(V)$, $p' \in {\mathcal{C}}_{n'}(V)$ be projections and $U=p{{V^{\otimes n}}}$, $W=p'{{V^{\otimes n'}}}$. We have $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:tensorR} && h_V(\chi_{n,n'}) \cdot (p \otimes p') = {\check{R}}_{W,U} \oplus 0_{\operatorname{Ker}p \otimes p'}, \\ && (\theta_V)^{{\otimes n}}\cdot h_V(\Delta_n^2) \cdot p = \theta_{U} \oplus 0_{\operatorname{Ker}p}.\end{aligned}$$ Applying the identities (\[eqn:cR\]), (\[eqn:brading\]) and (\[eqn:theta\]) inductively, we have $$\begin{aligned} && {\check{R}}_{{{V^{\otimes n'}}},{{V^{\otimes n}}}} = h_V(\chi_{n,n'}), \\ && \theta_{{{V^{\otimes n}}}} = \operatorname{tr}_{{V^{\otimes n}}}{\check{R}}_{{{V^{\otimes n}}},{{V^{\otimes n}}}} = (\theta_V)^{{\otimes n}}\cdot h_V(\Delta_n^2).\end{aligned}$$ Then from the naturality of ${\check{R}}$ and $\theta$ the lemma follows. As an easy consequence of (\[eqn:tensorR\]) and the naturality of ${\check{R}}$, we have the cabling-projection rule \[lem:cable\] Let $\beta \in B_m$ be a braid and $p_i \in {\mathcal{C}}_{n_i}(V)$, $i=1,\dots,m$ be projections such that $p_i=p_j$ whenever the $i$-th strand of $\beta$ ends at $j$-th point. Moreover, let $V_i=p_i {{V^{\otimes n_i}}}$, $n=n_1+\cdots+n_m$ and $\beta^{(n_1,\dots,n_m)} \in B_n$ be the braid obtained by cabling the $i$-th strand of $\beta$ to $n_i$ parallel ones. Then $$h_V(\beta^{(n_1,\dots,n_m)}) \cdot (p_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes p_m) = h_{V_1,\dots,V_m}(\beta) \oplus 0_{\operatorname{Ker}p_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes p_m},$$ thus $$\operatorname{tr}_{V_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes V_m} h_{V_1,\dots,V_m}(\beta) = \operatorname{tr}_{{V^{\otimes n}}}h_V(\beta^{(n_1,\dots,n_m)}) \cdot (p_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes p_m).$$ With above lemmas, one is able to re-express the link invariant (\[eqn:inv\_defn\]), by choosing a suitable ${{U_q({\mathfrak{g}})}}$-module $V$, in terms of much more accessible objects: the characters and projections of the centralizer algebras ${\mathcal{C}}_{n}(V)$ and the quantum traces of ${{U_q({\mathfrak{g}})}}$-modules. In the next section, we present a detailed realization of this approach for the case ${\mathfrak{g}}= {\mathrm{sl}_N}$. Hecke algebras and colored HOMFLY polynomial {#sec:homfly} ============================================ In the rest part of this paper we will extensively apply the facts concerning the Hecke algebras, the quantum enveloping algebras ${{U_q({\mathrm{sl}_N})}}$ and symmetric functions. The facts are well known and most of them can be found, for example, in [@DJ1][@Kassel][@KS][@Mur][@Sag]. The Hecke algebra ${\mathcal{H}}_n(q)$ of type $A_{n-1}$ is the complex algebra with generators $g_1,g_2,\dots,g_{n-1}$ and relations $$\begin{array}{ll} g_i g_j = g_j g_i, & \|i-j\| \geq 2, \\ g_ig_jg_i = g_jg_ig_j, & \|i-j\| = 1, \\ (g_i-q) (g_i+q^{-1}) = 0, & i=1,2,\dots,n-1. \\ \end{array}$$ Note that, when $q=1$, the Hecke algebra ${\mathcal{H}}_n(q)$ is nothing new but the group algebra ${\mathbb{C}}\Sigma_n$ of the symmetric group. In fact, if $q$ is nonzero and not root of unity we still have the isomorphism ${\mathcal{H}}_n(q) \cong {\mathbb{C}}\Sigma_n$ and ${\mathcal{H}}_n(q)$ also canonically decomposes as $$\label{eqn:decom_hn} {\mathcal{H}}_n(q) = \bigoplus_{\lambda \vdash n} {\mathcal{H}}_\lambda(q)$$ with each ${\mathcal{H}}_\lambda(q)$ being a matrix algebra. Here we fix several notations of combinatorics. A [composition]{} $\mu$ of $n$, denoted by $\mu \models n$, is a sequence of nonnegative integers $(\mu_1,\mu_2,\dots)$ such that $\sum_i \mu_i = n$. The [length]{} $\ell(\mu)$ of $\mu$ is the maximal index $i$ with $\mu_i$ nonzero. If, in addition, $\mu_1 \geq \mu_2 \geq \cdots$ then $\mu$ is also called a [partition]{} and one writes $\mu \vdash n$ and $\|\mu\|=n$. It is a standard result that the centralizer algebras of ${\mathrm{sl}_N}$-modules are canonically subalgebras of ${\mathbb{C}}\Sigma_n$. So it is not surprising to see that the centralizer algebras of ${{U_q({\mathrm{sl}_N})}}$-modules are realized as subalgebras of ${\mathcal{H}}_n(q)$, the quantum deformation of ${\mathbb{C}}\Sigma_n$. Now fix ${\mathfrak{g}}={\mathrm{sl}_N}$ and let $V$ be the module of the fundamental representation of ${{U_q({\mathrm{sl}_N})}}$. With suitable basis $\{ v_1,\dots,v_N \}$ of $V$ and generators $\{ K_i^{\pm1}, E_i, F_i \mid 1 \leq i \leq N-1 \}$ of ${{U_q({\mathrm{sl}_N})}}$, the fundamental representation is given by the matrices $$\begin{array}{lll} K_i &\mapsto& q E_{ii} + q^{-1} E_{i+1,i+1} + \sum_{j \neq i} E_{jj}, \\ E_i &\mapsto& E_{i,i+1}, \\ F_i &\mapsto& E_{i+1,i}, \end{array}$$ where $E_{ij}$ is the $N \times N$ matrix with $1$ in the $(i,j)$-position and $0$ elsewhere. We also have $$\begin{aligned} && q^{1/N}\theta_V = q^N \cdot \operatorname{id}_V, \\ \label{eqn:rho} && K_{2\rho}(v_i) = q^{N+1-2i} v_i,\end{aligned}$$ and $$q^{1/N}{\check{R}}_{V,V}(v_i \otimes v_j) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} q v_i \otimes v_j, & i = j, \\ v_j \otimes v_i, & i < j, \\ v_j \otimes v_i + (q-q^{-1}) v_i \otimes v_j, & i > j. \\ \end{array} \right.$$ It is straightforward to verify that the homomorphism $h_V : {\mathbb{C}}B_n \to {\mathcal{C}}_n(V)$ factors through ${\mathcal{H}}_n(q)$ via $$q^{1/N}\sigma_i \mapsto g_i \mapsto q^{1/N}h_V(\sigma_i).$$ Therefore, ${{V^{\otimes n}}}$ is a module of both ${{U_q({\mathrm{sl}_N})}}$ and ${\mathcal{H}}_n(q)$, and the two algebras act commutatively on ${{V^{\otimes n}}}$. For convenience, we introduce an $N$-independent homomorphism $$h : {\mathbb{C}}B_n \to {\mathcal{H}}_n(q), \quad \sigma_i \mapsto g_i.$$ Let $S^\lambda$ denote the irreducible module of ${\mathcal{H}}_n(q)$ indexed by the partition $\lambda \vdash n$ and let $\zeta^\lambda$ denote its character. Fix a minimal projection $p_\lambda \in {\mathcal{H}}_\lambda(q)$ for each $\lambda \vdash n$. Let $V_\lambda$ denote the irreducible ${{U_q({\mathrm{sl}_N})}}$-module, whose highest weight vector $v$ behaves like $K_i(v) = q^{\lambda_i-\lambda_{i+1}} v$, if $\ell(\lambda) \leq N$ and be $0$ otherwise. We state below two important facts concerning the ${{U_q({\mathrm{sl}_N})}}$-module ${{V^{\otimes n}}}$. One is the irreducible decomposition of ${{U_q({\mathrm{sl}_N})}}$-module $$\label{eqn:decom_svn} {{V^{\otimes n}}}= \bigoplus_{\lambda \vdash n, \; \ell(\lambda) \leq N} \dim S^\lambda \cdot V_\lambda.$$ in which the subspace $\dim S^\lambda \cdot V_\lambda$ is ${\mathcal{H}}_n(q)$-invariant and, as a ${\mathcal{H}}_n(q)$-module, consists of only $S^\lambda$-components. Notice that the ${{U_q({\mathrm{sl}_N})}}$-modules $\{ V_\lambda \mid \lambda \vdash n, \; \ell(\lambda) \leq N \}$ are mutually inequivalent. Comparing (\[eqn:decom\_svn\]), (\[eqn:decom\_hn\]) with (\[eqn:decom\_vn\]), (\[eqn:decom\_cn\]), we have immediately $${\mathcal{C}}_n(V) = \bigoplus_{ \lambda \vdash n, \; \ell(\lambda) \leq N } {\mathcal{H}}_\lambda(q).$$ Moreover, for every partition $\lambda \vdash n$, $$p_\lambda {{V^{\otimes n}}}\cong V_\lambda.$$ The other fact is the weight decomposition of ${{U_q({\mathrm{sl}_N})}}$-module $${{V^{\otimes n}}}= \bigoplus_{\mu \models n, \; \ell(\mu) \leq N} M^\mu$$ where $$M^\mu = \{ v \in {{V^{\otimes n}}}\mid K_i(v) = q^{\mu_i-\mu_{i+1}}v \}.$$ Moreover, the dimensions of the weight spaces of $V_\lambda$ for $\lambda \vdash n$ $$K_{\lambda\mu} = \dim (p_\lambda{{V^{\otimes n}}}\cap M^\mu)$$ are encoded in Schur polynomial as $$\label{eqn:Kostka} s_\lambda(z_1,\dots,z_N) = \sum_{\mu \models n, \; \ell(\mu) \leq N} K_{\lambda\mu} \cdot \prod_{j=1}^N z_j^{\mu_j}.$$ Indeed, $M^\mu$ is nothing but the subspace of ${{V^{\otimes n}}}$ spanned by the vectors $v_{i_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes v_{i_n}$ in which $v_i$ appears precisely $\mu_i$ times. It is clear that $M^\mu$ is ${\mathcal{H}}_n(q)$-invariant. In the literature, $M^\mu$ is called [permutation module]{} and the integers $K_{\lambda\mu}$ are referred to as [Kostka numbers]{}. Various choices of minimal projections of the Hecke algebras are available in [@AM][@DJ2][@Gyo][@Mur]. It is also shown \[thm:theta\] For each partition $\lambda \vdash n$ with $\ell(\lambda) \leq N$, one has $$\theta_{V_\lambda} = q^{\kappa_\lambda+nN-n^2/N} \cdot \operatorname{id}_{V_\lambda}$$ where $$\kappa_\lambda = \sum_{i=1}^{\ell(\lambda)} \sum_{j=1}^{\lambda_i} 2(j-i).$$ The next proposition is a strong version of Lemma \[lem:trace\]. Equation (\[eqn:hecketrace\]) holds even for $x \not\in {\mathcal{C}}_n(V)$. \[prop:trace\] We have $$\dim_q V_\lambda = s_\lambda \Big( q^{N-1},q^{N-3},\dots,q^{-(N-1)} \Big)$$ thus for every $x \in {\mathcal{H}}_n(q)$, $$\label{eqn:hecketrace} \operatorname{tr}_{{V^{\otimes n}}}x = \sum_{\lambda \vdash n} \zeta^\lambda(x) \cdot s_\lambda \Big( q^{N-1},q^{N-3},\dots,q^{-(N-1)} \Big).$$ By (\[eqn:k2rho\]) and (\[eqn:rho\]), $K_{2\rho}$ acts as a scalar $\prod_{i=1}^{N} q^{(N+1-2i)\mu_j}$ on $M^\mu$. Therefore, it follows from identity (\[eqn:Kostka\]) that for each $\lambda \vdash n$, $$\begin{split} \dim_q V_\lambda = \sum_{\mu \models n, \; \ell(\mu) \leq N} K_{\lambda\mu} \cdot \prod_{i=1}^{N} q^{(N+1-2i)\mu_j} = s_\lambda \Big( q^{N-1},q^{N-3},\dots,q^{-(N-1)} \Big). \end{split}$$ Now it is time to give our main result. \[thm:inv\] Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be an oriented link with $l$ components ${\mathcal{L}}_1,\dots,{\mathcal{L}}_l$. Suppose ${\mathcal{L}}$ is the closure of $\beta \in B_m$ and the $m$ strands of $\beta$ are living on ${\mathcal{L}}_{i_1},\dots,{\mathcal{L}}_{i_m}$, respectively. Then for partitions $\lambda^i \vdash n_i$, $i=1,\dots,l$, we have $$\label{eqn:inv} \begin{split} I_{{\mathcal{L}};V_{\lambda^1},\dots,V_{\lambda^l}} &= q^{-\sum_{i=1}^l (\kappa_{\lambda^i}+n_iN-n_i^2/N) w({\mathcal{L}}_i) - w(\beta^{(n_{i_1},\dots,n_{i_m})})/N} \cdot \\ & \sum_{\lambda \vdash n} \zeta^\lambda(x) \cdot s_\lambda \Big( q^{N-1},q^{N-3},\dots,q^{-(N-1)} \Big), \end{split}$$ where $n=n_{i_1}+\cdots+n_{i_m}$, $\beta^{(n_{i_1},\dots,n_{i_m})} \in B_n$ is the braid obtained by cabling the $j$-th strand of $\beta$ to $n_{i_j}$ parallel ones and $x = h(\beta^{(n_{i_1},\dots,n_{i_m})}) \cdot (p_{\lambda^{i_1}} \otimes \cdots \otimes p_{\lambda^{i_m}}) \in {\mathcal{H}}_n(q)$. Combine Lemma \[lem:cable\], Theorem \[thm:theta\] and Proposition \[prop:trace\]. One notices that, on the right hand side of (\[eqn:inv\]), there is an explicit factor $q^{1/N}$ to the power $$\sum_{i=1}^l n_i^2 w({\mathcal{L}}_i) - w(\beta^{(n_{i_1},\dots,n_{i_m})}) = -2\sum_{i<j} n_in_j \operatorname{lk}({\mathcal{L}}_i,{\mathcal{L}}_j)$$ where $\operatorname{lk}({\mathcal{L}}_i,{\mathcal{L}}_j)$ are the linking numbers. As in [@Labastida-Marino2], we drop this insignificant factor and regard the remaining part as a rational function of $q$ and $q^N$. The [colored HOMFLY polynomial]{} $W_{{\mathcal{L}};\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^l}(t,\nu)$ with $\lambda^i \vdash n_i$ is a rational function of $t^{1/2}, \nu^{1/2}$ determined by $$W_{{\mathcal{L}};\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^l}(t,\nu) \|_{t^{1/2}=q^{-1}, \; \nu^{1/2}=q^{-N}} = q^{2\sum_{i<j} n_in_j \operatorname{lk}({\mathcal{L}}_i,{\mathcal{L}}_j)/N} \cdot I_{{\mathcal{L}};V_{\lambda^1},\dots,V_{\lambda^l}}.$$ Note that the definition means the components of the link ${\mathcal{L}}$ are labeled by partitions rather than ${{U_q({\mathrm{sl}_N})}}$-modules. When the labeling partitions are trivial (the unique partition of $1$), the colored HOMFLY polynomial, up to a simple factor, specializes to the HOMFLY polynomial: $$P_{\mathcal{L}}(t,\nu) = \nu^{\operatorname{lk}({\mathcal{L}})} \cdot \frac {t^{1/2}-t^{-1/2}} {\nu^{1/2}-\nu^{-1/2}} \cdot W_{{\mathcal{L}};(1),\dots,(1)}(t,\nu)$$ Let $s^_\lambda(t,\nu)$ be defined by (see (\[eqn:f\])) $$s^_\lambda(t,\nu) \|_{t^{1/2}=q^{-1}, \; \nu^{1/2}=q^{-N}} = s_\lambda \Big( q^{N-1},q^{N-3},\dots,q^{-(N-1)} \Big).$$ \[cor:inv\] In the same notations as Theorem \[thm:inv\], we have $$W_{{\mathcal{L}};\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^l} (t,\nu) = t^{\sum_{i=1}^l \kappa_{\lambda^i} w({\mathcal{L}}_i)/2} \cdot \nu^{\sum_{i=1}^l n_i w({\mathcal{L}}_i)/2} \cdot \sum_{\lambda \vdash n} \zeta^\lambda(x) \Big\|_{q=t^{-1/2}} \cdot s^_\lambda(t,\nu).$$ Torus links {#sec:torus} =========== Let notations be the same as in the previous section. In this section, we derive an explicit formula of the colored HOMFLY polynomial of torus links by applying Corollary \[cor:inv\]. The [torus link]{} $T(r,k)$ is defined to be the closure of $(\delta_r)^k = (\sigma_1\cdots\sigma_{r-1})^k$. They form the family of link that can be put on the standardly embedded torus $T \subset {\mathbb{R}}^3$. Some common links such as the trefoil knot $T(2,3)$, the Hopf link $T(2,2)$ are included in this family. \[thm:torus\] Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be the torus link $T(rl,kl)$ with $r,k$ relatively prime. Let $\lambda^i \vdash n_i$, $i=1,\dots,l$ be partitions and $n=n_1+\cdots+n_l$. Then $$W_{{\mathcal{L}};\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^l}(t,\nu) = t^{kr\sum_{i=1}^l \kappa_{\lambda^i}/2} \cdot \nu^{k(r-1)n/2} \cdot \sum_{\lambda \vdash rn} c^\lambda_{\lambda^1\dots\lambda^l} \cdot t^{-k\kappa_\lambda/2r} \cdot s^_\lambda(t,\nu)$$ where $c^\lambda_{\lambda^1\dots\lambda^l}$ are the integers determined by the equation $$\prod_{i=1}^l s_{\lambda^i}(x_1^r,x_2^r,\dots) = \sum_{\lambda \vdash rn} c^\lambda_{\lambda^1\dots\lambda^l} \cdot s_\lambda(x_1,x_2,\dots).$$ The theorem is an easy consequence of following lemmas. \[lem:twist\] For each partition $\lambda \vdash n$ we have $$h(\Delta_n^2) \cdot p_\lambda = q^{\kappa_\lambda} \cdot p_\lambda.$$ Compare Lemma \[lem:theta\] with Theorem \[thm:theta\]. \[lem:delta\] Let $\lambda^i \vdash n_i$, $i=1,\dots,l$ be partitions and $n=n_1+\cdots+n_l$. Let $r, k$ be relatively prime integers and $\beta \in B_{rn}$ be the braid obtained by cabling the $(il+j)$-th strand of $(\delta_{rl})^{kl}$ to $n_j$ parallel ones. Then, for each partition $\lambda \vdash rn$ we have $$\label{eqn:delta} \zeta^\lambda \Big( h(\beta) \cdot (p_{\lambda^1} \otimes \cdots \otimes p_{\lambda^l})^{{\otimes r}}\Big) = c^\lambda_{\lambda^1\dots\lambda^l} \cdot q^{-k \sum_{i=1}^l \kappa_{\lambda^i} + k\kappa_\lambda/r}.$$ Put $p = p_{\lambda^1} \otimes \cdots \otimes p_{\lambda^l}$ and let $\pi_\lambda$ be the unit of ${\mathcal{H}}_\lambda(q)$. Note that $\pi_\lambda$ is a central element of ${\mathcal{H}}_{rn}(q)$ and $h(\beta)$ is commutative with $p^{{\otimes r}}$. Then $$x_\lambda = \pi_\lambda \cdot h(\beta) \cdot p^{{\otimes r}}$$ is a matrix in ${\mathcal{H}}_\lambda(q)$, whose normal trace is $$\operatorname{tr}x_\lambda = \zeta^\lambda \Big( h(\beta) \cdot p^{{\otimes r}}\Big).$$ Notice that $$h(\beta^r) = h(\Delta_{rn}^{2k}) \cdot \Big( h(\Delta_{n_1}^{-2k}) \otimes \cdots \otimes h(\Delta_{n_l}^{-2k}) \Big)^{{\otimes r}}.$$ It follows from Lemma \[lem:twist\] that $$x_\lambda^r = \pi_\lambda \cdot h(\beta^r) \cdot p^{{\otimes r}}= q^{-kr \sum_{i=1}^l \kappa_{\lambda^i} + k\kappa_\lambda} \cdot \pi_\lambda \cdot p^{{\otimes r}}.$$ Therefore, the eigenvalues of $x_\lambda$ are either $0$ or $q^{-k \sum_{i=1}^l \kappa_{\lambda^i} + k\kappa_\lambda/r}$ times an $r$-th root of unity, for $\pi_\lambda \cdot p^{{\otimes r}}\in {\mathcal{H}}_\lambda(q)$ is also a projection. Since $\operatorname{tr}x_\lambda$ is always a rational function of $q$ in rational coefficients (easily seen with suitable choice of minimal projections), it follows that $\operatorname{tr}x_\lambda$ has to be $q^{-k \sum_{i=1}^l \kappa_{\lambda^i} + k\kappa_\lambda/r}$ times a rational number $a^\lambda$ which is independent of $q$. Now let $q \to 1$. Passing to the limit, $h(\beta)$ degenerates to a permutation $\tau \in \Sigma_{rn}$ which acts cyclicly on the ${{V^{\otimes n}}}$-factors of ${{V^{\otimes rn}}} = {{V^{\otimes n}}}\otimes \cdots \otimes {{V^{\otimes n}}}$, because $r,k$ are relatively prime. By identity (\[eqn:Kostka\]), we have $$\begin{split} & \sum_{\lambda \vdash rn} a^\lambda \cdot s_\lambda(z_1,\dots,z_N) \\ =& \sum_{\lambda \vdash rn} a^\lambda \sum_{\mu \models rn, \; \ell(\mu) \leq N} \dim (p_\lambda{{V^{\otimes rn}}} \cap M^\mu) \cdot \prod_{j=1}^N z_j^{\mu_j} \\ =& \sum_{\mu \models rn, \; \ell(\mu) \leq N} \operatorname{tr}\tau\|_{p^{{\otimes r}}{{V^{\otimes rn}}} \cap M^\mu} \cdot \prod_{j=1}^N z_j^{\mu_j} \\ =& \sum_{\mu \models n, \; \ell(\mu) \leq N} \dim (p{{V^{\otimes n}}}\cap M^\mu) \cdot \prod_{j=1}^N z_j^{r\mu_j} \\ =& \prod_{i=1}^l \Big( \sum_{\mu \models n_i, \; \ell(\mu) \leq N} \dim (p_{\lambda^i}{{V^{\otimes n_i}}} \cap M^\mu) \cdot \prod_{j=1}^N z_j^{r\mu_j} \Big) \\ =& \prod_{i=1}^l s_{\lambda^i}(z_1^r,\dots,z_N^r). \end{split}$$ Since above equality holds for all $N$, we must have $a^\lambda = c^\lambda_{\lambda^1\dots\lambda^l}$. In the case $l=2$ and $r=1$, $k=0$, equation (\[eqn:delta\]) specializes to $$\zeta^\lambda (p_{\lambda^1} \otimes p_{\lambda^2}) = c^\lambda_{\lambda^1\lambda^2}$$ which implies that (see (\[eqn:proj\_decom\])) $$V_{\lambda^1} \otimes V_{\lambda^2} = \bigoplus_{\lambda \vdash n} c^\lambda_{\lambda^1\lambda^2} \cdot V_\lambda.$$ In the literature, the integers $c^\lambda_{\lambda^1\lambda^2}$ are referred to as [Littlewood-Richardson coefficients]{}. By Corollary \[cor:inv\] and Lemma \[lem:delta\], we have $$\begin{split} & W_{{\mathcal{L}};\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^l}(t,\nu) \\ = & t^{\sum_{i=1}^l \kappa_{\lambda^i} k(r-1)/2} \cdot \nu^{\sum_{i=1}^l n_i k(r-1)/2} \cdot \sum_{\lambda \vdash rn} c^\lambda_{\lambda^1\dots\lambda^l} \cdot t^{k\sum_{i=1}^l \kappa_{\lambda^i}/2 - k\kappa_\lambda/2r} \cdot s^_\lambda(t,\nu) \\ = & t^{kr\sum_{i=1}^l \kappa_{\lambda^i}/2} \cdot \nu^{k(r-1)n/2} \cdot \sum_{\lambda \vdash rn} c^\lambda_{\lambda^1\dots\lambda^l} \cdot t^{-k\kappa_\lambda/2r} \cdot s^_\lambda(t,\nu). \end{split}$$ The functions $s^_\lambda(t,\nu)$ and the coefficients $c^\lambda_{\lambda^1\dots\lambda^l}$ can be computed by using the Frobenius formula as follows. Let $\chi^\lambda$ and $C_\mu$ denote the character and conjugacy class of the symmetric group $\Sigma_n$ indexed by $\lambda, \mu \vdash n$. The Frobenius formula says the Newton polynomial $$p^\mu(x_1,x_2,\dots) = \prod_{i=1}^{\ell(\mu)} \sum_{j\geq1} x_j^{\mu_i}$$ is expressed in terms of Schur polynomials as $$p^\mu(x_1,x_2,\dots) = \sum_{\lambda \vdash \|\mu\|} \chi^\lambda(C_\mu) \cdot s_\lambda(x_1,x_2,\dots).$$ Its inverse for $\lambda \vdash n$ is $$s_\lambda(x_1,x_2,\dots) = \sum_{\mu \vdash n} \frac{\|C_\mu\|}{n!} \chi^\lambda(C_\mu) \cdot p^\mu(x_1,x_2,\dots).$$ Therefore, for partition $\lambda \vdash n$ we have $$\label{eqn:f} s^_\lambda(t,\nu) = \sum_{\mu \vdash n} \frac{\|C_\mu\|}{n!} \chi^\lambda(C_\mu) \prod_{i=1}^{\ell(\mu)} \frac {\nu^{\mu_i/2}-\nu^{-\mu_i/2}} {t^{\mu_i/2}-t^{-\mu_i/2}}.$$ Moreover, it is clear that $$p^{\mu^1}(x_1,x_2,\dots) \cdot p^{\mu^2}(x_1,x_2,\dots) = p^{\mu^1+\mu^2}(x_1,x_2,\dots)$$ and $$p^\mu(x_1^r,x_2^r,\dots) = p^{\mu_{(r)}}(x_1,x_2,\dots)$$ where $\mu^1+\mu^2$ is the partition in which the number of each positive integer is the sum of those in $\mu^1, \mu^2$ and $\mu_{(r)}$ means the partition $(r\mu_1,r\mu_2,\dots)$. Hence, for partitions $\lambda^i \vdash n_i$, $i=1,\dots,l$ and $\lambda \vdash r(n_1+\cdots+n_l)$, $$c^\lambda_{\lambda^1\dots\lambda^l} =\sum_{\mu^1 \vdash n_1} \frac{\|C_{\mu^1}\|}{n_1!} \chi^{\lambda^1}(C_{\mu^1}) \cdots \sum_{\mu^l \vdash n_l} \frac{\|C_{\mu^l}\|}{n_l!} \chi^{\lambda^l}(C_{\mu^l}) \cdot \chi^\lambda( C_{(\mu^1+\cdots+\mu^l)_{(r)}} ).$$ We finish this section by offering the following sample calculations. Torus knot $T(2,k)$, $k \not\equiv 0 \pmod 2$. $$\begin{split} & W_{(1)}(t,\nu) = \nu^{k/2} \Big( t^{-k/2} s^_{(2)}(t,\nu) - t^{k/2} s^_{(1,1)}(t,\nu) \Big), \\ & W_{(2)}(t,\nu) = \nu^{k} \Big( t^{-k} s^_{(4)}(t,\nu) - t^{k} s^_{(3,1)}(t,\nu) + t^{2k} s^_{(2,2)}(t,\nu) \Big), \\ & W_{(1,1)}(t,\nu) = \nu^{k} \Big( t^{-2k} s^_{(2,2)}(t,\nu) - t^{-k} s^_{(2,1,1)}(t,\nu) + t^{k} s^_{(1,1,1,1)}(t,\nu) \Big), \\ & W_{(3)}(t,\nu) = \nu^{3k/2} \Big( t^{-3k/2} s^_{(6)}(t,\nu) - t^{3k/2} s^_{(5,1)}(t,\nu) \\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad + t^{7k/2} s^_{(4,2)}(t,\nu) - t^{9k/2} s^_{(3,3)}(t,\nu) \Big), \\ & W_{(2,1)}(t,\nu) = \nu^{3k/2} \Big( t^{-5k/2} s^_{(4,2)}(t,\nu) - t^{-3k/2} s^_{(4,1,1)}(t,\nu) - t^{-3k/2} s^_{(3,3)}(t,\nu) \\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad + t^{3k/2} s^_{(2,2,2)}(t,\nu) + t^{3k/2} s^_{(3,1,1,1)}(t,\nu) - t^{5k/2} s^_{(2,2,1,1)}(t,\nu) \Big), \\ & W_{(1,1,1)}(t,\nu) = \nu^{3k/2} \Big( t^{-9k/2} s^_{(2,2,2)}(t,\nu) - t^{-7k/2} s^_{(2,2,1,1)}(t,\nu) \\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad + t^{-3k/2} s^_{(2,1,1,1,1)}(t,\nu) - t^{3k/2} s^_{(1,1,1,1,1,1)}(t,\nu) \Big). \end{split}$$ In particular, $$W_{(1)}(t,\nu) = \frac {\nu^{1/2}-\nu^{-1/2}} {t^{1/2}-t^{-1/2}} \Big( \frac {t^{\frac{k+1}{2}}-t^{-\frac{k+1}{2}}} {t-t^{-1}} \nu^{\frac{k-1}{2}} - \frac {t^{\frac{k-1}{2}}-t^{-\frac{k-1}{2}}} {t-t^{-1}} \nu^{\frac{k+1}{2}} \Big).$$ Torus knot $T(3,k)$, $k \not\equiv 0 \pmod 3$. $$\begin{split} & W_{(1)}(t,\nu) = \nu^{k} \Big( t^{-k} s^_{(3)}(t,\nu) - s^_{(2,1)}(t,\nu) + t^{k} s^_{(1,1,1)}(t,\nu) \Big), \\ & W_{(2)}(t,\nu) = \nu^{2k} \Big( t^{-2k} s^_{(6)}(t,\nu) - s^_{(5,1)}(t,\nu) + t^{2k} s^_{(4,1,1)}(t,\nu) \\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad + t^{2k} s^_{(3,3)}(t,\nu) - t^{3k} s^_{(3,2,1)}(t,\nu) + t^{4k} s^_{(2,2,2)}(t,\nu) \Big), \\ & W_{(1,1)}(t,\nu) = \nu^{2k} \Big( t^{-4k} s^_{(3,3)}(t,\nu) - t^{-3k} s^_{(3,2,1)}(t,\nu) + t^{-2k} s^_{(3,1,1,1)}(t,\nu) \\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad + t^{-2k} s^_{(2,2,2)}(t,\nu) - s^_{(2,1,1,1,1)}(t,\nu) + t^{2k} s^_{(1,1,1,1,1,1)}(t,\nu) \Big). \\ \end{split}$$ Torus link $T(2,2k)$. $$\begin{split} & W_{(1),(1)}(t,\nu) = t^{-k} s^_{(2)}(t,\nu) + t^{k} s^_{(1,1)}(t,\nu), \\ & W_{(2),(1)}(t,\nu) = t^{-2k} s^_{(3)}(t,\nu) + t^{k} s^_{(2,1)}(t,\nu), \\ & W_{(1,1),(1)}(t,\nu) = t^{-k} s^_{(2,1)}(t,\nu) + t^{2k} s^_{(1,1,1)}(t,\nu), \\ & W_{(2),(2)}(t,\nu) = t^{-4k} s^_{(4)}(t,\nu) + s^_{(3,1)}(t,\nu) + t^{2k} s^_{(2,2)}(t,\nu), \\ & W_{(2),(1,1)}(t,\nu) = t^{-2k} s^_{(3,1)}(t,\nu) + t^{2k} s^_{(2,1,1)}(t,\nu), \\ & W_{(1,1),(1,1)}(t,\nu) = t^{-2k} s^_{(2,2)}(t,\nu) + s^_{(2,1,1)}(t,\nu) + t^{4k} s^_{(1,1,1,1)}(t,\nu). \end{split}$$ In particular, $$W_{(1),(1)}(t,\nu) = \frac {\nu^{1/2}-\nu^{-1/2}} {t^{1/2}-t^{-1/2}} \Big( \frac {t^{\frac{2k-1}{2}}+t^{-\frac{2k-1}{2}}} {t-t^{-1}} \nu^{\frac12} - \frac {t^{\frac{2k+1}{2}}+t^{-\frac{2k+1}{2}}} {t-t^{-1}} \nu^{-\frac12} \Big).$$ Torus link $T(3,3k)$. $$\begin{split} & W_{(1),(1),(1)}(t,\nu) = t^{-3k} s^_{(3)}(t,\nu) + 2 s^_{(2,1)}(t,\nu) + t^{3k} s^_{(1,1,1)}(t,\nu), \\ & W_{(2),(1),(1)}(t,\nu) = t^{-5k} s^_{(4)}(t,\nu) + 2 t^{-k} s^_{(3,1)}(t,\nu) + t^{k} s^_{(2,2)}(t,\nu) + t^{3k} s^_{(2,1,1)}(t,\nu), \\ & W_{(1,1),(1),(1)}(t,\nu) = t^{-3k} s^_{(3,1)}(t,\nu) + t^{-k} s^_{(2,2)}(t,\nu) + 2 t^{k} s^_{(2,1,1)}(t,\nu) + t^{5k} s^_{(1,1,1,1)}(t,\nu). \end{split}$$ On the Labastida-Mariño-Vafa conjecture ======================================= As before, we have an oriented link ${\mathcal{L}}$ with $l$ components. Define the generating function $$Z({\mathbf{x}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{x}}_l) = \sum_{\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^l} W_{\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^l}(t,\nu) \cdot s_{\lambda^1}({\mathbf{x}}_1) \cdots s_{\lambda^l}({\mathbf{x}}_l)$$ where each ${\mathbf{x}}_i = \{x_{i,1},x_{i,2},\dots\}$ is a set of indeterminate variables and $\lambda^i$ runs over all partitions including the empty one (the unique partition of zero). When all $\lambda^i$ are empty, the summand gives rise to the leading term $1$. One can expand $\log Z({\mathbf{x}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{x}}_l)$ as $$\log Z({\mathbf{x}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{x}}_l) = \sum_{d=1}^\infty \sum_{\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^l} \frac{1}{d}\, f_{\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^l}(t^d,\nu^d) \cdot s_{\lambda^1}({\mathbf{x}}_1^d) \cdots s_{\lambda^l}({\mathbf{x}}_l^d)$$ where ${\mathbf{x}}_i^d = \{x_{i,1}^d,x_{i,2}^d,\dots\}$. See [@Labastida-Marino2] for an explanation why such an expansion exists by using the so-called plethystic exponential. The functions $f_{\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^l}(t,\nu)$ are referred to as the [reformulated colored HOMFLY polynomial]{}. Labastida-Mariño-Vafa conjecture says that these functions have the following highly nontrivial structure. Write for $\lambda,\mu \vdash n$ $$M_{\lambda\mu}(t) = \sum_{\tau \vdash n} \frac{\|C_\tau\|}{n!} \chi^\lambda(C_\tau) \chi^\mu(C_\tau) \cdot \frac {\prod_{j=1}^{\ell(\tau)} (t^{-\tau_j/2}-t^{\tau_j/2})} {t^{-1/2}-t^{1/2}}.$$ For partitions $\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^l$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:LM} && f_{\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^l}(t,\nu) = \sum_{\mu^1 \vdash \|\lambda^1\|,\dots,\mu^l \vdash \|\lambda^l\|} \hat{f}_{\mu^1,\dots,\mu^l}(t,\nu) \cdot M_{\lambda^1\mu^1}(t) \cdots M_{\lambda^l\mu^l}(t), \\ && \hat{f}_{\mu^1,\dots,\mu^l}(t,\nu) = \sum_{g \geq 0} \sum_Q N_{\mu^1,\dots,\mu^l,g,Q} \cdot (t^{1/2}-t^{-1/2})^{2g+l-2} \cdot \nu^Q,\end{aligned}$$ where $N_{\mu^1,\dots,\mu^l,g,Q}$ are integers and $Q$ are either all integers or all semi-integers. Moreover, the integers $N_{\mu^1,\dots,\mu^l,g,Q}$ are interpreted as quantities involved in the enumerative geometry of the resolved conifold. See [@Gopakumar-Vafa][@Ooguri-Vafa] for example. Till now, besides the trivial links, the conjecture was verified only for some simplest knots and links with small partitions. A proof of the Labastida-Mariño-Vafa conjecture seems to appeal to deep knowledge of mathematics and string theory. Using the formula in the previous section, we can verify this conjecture for several infinite families of torus links with small partitions. Our calculation also suggests a new structure of the reformulated colored HOMFLY polynomial of torus links. Let us make this more precise first. Define symmetric functions for $\lambda,\mu \vdash n$ $$S_{\lambda,\mu}({\mathbf{x}}) = \sum_{\tau \vdash n} \frac{\|C_\tau\|}{n!} \chi^\lambda(C_\tau) \chi^\mu(C_\tau) \cdot p^\tau({\mathbf{x}})$$ and $$\begin{split} s_{\mu;q}({\mathbf{x}}) = & \sum_{\lambda \vdash n} (q-q^{-1}) M_{\lambda\mu}(q^{-2}) \cdot s_\lambda({\mathbf{x}}) \\ = & \sum_{\tau \vdash n} \frac{\|C_\tau\|}{n!} \chi^\mu(C_\tau) \cdot \prod_{j=1}^{\ell(\tau)} (q^{\tau_j}-q^{-\tau_j}) \cdot p^\tau({\mathbf{x}}). \end{split}$$ We have the following conjecture for torus links. For torus link $T(rl,kl)$ with $r,k$ relatively prime and $n=n_1+\cdots+n_l$, $$\label{eqn:LMX} \begin{split} & \sum_{\lambda^1 \vdash n_1,\dots,\lambda^l \vdash n_l} f_{\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^l}(t,\nu) \cdot s_{\lambda^1}({\mathbf{x}}_1) \cdots s_{\lambda^l}({\mathbf{x}}_l) \|_{t^{1/2}=q^{-1}, \; \nu^{1/2}=q^{-N}} \\ = & \sum_{\lambda^1 \vdash n_1,\dots,\lambda^l \vdash n_l} (q^{k}-q^{-k})^{-2} \cdot q^{-k(r-1)nN} \cdot \sum_{\lambda \vdash rn} g_{\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^l}^\lambda(q^{2k}) \cdot \\ & s_{\lambda;q^{k}} \Big( q^{N-1},q^{N-3},\dots,q^{-(N-1)} \Big) \cdot s_{\lambda^1;q^{k}}({\mathbf{x}}_1) \cdots s_{\lambda^l;q^{k}}({\mathbf{x}}_l). \end{split}$$ where $g_{\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^l}^\lambda(t) \in {\mathbb{Z}}[t^{\pm1}]$ is invariant under $t \to t^{-1}$. The following examples verify Conjecture 6.2. Torus knot $T(2,k)$, $k \not\equiv 0 \pmod 2$. Followings are nonvanishing $g_{\lambda'}^\lambda(t)$’s for $\|\lambda'\| \leq 4$. $$\begin{split} & g_{(1)}^{(2)}(t) = 1, \\ & g_{(1,1)}^{(2,2)}(t) = 1, \\ & g_{(1,1,1)}^{(2,2,2)}(t) = t+t^{-1}, \\ & g_{(2,1)}^{(2,2,2)}(t) = g_{(1,1,1)}^{(3,2,1)}(t) = 1, \\ & g_{(1,1,1,1)}^{(2,2,2,2)}(t) = t^3+2t+1+2t^{-1}+t^{-3}, \\ & g_{(2,1,1)}^{(2,2,2,2)}(t) = g_{(1,1,1,1)}^{(3,2,2,1)}(t) = t^2+t+2+t^{-1}+t^{-2}, \\ & g_{(2,1,1)}^{(3,2,2,1)}(t) = t+1+t^{-1}, \\ & g_{(2,2)}^{(2,2,2,2)}(t) = g_{(1,1,1,1)}^{(4,2,2)}(t) = g_{(1,1,1,1)}^{(3,3,1,1)}(t) = t+t^{-1}, \\ & g_{(3,1)}^{(2,2,2,2)}(t) = g_{(2,2)}^{(3,2,2,1)}(t) = g_{(2,1,1)}^{(4,2,2)}(t) = g_{(2,1,1)}^{(3,3,1,1)}(t) = 1, \\ & g_{(1,1,1,1)}^{(4,3,1)}(t) = g_{(1,1,1,1)}^{(4,2,1,1)}(t) = g_{(1,1,1,1)}^{(3,3,2)}(t) = 1. \end{split}$$ Torus knot $T(3,k)$, $k \not\equiv 0 \pmod 3$. Followings are nonvanishing $g_{\lambda'}^\lambda(t)$’s for $\|\lambda'\| \leq 3$. $$\begin{split} & g_{(1)}^{(3)}(t) = 1, \\ & g_{(1,1)}^{(3,3)}(t) = t+t^{-1}, \\ & g_{(2)}^{(3,3)}(t) = g_{(1,1)}^{(4,2)}(t) = 1, \\ & g_{(1,1,1)}^{(3,3,3)}(t) = t^4+2t^2+2t+2+2t^{-1}+2t^{-2}+t^{-4}, \\ & g_{(2,1)}^{(3,3,3)}(t) = g_{(1,1,1)}^{(4,3,2)}(t) = t^3+t^2+2t+3+2t^{-1}+t^{-2}+t^{-3}, \\ & g_{(2,1)}^{(4,3,2)}(t) = t^2+2t+2+2t^{-1}+t^{-2}, \\ & g_{(1,1,1)}^{(5,3,1)}(t) = t^2+t+2+t^{-1}+t^{-2}, \\ & g_{(2,1)}^{(5,3,1)}(t) = t+1+t^{-1}, \\ & g_{(3)}^{(3,3,3)}(t) = g_{(1,1,1)}^{(6,3)}(t) = g_{(1,1,1)}^{(5,2,2)}(t) = g_{(1,1,1)}^{(4,4,1)}(t) = t+t^{-1}, \\ & g_{(3)}^{(4,3,2)}(t) = g_{(2,1)}^{(6,3)}(t) = g_{(2,1)}^{(5,2,2)}(t) = g_{(2,1)}^{(4,4,1)}(t) = g_{(1,1,1)}^{(6,2,1)}(t) = g_{(1,1,1)}^{(5,4)}(t) = 1. \end{split}$$ Torus link $T(2,2k)$. Followings are nonvanishing $g_{\lambda^1,\lambda^2}^\lambda(t)$’s for $\|\lambda^1\| + \|\lambda^2\| \leq 5$, up to symmetry $g_{\lambda^1,\lambda^2}^\lambda(t) = g_{\lambda^2,\lambda^1}^\lambda(t)$. $$\begin{split} & g_{(0),(1)}^{(1)}(t) = g_{(1),(1)}^{(2)}(t) = g_{(2),(1)}^{(3)}(t) = g_{(3),(1)}^{(4)}(t) = g_{(4),(1)}^{(5)}(t) = 1, \\ & g_{(2),(2)}^{(4)}(t) = t+1+t^{-1}, \\ & g_{(2),(1,1)}^{(4)}(t) = g_{(2),(2)}^{(3,1)}(t) = 1, \\ & g_{(3),(2)}^{(5)}(t) = t^2+t+3+t^{-1}+t^{-2}, \\ & g_{(3),(2)}^{(4,1)}(t) = g_{(3),(1,1)}^{(5)}(t) = g_{(2,1),(2)}^{(5)}(t) = t+1+t^{-1}, \\ & g_{(3),(2)}^{(3,2)}(t) = g_{(3),(1,1)}^{(4,1)}(t) = g_{(2,1),(2)}^{(4,1)}(t) = g_{(2,1),(1,1)}^{(5)}(t) = 1. \end{split}$$ One notices that (\[eqn:LM\]) is indeed equivalent to $$\begin{split} & \sum_{\lambda^1 \vdash n_1,\dots,\lambda^l \vdash n_l} f_{\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^l}(t,\nu) \cdot s_{\lambda^1}({\mathbf{x}}_1) \cdots s_{\lambda^l}({\mathbf{x}}_l) \\ = & \sum_{\mu^1 \vdash n_1,\dots,\mu^l \vdash n_l} (t^{-1/2}-t^{1/2})^{-l} \cdot \hat{f}_{\mu^1,\dots,\mu^l}(t,\nu) \cdot s_{\mu^1;t^{-1/2}}({\mathbf{x}}_1) \cdots s_{\mu^l;t^{-1/2}}({\mathbf{x}}_l). \end{split}$$ Therefore, it follows from the identities $$\begin{aligned} && s_{\lambda;q^k} \Big( q^{N-1},q^{N-3},\dots,q^{-(N-1)} \Big) = s_{\lambda;q^N} \Big( q^{k-1},q^{k-3},\dots,q^{-(k-1)} \Big), \\ && s_{\lambda;q^k}({\mathbf{x}}) = \sum_{\mu \vdash \|\lambda\|} S_{\lambda,\mu} \Big( q^{k-1},q^{k-3},\dots,q^{-(k-1)} \Big) \cdot s_{\mu;q}({\mathbf{x}})\end{aligned}$$ that (\[eqn:LMX\]) implies $$\begin{split} & \hat{f}_{\mu^1,\dots,\mu^l}(t,\nu) = (t^{-1/2}-t^{1/2})^{l-2} \cdot \Big( \frac {t^{k/2}-t^{-k/2}} {t^{1/2}-t^{-1/2}} \Big)^{-2} \cdot \nu^{k(r-1)n/2} \cdot \\ & \quad \quad \quad \sum_{\lambda^1 \vdash n_1,\dots,\lambda^l \vdash n_l} \prod_{i=1}^l S_{\lambda^i,\mu^i} \Big( t^{(k-1)/2},t^{(k-3)/2},\dots,t^{-(k-1)/2} \Big) \cdot \\ & \quad \quad \quad \sum_{\lambda \vdash rn} g_{\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^l}^\lambda(t^k) \cdot s_{\lambda;\nu^{-1/2}} \Big( t^{(k-1)/2},t^{(k-3)/2},\dots,t^{-(k-1)/2} \Big) \end{split}$$ for partitions $\mu^i \vdash n_i$, $i=1,\dots,l$ and $n=n_1+\cdots+n_l$. Let us take $T(2,k)$, $k \not\equiv 0 \pmod 2$, as an example to illustrate our verification of the Labastida-Mariño-Vafa conjecture for torus links. In this case, we have $$\begin{split} & \hat{f}_{(2)}(t,\nu) = - \nu^k (\nu^{\frac12}-\nu^{-\frac12})^2 (\nu+\nu^{-1}-t-t^{-1}) \cdot \\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \frac { (t^{\frac{k+1}{2}}-t^{-\frac{k+1}{2}}) (t^{\frac{k}{2}}-t^{-\frac{k}{2}}) (t^{\frac{k-1}{2}}-t^{-\frac{k-1}{2}})^2 } { (t^{\frac{3}{2}}-t^{-\frac{3}{2}}) (t-t^{-1})^3 (t^{\frac12}-t^{-\frac12}) }, \\ & \hat{f}_{(1,1)}(t,\nu) = - \nu^k (\nu^{\frac12}-\nu^{-\frac12})^2 (\nu+\nu^{-1}-t-t^{-1}) \cdot \\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \frac { (t^{\frac{k+1}{2}}-t^{-\frac{k+1}{2}})^2 (t^{\frac{k}{2}}-t^{-\frac{k}{2}}) (t^{\frac{k-1}{2}}-t^{-\frac{k-1}{2}}) } { (t^{\frac{3}{2}}-t^{-\frac{3}{2}}) (t-t^{-1})^3 (t^{\frac12}-t^{-\frac12}) }. \end{split}$$ Since $k$ is odd, both functions agree to the Labastida-Mariño-Vafa conjecture. Following this way we can verify the Labastida-Mariño-Vafa conjecture for all the torus links in Examples 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5. [99]{} A. K. Aiston and H. R. Morton, [Idempotents of Hecke algebras of type A]{}, J. Knot Theory Ramif. 7 (1998), 463–487. J. S. Birman and H. Wenzl, [Braids, link polynomials and a new algebra]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 313 (1989), 249–273. R. Dipper and G. James, [Representations of Hecke algebras of general linear groups]{}, Proc. London Math. Soc. 52 (1986), 20–52. R. Dipper and G. James, [Block and idempotents of Hecke algebras of general linear groups]{}, Proc. London Math. Soc. 54 (1987), 57–82. R. Gopakumar and C. Vafa, [On the gauge theory/geometry correspondence]{}, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 3 (1999), 1415–1443. A. Gyoja, [A q-analogue of Young symmetrisers]{}, Osaka J. Math. 23 (1986), 841–852. V. Jones, [Hecke algebra representations of braid groups and link polynomial]{}, Ann. Math. 126 (1987), 335–388. C. Kassel, Quantum Groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 155, Springer-Verlag, 1995. A. Klimyk and K. Schmüdgen, Quantum Groups and Their Representations, Springer-Verlag, 1997. J. M. F. Labastida and M. Mariño, [Polynomial invariants for torus knots and topological strings]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. 217 (2001), 423–449. J. M. F. Labastida and M. Mariño, [A new point of view in the theory of knot and link invariants]{}, J. Knot Theory Ramif. 11 (2002), 173–197. J. M. F. Labastida, M. Mariño and C. Vafa, [Knots, links and branes at large N]{}, J. High Energy Phys. 2000, no. 11, Paper 7, 42 pp. R. Leduc and A. Ram, [A ribbon Hopf algebra approach to the irreducible representations of centralizer algebras: The Brauer, Birman-Wenzl, and type A Iwahori-Hecke algebras]{}, Adv. Math. 125 (1997), 1–94. H. Morton and S. Lukac, [The Homfly polynomial of the decorated Hopf link]{}, J. Knot Theory Ramif. 12 (2003), 395–416. G. Murphy, [On the representation theory of the symmetric groups and associated Hecke algebras]{}, J. Algebra 152 (1992), 492–513. H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, [Knot invariants and topological strings]{}, Nucl. Phys. B 577 (2000), 419–438. N. Yu. Reshetikhin, V. G. Turaev, [Ribbon graphs and their invariants derived from quantum groups]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. 127 (1990), 1–26. B. E. Sagan, The Symmetric Group: Representations, Combinatorial Algorithms, and Symmetric Functions, Wadsworth Inc., Belmont, California, 1991. V. G. Turaev, [The Yang-Baxter equation and invariants of links]{}, Invent. Math. 92 (1988), 527–553. H. Wenzl, [Quantum groups and subfactors of type B, C, and D]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. 133 (1990), 383–432. E. Witten, [Quantum field theory and the Jones polynomial]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. 121 (1989), 351–399. [^1]: The first author is supported in part by NSF grants DMS-0404511 [^2]:	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We prove the generic exclusion of certain Shimura varieties of unitary and orthogonal types from the Torelli locus. The proof relies on a slope inequality on surface fibration due to G. Xiao, and the main result implies that certain Shimura varieties only meet the Torelli locus in dimension zero.' address: - 'Department of Mathematics, Nanjing University, Hankou Road 22, Nanjing 210093, P. R. of China' - 'Institut für Mathematik, Universität Mainz, Mainz, 55099, Germany' - 'Department of Mathematics, East China Normal University, Dongchuan Road 500, Shanghai 200241, P. R. of China' - 'Institut für Mathematik, Universität Mainz, Mainz, 55099, Germany' author: - Ke Chen - Xin Lu - 'Sheng-Li Tan' - Kang Zuo title: On Higgs bundles over Shimura varieties of ball quotient type --- Introduction ============ The Coleman-Oort conjecture, cf. [@moonen; @oort; @survey], predicts that when the genus $g$ is large enough, the Torelli locus ${\mathcal{T}}_g$ inside the Siegel modular variety ${\mathcal{A}}_g$ does not contain generically any Shimura subvariety of strictly positive dimension; in other words, the open Torelli locus ${\mathcal{T}}_g^\circ$ does not contain any Zariski open subvariety of an arbitrary Shimura subvariety of dimension $>0$ in ${\mathcal{A}}_g$. Using the André-Oort conjecture, an unconditional proof of which has recently been given in [@tsimerman; @andre; @oort], this amounts to the finiteness of CM points in ${\mathcal{T}}_g^\circ$ for $g$ sufficiently large, which is also the original formulation of Coleman. In [@hain; @locally; @symmetric] Hain has established the conjecture for a large class of Shimura subvarieties in ${\mathcal{A}}_g$ that do not contain locally symmetric divisors. In particular, it holds for Shimura subvarieties uniformized by Hermitian symmetric domains of rank at least 2. His proof makes use of rigidity property of mapping class groups, namely for an arithmetic group $\Gamma$ coming from a simple ${\mathbb{Q}}$-group of ${\mathbb{R}}$-rank at least 2, any homomorphism from $\Gamma$ to the mapping class group $\Gamma_{g,r}^n$ is of finite image. Note that the phenomenon of rigidity in [@hain; @locally; @symmetric] is also related to the metric rigidity property studied by Ngaiming Mok in [@mok; @rigidity; @book]: The idea can be illustrated through the case of Hilbert modular varieties treated in [@de; @jong; @zhang; @hilbert]: assume that $g\geq 5$ and let $M\subset{\mathcal{A}}_g$ be the Hilbert modular subvariety parametrizing abelian varieties of dimension $g$ with real multiplication by $O_F$, where $F$ is a totally real field of degree $g$ with an order $O_F$ in $F$. Consider an extremal situation where $M$ is not only contained in ${\mathcal{T}}_g^\circ$, but actually lifts to $i:M{\hookrightarrow}{\mathcal{M}}_g$, giving rise to a surjective pull-back $i^\Omega_{{\mathcal{M}}_g}^1\ra\Omega_M^1$. Note that $\Omega^1_M$ is merely semi-positive, dual to the proper semi-negativity of ${\mathrm{Tan}}_M$ studied in [@mok; @rigidity; @book], and it admits non-trivial quotients which are NOT big, which is absurd because $\Omega_{{\mathcal{M}}_g}^1$, and thus $i^\Omega^1_{{\mathcal{M}}_g}$ as well, is already big. On the other hand, for Shimura varieties uniformized by simple Hermtian symmetric domains of rank 1, such as those associated to ${\mathbf{SU}}(n,1)$ and ${\mathbf{Spin}}(N,2)$, Hodge-theoretic techniques provide complements when the rigidity property fails. In our previous work [@chen; @lu; @zuo; @compositio], we have proved the Coleman-Oort conjecture for a class of Shimura varieties of these types. The starting point is a numerical property of semi-stable fibration of surfaces over curves, which is translated, via the Simpson correspondence, into constraints on the fundamental group representations for the Shimura varieties of interest, and one concludes by Satake’s classification of rational symplectic representations. More precisely, the following inequality due to G. Xiao will play a crucial role in our study: \[xiao’s inequality\] Let $f:S\ra B$ be a non-isotrovial fibration of a smooth projective algebraic surface $S$ over a smooth projective algebraic curve $B$. Assume that $f$ is generically smooth and its fibers are semi-stable curves of genus $g\geq 2$. Then holds the inequality $$12\deg f_\omega_{S/B}\geq (2g-2+\rank A_{\mathrm{max}})\mu_{\mathrm{max}}$$ where $\mu_{\mathrm{max}}$ is the maximum of slopes of vector subbundles of $\omega_{S/B}$, and $A_{\mathrm{max}}\subset f_\omega_{S/B}$ is the maximal subbundle of $f_\omega_{S/B}$ of slope $\mu_{\mathrm{max}}$. \(1) The inequality above is slightly different from the original version of Xiao [@xiao; @slope], where he obtains $12\deg f_\omega_{S/B}\geq (2g-2)\mu_{\mathrm{max}}$ and thus $$\frac{\rank F^{1,0}}{g}\leq \frac{5}{6}+\frac{1}{6g}.$$ The proof of the version in is exactly the same as in [@xiao; @slope], which is not reproduced in this paper. \(2) In [@chen; @lu; @zuo; @compositio] we have made use of the following refined form $$12\deg f_\omega_{S/B}\geq\big(4g-4-2\rank F^{1,0}\big)\mu_{\mathrm{max}}, \mathrm{\quad and \quad } \frac{\rank F^{1,0}}{g}\leq\frac{4}{5}+\frac{2}{5g},$$ where a decomposition $f_\omega_{S/B}=A^{1,0}\oplus F^{1,0}$ is assumed, with $A^{1,0}$ semi-stable and ample while $F^{1,0}$ is the maximal flat part. Such a decomposition holds when $B$ is constructed out of a Shimura curve contained generically in ${\mathcal{T}}_g$ due to properties of Higgs bundles on Shimura curves: only one single non-zero slope appears in the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of $f_\omega_{S/B}$. The Shimura varieties studied in [@chen; @lu; @zuo; @compositio] do contain Shimura curves, while in the more general case of the present paper we can only resort to the inequality as in because several different slopes might be involved. \[main theorem shimura varieties of su(n,1)-type\] Let $M\subset{\mathcal{A}}_V$ be a Shimura subvariety of ${\mathbf{SU}}(n,1)$-type defined over a totally real field $F$ of degree $d$, such that the corresponding symplectic representation is primary of type $\Lambda_m$ for some integer $m\in[1,n]$ of multiplicity $r$. Then $M$ is NOT contained generically in ${\mathcal{T}}_g$ as long as the following inequality holds:$$\frac{n+m-1}{n}\left(\frac{n+1}{m}\cdot d+\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{r\binom{n}{m-1}}\right)> 12.$$ The theorem above actually implies that the Shimura variety $M$ under consideration only meets the open Torelli locus ${\mathcal{T}}_g^\circ$ at finitely many points: otherwise $M$ contains a curve $C$ which is generically contained in ${\mathcal{T}}_g$, and the arguments in the proof (cf. Section 3) produces an inequality contradicting Xiao’s estimation. Our naive bound on the flat part also treats the similar phenomenon for more general Shimura varieties, cf. and . The theorem above is applied to the generic exclusion from the Torelli locus of some Shimura varieties of orthogonal type containing Shimura varieties of unitary type. In fact, if $h:W\times W\ra{\mathbb{C}}$ is an Hermitian form over ${\mathbb{C}}$ of signature $(n,1)$, then its real part is a quadratic form of signature $(2n,2)$, and one obtains a natural equivariant embedding of the corresponding Hermitian symmetric domains. Adding suitable arithmetic constraints we expand this example into the following theorem: \[main theorem shimura varieties of orthogonal types\] Let $M'\subset{\mathcal{A}}_V$ be a Shimura subvariety of ${\mathbf{Spin}}(N,2)$-type given by some Shimura datum $({\mathbf{G}}',X';X'^+)$, namely associated to some quadratic space $(W,q)$ over a totally real field $F$ of degree $d$, of signature - $(N,2)$ along one fixed real embedding $\sigma=\sigma_1:F{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbb{R}}$; - definite along the other embeddings $\sigma_2,\cdots,\sigma_d:F{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbb{R}}$. Assume that $M'$ contains a Shimura subvariety of ${\mathbf{SU}}(n,1)$-type associated to some Hermitian space $(H,h)$ over some CM quadratic extension $E$ of $F$, such that the signature of $h$ is - $(n,1)$ along $\sigma$; - definite along the other embeddings $\sigma_2,\cdots,\sigma_d$; which fits into an orthogonal direct sum decomposition $W=U\oplus{\mathrm{Res}}_{E/F}H$ with $U$ some $F$-subspace of signature $(N-2n,0)$ along $\sigma$. If $N>2n$ and the inclusion $M'{\hookrightarrow}{\mathcal{A}}_V$ is defined by a symplectic representation of primary type, then $M'$ is NOT contained generically in ${\mathcal{T}}_g$ as long as $d> 3+\frac{1}{m\cdot 2^{\lfloor(N+1)/2\rfloor}}-\frac{1}{2^{n+2}}$, where $m$ is the multiplicity of the spinor representation in $W\otimes_{F,\sigma}{\mathbb{R}}$ for the group ${\mathbf{Spin}}(N,2)$, the only non-compact factor in ${\mathbf{G}}'^{\mathrm{der}}({\mathbb{R}})$. In particular the inequality holds whenever $d\geq 4$; if $N> 2n+4$, then it holds for $d\geq 3$. The theorem deals with the case $N>2n$, while the case $N=2n$ is treated in detail taking care of the parity of $n$ and the primary type of symplectic representations involved, cf. . Similar to [@chen; @lu; @zuo; @compositio], the criteria obtained involve certain representation-theoretic parameters describing the symplectic representations defining Shimura subvarieties, and they are NOT pure bounds on the genus $g$. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we collect preliminaries on Shimura subvarieties in ${\mathcal{A}}_g$ and prove a naive bound on the compact factors in the Mumford-Tate groups for Shimura subvarieties contained generically in the Torelli locus. Section 3 computes the slopes of certain Higgs bundles on Shimura varieties of ${\mathbf{SU}}(n,1)$-type and proves . Finally in Section 4 we apply the results in Section 3 to a class of Shimura varieties of orthogonal types. A naive bound for flat Higgs subbundles ======================================= In this paper Shimura varieties and Shimura subvarieties in ${\mathcal{A}}_g$ are connected algebraic varieties over ${\mathbb{C}}$, following the definitions given in [@chen; @lu; @zuo; @compositio; @lu; @zuo]: \[definition shimura varieties\] A (connected) Shimura datum is of the form $({\mathbf{G}},X;X^+)$ consisting of - $({\mathbf{G}},X)$ a (pure) Shimura datum in the sense of [@deligne; @pspm]; - $X^+$ is a connected component of $X$. Note that $X$ is a homogeneous space under ${\mathbf{G}}({\mathbb{R}})$ of homomorphisms ${\mathbb{S}}\ra{\mathbf{G}}_{\mathbb{R}}$ subject to certain Hodge-theoretic constraints, with ${\mathbb{S}}$ the Deligne torus ${\mathrm{Res}}_{{\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{R}}}{\mathbb{G}}_{\mathrm{m}}$; $X^+$ is homogeneous under ${\mathbf{G}}^{\mathrm{ad}}({\mathbb{R}})^+$, and is an Hermitian symmetric domain. Take $\Gamma\subset{\mathbf{G}}({\mathbb{R}})^+$ a congruence subgroup, we have the (connected) Shimura variety $M=\Gamma{\backslash}X^+$, where $\Gamma$ acts on $X^+$ through its image in ${\mathbf{G}}^{\mathrm{ad}}({\mathbb{R}})^+$. The theorem of Baily-Borel compactification affirms that $M$ is a normal quasi-projective algebraic variety over ${\mathbb{C}}$, and we always assume that $\Gamma$ is torsion-free, so that $M$ is smooth and its fundamental group is identified with $\Gamma$. The canonical projection $\wp=\wp_\Gamma:X^+\ra\Gamma{\backslash}X^+, x\mapsto \Gamma x$ is called the uniformization map. A Shimura subvariety in $M$ is given as $M'=\wp(X'^+)$ for some connected Shimura subdatum $({\mathbf{G}}',X';X'^+)$, namely $({\mathbf{G}}',X')$ is a Shimura subdatum of $({\mathbf{G}},X)$ in the sense of [@deligne; @pspm] and $X'^+$ is a connected component of $X'$ contained in $X^+$. It is known that $M'$ is a closed subvariety in $M$, and its fundamental group is isomorphic to $\Gamma\cap{\mathbf{G}}'^{\mathrm{der}}({\mathbb{R}})^+$. \[example siegel modular variety\] Fix $V$ a rational symplectic space of dimension $2g$, we have the Shimura datum $({\mathbf{GSp}}_V,{\mathcal{H}}_V;{\mathcal{H}}_V^+)$ where ${\mathcal{H}}_V^+$ is the Siegel upper half space of genus $g$. Usually we assume that $V$ comes from the standard symplectic ${\mathbb{Z}}$-module of discriminant 1, and thus a suitable choice of a congruence subgroup $\Gamma\subset{\mathbf{GSp}}_V({\mathbb{Q}})$ defines Siegel modular varieties ${\mathcal{A}}_g={\mathcal{A}}_V:=\Gamma{\backslash}{\mathcal{H}}_V^+$ parameterizing principally polarized abelian variaties of dimension $g$ with level-$\Gamma$ structures. We mainly consider Shimura subvarieties in ${\mathcal{A}}_V$. As is explained in [@chen; @lu; @zuo; @compositio], a Shimura subdatum $({\mathbf{G}},X;X^+)$ defining a Shimura subvariety $M\subset{\mathcal{A}}_V$ gives rise to a rational symplectic representation ${\mathbf{G}}\ra{\mathbf{GSp}}_{V}$ satisfying Satake’s condition (H2) in the sense of [@satake; @rational]. We always assume that the level structure $\Gamma$ is suitably chosen so that the inclusion $M{\hookrightarrow}{\mathcal{A}}_g$ extends to their smooth toroidal compactifications ${{\ol M}}{\hookrightarrow}{\overline{{\mathcal{A}}}}_V$, which joins to $M$ resp. to ${\mathcal{A}}_V$ finitely many boundary divisors. We write ${\mathcal{T}}_g^\circ$ for the schematic image of $$j:{\mathcal{M}}_g\ra{\mathcal{A}}_g={\mathcal{A}}_V,\ [C]\mapsto[{\mathrm{Jac}}(C)]$$ called the open Torelli locus, and ${\mathcal{T}}_g$ for its closure, called the Torelli locus. The slope inequality of Xiao is mainly applied to the following situation: \[proposition higgs bundles for surface fibration\] Let $C$ be a closed curve in ${\overline{{\mathcal{A}}}}_g$ contained generically in the Torelli locus, namely $C^\circ:=C\cap{\mathcal{T}}_g^\circ$ is open in $C$. Let $B^\circ$ be the normalization of the preimage of $C^\circ$ in ${\mathcal{M}}_g$, giving rise to a family of curve $f^\circ:S^\circ\ra B^\circ$ which is compactified into a surface fibration $f:S\ra B$ with semi-stable fibers of genus $g$. Write $i:B\ra C$ for the induced morphism from $B$ into $C$, and ${\mathcal{V}}_C^{1,0}$ for the $(1,0)$-part of the logarithmic Higgs bundle ${\mathcal{V}}_C$ on $C$ deduced from the variation of Hodge structure on ${\mathcal{A}}_g$ defined by the moduli problem. Then holds the isomorphism $$f_\omega_{S/B}{\simeq}i^{\mathcal{V}}^{1,0}_C$$ where $\omega_{S/B}$ is the relative dualizing sheaf for $f$. In particular we have the decomposition $f_\omega_{S/B}={\mathcal{F}}_B\oplus{\mathcal{A}}_B$, where ${\mathcal{F}}_B$ is the semi-stable subbundle of slope 0 corresponding to the Higgs subbundle in ${\mathcal{V}}_C$ given by the maximal unitary subrepresentation in of the ${\mathbb{C}}$-linear representation of $\pi_1(C)$ associated to ${\mathcal{V}}_C$ using Simpson’s correspondence. In the rest of this section we derive a naive bound on the flat part in the canonical Higgs bundle associated to a Shimura variety of dimension $>0$ contained in ${\mathcal{T}}_g$ generically using Xiao’s inequality. \[proposition naive bound on the flat part\] Let $M\subset{\mathcal{A}}_g$ be a Shimura subvariety defined by a subdatum $({\mathbf{G}},X;X^+)$, such that the derived part of the ${\mathbb{Q}}$-group ${\mathbf{G}}$ admits an isomorphism ${\mathbf{G}}^{\mathrm{der}}={\mathrm{Res}}_{F/{\mathbb{Q}}}{\mathbf{H}}$ for some totally real field $F$ and some semi-simple $F$-group ${\mathbf{H}}$, and the representation ${\mathbf{G}}^{\mathrm{der}}{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbf{Sp}}_V$ decomposes into $$V=V_0\oplus{\mathrm{Res}}_{F/{\mathbb{Q}}}W$$ with $V_0$ a trivial subrepresentation and ${\mathbf{H}}$ acting on $W$ preserving some symplectic $F$-form. Assume further that $F$ is of degree $d$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}$, such that: - along $r(>0)$ real embeddings $\sigma_1,\cdots,\sigma_r:F{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbb{R}}$, the Lie group ${\mathbf{H}}({\mathbb{R}},\sigma_i)$ is compact; - along the other $d-r(>0)$ real embeddings $\sigma_{r+1},\cdots,\sigma_d:F{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbb{R}}$, the Lie group ${\mathbf{H}}({\mathbb{R}},\sigma_j)$ is non-compact. Here ${\mathbf{H}}({\mathbb{R}},\sigma_i)$ is the evaluation of ${\mathbf{H}}$ at $\sigma_i:F{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbb{R}}$. If $M$ is contained generically in the Torelli locus, then holds the inequality $$\frac{r}{d}\leq \frac{5}{6}+{\frac{1}{6g}}.$$ The ${\mathbb{Q}}$-linear representation $V=V_0\oplus {\mathrm{Res}}_{F/{\mathbb{Q}}}W$ decomposes into $$V\otimes_{\mathbb{Q}}{\mathbb{R}}=V_0\otimes_{\mathbb{Q}}{\mathbb{R}}\oplus\Big(\bigoplus_{i=1}^{d}W\otimes_{F,\sigma_i}{\mathbb{R}}\Big)$$ after the base change ${\mathbb{Q}}{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbb{R}}$, with ${\mathbf{G}}^{\mathrm{der}}({\mathbb{R}})$ acting on $V_0\otimes_{\mathbb{Q}}{\mathbb{R}}$ trivially, and ${\mathbf{H}}({\mathbb{R}},\sigma_i)$ acting on $V\otimes_{\mathbb{Q}}{\mathbb{R}}$ through the summand $W\otimes_{F,\sigma_i}{\mathbb{R}}$. Let $${\mathcal{V}}={\mathcal{V}}_M={\mathcal{V}}_0\oplus\bigoplus_{i=1}^{d}{\mathcal{W}}_i$$ be the Higgs bundle decomposition on ${{\ol M}}$ according to the decomposition of $$V\otimes_{\mathbb{Q}}{\mathbb{C}}=(V\otimes_{\mathbb{Q}}{\mathbb{R}})\otimes_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{C}},$$ where ${\mathcal{V}}_0$ corresponds to $V_0$ and ${\mathcal{W}}_i$ corresponds to $W\otimes_{F,\sigma}{\mathbb{R}}\otimes_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{C}}$ respectively. Then the Higgs subbundles ${\mathcal{V}}_0$ and ${\mathcal{W}}_i$ for $i=1,\cdots,r$ are flat as the ${\mathbf{G}}^{\mathrm{der}}({\mathbb{R}})$-action factors through compact Lie groups. In particular, the portion of of flat part in ${\mathcal{V}}$ is at least $$\frac{\rank {\mathcal{F}}^{1,0}}{\rank {\mathcal{V}}^{1,0}}=\frac{\rank{\mathcal{F}}}{\rank{\mathcal{V}}}=\frac{\rank{\mathcal{V}}_0+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{r}\rank{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\rank{\mathcal{V}}}\geq \frac{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{r}\rank{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{d}\rank {\mathcal{W}}_i}=\frac{r}{d}$$ since $\rank{\mathcal{W}}_i=2\dim_FW$ for all $i$. Assume that $M$ is contained generically in ${\mathcal{T}}_g$. Then the linear system of the ample line bundle of top degree automorphic forms on $M$ produces a curve $C$ in ${{\ol M}}$ such that $C\cap M$ is open and dense in $C$, and up to Hecke translation we may assume further that $C$ is contained generically in ${\mathcal{T}}_g$. Restricting ${\mathcal{V}}_M$ to $C$ gives us the Higgs bundle ${\mathcal{V}}_C$, which flat part ${\mathcal{F}}_C$ contains the pull-back of ${\mathcal{F}}$ to $C$, hence $$\frac{\rank {\mathcal{F}}_C}{\rank{\mathcal{V}}_C}\geq\frac{\rank {\mathcal{F}}}{\rank {\mathcal{V}}}=\frac{r}{d}$$ It remains to notice that the map $i:B\ra C$ is finite, and we have $$\rank{\mathcal{F}}_B=\rank{\mathcal{F}}_C$$ for the flat part ${\mathcal{F}}_B$ in $f_\omega_{S/B}$, hence Xiao’s inequality would fail for $B$ as long as $\frac{r}{d}>\frac{5}{6}+\frac{1}{6g}$, which is absurd. \[corollary naive bound\]Let $M\subset{\mathcal{A}}_V={\mathcal{A}}_g$ be a Shimura subvariety defined by $({\mathbf{G}},X;X^+)$ with ${\mathbf{G}}^{\mathrm{der}}{\simeq}{\mathrm{Res}}_{F/{\mathbb{Q}}}{\mathbf{H}}$ for some semi-simple group ${\mathbf{H}}$ over a totally real field $F$, which is compact along $r$ real embeddings of $F$ and non-compact along the remaining $d-r$ embeddings, $d$ being the degree $[F:{\mathbb{Q}}]$. If $\frac{r}{d}>{\frac{5}{6}}+\frac{1}{6g}$, then $M$ only meets ${\mathcal{T}}_g^\circ$ at finitely many points. The proof is similar and immediate: otherwise one finds a curve in $\ol M$ contradicting Xiao’s inequality. Shimura subvarieties of ${\mathbf{SU}}(n,1)$-type ================================================= We first briefly recall the set-up for Shimura subvarieties of ${\mathbf{SU}}(n,1)$-type, which is slightly more general than the one used in [@chen; @lu; @zuo; @compositio], as we no longer require the existence of an Hermitian form over a CM field. \[definition shimura subvarieties of su(n,1)-type\] For the fixed symplectic ${\mathbb{Q}}$-vector space $V$ of dimension $2g$, a Shimura subvariety of ${\mathcal{A}}_V$ is said to be of ${\mathbf{SU}}(n,1)$-type if it is defined by a Shimura subdatum $({\mathbf{G}},X;X^+)\subset({\mathbf{GSp}}_V,{\mathcal{H}}_V;{\mathcal{H}}_V^+)$ such that ${\mathbf{G}}^{\mathrm{der}}{\simeq}{\mathrm{Res}}_{F/{\mathbb{Q}}}{\mathbf{H}}$ with - $F$ is a totally real number field of degree $d$ and ${\mathbf{H}}$ is a simple $F$-group; - among the real embeddings $\sigma_1,\cdots,\sigma_d$, we have ${\mathbf{H}}({\mathbb{R}},\sigma_1){\simeq}{\mathbf{SU}}(n,1)$, and ${\mathbf{H}}({\mathbb{R}},\sigma_i){\simeq}{\mathbf{SU}}(n+1)$ for $i=2,\cdots,d$. We call $F$ the definition field of the datum. Note that when $n\geq2$, $X=X^+$ is connected. The inclusion $$({\mathbf{G}},X;X^+){\hookrightarrow}({\mathbf{GSp}}_V,{\mathcal{H}}_V;{\mathcal{H}}_V^+)$$ gives rise to the representation of ${\mathbf{G}}$ on $V$, and from [@satake; @rational] we know that the restriction of this representation to ${\mathbf{G}}^{\mathrm{der}}={\mathrm{Res}}_{F/{\mathbb{Q}}}{\mathbf{H}}$ is decomposed into $V=V_0\oplus V'$ where - ${\mathbf{G}}^{\mathrm{der}}$ acts on $V_0$ trivially; - the representation ${\mathbf{G}}^{\mathrm{der}}\ra{\mathbf{GL}}_{V'}$ is the scalar restriction of an $F$-linear representation ${\mathbf{H}}\ra{\mathbf{GL}}_{W,F}$ where $W$ is an $F$-vector space carrying a symplectic $F$-form preserved by ${\mathbf{H}}$. Let $M$ be the Shimura subvariety in ${\mathcal{A}}_V$ of ${\mathbf{SU}}(n,1)$-type in the sense above, defined by $({\mathbf{G}},X;X)$, isomorphic to $\Gamma{\backslash}X$ for a torsion-free congruence subgroup $\Gamma\subset{\mathbf{G}}^{\mathrm{der}}({\mathbb{Q}})^+$, and we write ${\mathcal{V}}$ for the Higgs bundle of the ${\mathbb{C}}$-PVHS on $M$ given by the moduli problem. Similar to the situation in [@chen; @lu; @zuo; @compositio] which we have also used in Section 2 for the naive bound, there exists a decomposition of Higgs bundles $${\mathcal{V}}={\mathcal{V}}_0\oplus\sum_{i=1}^{d}{\mathcal{W}}_i$$ with ${\mathcal{V}}_0$ a trivial Higgs bundle corresponding to $V_0$, and ${\mathcal{W}}_i$ the Higgs bundle associated to $W\otimes_{F,\sigma_i}{\mathbb{R}}$, in which the only non-flat part is given by ${\mathcal{W}}_1$. According to the Satake classification over ${\mathbb{R}}$ cf.[@satake; @real], along $\sigma_1:F{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbb{R}}$ the base change admits a decomposition $$\sigma_1^W=W\otimes_{F,\sigma_1}{\mathbb{R}}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{m=1}^{n-1}\Lambda_m^{\oplus r_m}$$ where $\Lambda_m=\wedge^m_{\mathbb{C}}{\mathrm{Std}}$ is the $m$-th exterior power of the standard representation of ${\mathbf{SU}}(n,1)$ on ${\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}$. Note that the action of ${\mathbf{SU}}(n,1)$ on $\Lambda_m$ preserves an Hermitian form of signature $\Big(\binom{n}{m},\binom{n}{m-1}\Big)$, and $\dim_{\mathbb{R}}\Lambda_m=2\binom{n+1}{m}$. In the sequel we assume for simplicity that $V$ is primary of type $\Lambda_m$ in the sense of [@chen; @lu; @zuo; @compositio Subsection 5.2], namely $V_0=0$ and $\sigma_1^W{\simeq}(\wedge^m{\mathrm{Std}})^{\oplus r}$ for some multiplicity $r\geq 1$. We need the following fact to compute the Harder-Narasimhan filtration on certain curves, cf. [@moeller; @viehweg; @zuo 7.12]: \[lemma decomposition of the canonical higgs bundle\] Let ${\mathcal{E}}$ be the Higgs bundle on $M$ associated to the ${\mathbb{C}}$-representation $$\Gamma{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbf{G}}^{\mathrm{der}}({\mathbb{R}})\ra{\mathbf{H}}({\mathbb{R}},\sigma_1)\overset{{\mathrm{Std}}}{\ra}{\mathbf{GL}}_{\mathbb{C}}({\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}\otimes_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{C}})$$ (through the unique non-compact factor of ${\mathbf{G}}^{\mathrm{der}}({\mathbb{R}})$). Then the Hodge decomposition of ${\mathcal{E}}$ is of the form ${\mathcal{E}}={\mathcal{E}}^{1,0}\oplus{\mathcal{E}}^{0,1}$ with - ${\mathcal{E}}^{1,0}{\simeq}\Omega^1_M\otimes{\mathcal{L}}^\vee\oplus{\mathcal{L}}$; - ${\mathcal{E}}^{0,1}{\simeq}({\mathcal{E}}^{1,0})^\vee={\mathrm{Tan}}_M\otimes{\mathcal{L}}\oplus{\mathcal{L}}^\vee$. Here ${\mathcal{L}}$ is a line bundle on $M$ such that ${\mathcal{L}}^{\otimes(n+1)}=\omega_M(=\Omega_M^n)$, and the summands in ${\mathcal{E}}^{1,0}$ and ${\mathcal{E}}^{0,1}$ are stable subbundles. In particular, writing ${\mathcal{S}}=\Omega^1_M\otimes{\mathcal{L}}^\vee$ which gives ${\mathcal{E}}^{1,0}={\mathcal{S}}\oplus{\mathcal{L}}$, we have $$c_1({\mathcal{L}})=\frac{1}{n+1}c_1(\omega_M)=c_1\big(\Omega^1_M\otimes{\mathcal{L}}^\vee\big),\qquad c_1({\mathcal{E}}^{1,0})=2c_1({\mathcal{L}})=\frac{2}{n+1}c_1(\omega_M).$$ For the $m$-th exterior power $$\wedge^m{\mathcal{E}}^{1,0}=\wedge^m{\mathcal{S}}\oplus\wedge^{m-1}{\mathcal{S}}\otimes{\mathcal{L}},$$ we have $$\begin{aligned} c_1(\wedge^m{\mathcal{S}})&\,=\binom{n-1}{m-1}\cdot \frac{1}{n+1}c_1(\omega_M),\\ c_1(\wedge^{m-1}{\mathcal{S}}\otimes{\mathcal{L}})&\,=\Bigg(2\binom{n}{m-1}-\binom{n-1}{m-1}\Bigg)\cdot \frac{1}{n+1}c_1(\omega_M),\\ c_1(\wedge^m{\mathcal{E}}^{1,0})&\,=\binom{n}{m-1}\cdot \frac{2}{n+1}c_1(\omega_M). \end{aligned}$$ Similar properties hold for the canonical logarithmic extensions of these structures to ${{\ol M}}$ (the smooth toroidal compactification of $M$). The decomposition for ${\mathcal{E}}$ and the first Chern classes for ${\mathcal{S}}$ and ${\mathcal{L}}$ are given in [@moeller; @viehweg; @zuo]. The claim for higher exterior powers follows from the splitting principle of Chern classes (using the facts that $c_1(\wedge^m{\mathcal{M}})=\binom{\rank({\mathcal{M}})-1}{m-1}\cdot c_1({\mathcal{M}})$ and $c_1({\mathcal{M}}'\otimes{\mathcal{M}}'')=\rank({\mathcal{M}}')c_1({\mathcal{M}}'')+\rank({\mathcal{M}}'')c_1({\mathcal{M}}')$). \[theorem exclusion of shimura subvarieties of su(n,1)-type\]Let $M\subset{\mathcal{A}}_V={\mathcal{A}}_g$ be a Shimura subvariety of ${\mathbf{SU}}(n,1)$-type defined by a Shimura subdatum $({\mathbf{G}},X;X)$ as in , such that the rational symplectic representation ${\mathbf{G}}^{\mathrm{der}}{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbf{Sp}}_W$ is primary of type $\Lambda_m$ in the sense of [@chen; @lu; @zuo; @compositio]. Then $M$ is NOT contained generically in the Torelli locus in ${\mathcal{A}}_W$ as long as the following inequality holds: $$\frac{n+m-1}{n}\left(\frac{n+1}{m}\cdot d -\frac{2}{r\binom{n}{m-1}}\right)>12.$$ Assume on the contrary that $M$ is contained generically in ${\mathcal{T}}_g$. Then the same construction used in produces a curve $C$ in the $n$-dimensional subvariety ${\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}(\subset{\overline{{\mathcal{A}}}}_V)$ using successive $n-1$ hyperplane sections of a fixed very ample power $\omega_M^N$ of the automorphic line bundle on $M$, such that $C^\circ=C\cap{\mathcal{T}}_g^\circ$ is open and dense in $C$, which gives rise to a surface fibration $f:S\ra B$ and a finite morphism $i:B\ra C$. The logarithmic Higgs bundle ${\mathcal{V}}^{1,0}$ on ${{\ol M}}$ defined by the moduli problem $M{\hookrightarrow}{\mathcal{A}}_V$ already admits the following filtration $$0={\mathcal{V}}_0\subsetneq{\mathcal{V}}_1\subsetneq{\mathcal{V}}_2\subsetneq{\mathcal{V}}_3={\mathcal{V}}^{1,0}$$ where: - ${\mathcal{V}}_1$ is the summand $(\wedge^{m-1}{\mathcal{S}}\otimes{\mathcal{L}})^{\oplus r}$ in ${\mathcal{W}}_1$; - ${\mathcal{V}}_2={\mathcal{W}}_1{\simeq}{\mathcal{V}}_1\oplus(\wedge^m{\mathcal{S}})^{\oplus r}$; - ${\mathcal{V}}_3={\mathcal{V}}^{1,0}$ only differs from ${\mathcal{W}}_1$ by a direct summand ${\mathcal{F}}$ flat of degree zero. The graded quotients of this filtration are already semi-stable. Computing their degrees over $C$ we find that the maximal slope in ${\mathcal{V}}^{1,0}_C$ is realized on ${\mathcal{V}}_1$ $$\mu({\mathcal{V}}_1)=\mu(\wedge^{m-1}{\mathcal{S}}\otimes{\mathcal{L}})=\frac{2\binom{n}{m-1}-\binom{n-1}{m-1}}{\binom{n}{m-1}}\cdot d_C$$ with the constant $d_C=\frac{N^{n-1}}{n+1}c_1(\omega_{{\ol M}})^n$ as we have used the fixed very ample line bundle $\omega^N_M$ on $M$ which extends to $\omega_{{\ol M}}^N$ on ${{\ol M}}$. Note also that $$\begin{aligned} \deg({\mathcal{V}}^{1,0}_C)&\,=r\deg(\wedge^m{\mathcal{E}}^{1,0})=2r\binom{n}{m-1}\cdot d_C,\\ g&\,=\frac{1}{2}\dim_{\mathbb{Q}}V=rd\binom{n+1}{m}, \end{aligned}$$ and that the maximal slope part is ${\mathcal{V}}_1{\simeq}(\wedge^{m-1}{\mathcal{S}}\otimes{\mathcal{L}})^{\oplus r}$, which is of rank $r\binom{n}{m-1}$. Passing from $C$ to $B$ only changes $d_C$ (resp. $\mu({\mathcal{V}}_1)$) to $d_B$ (resp. $\mu(i^{\mathcal{V}}_1)$) by a positive multiple $\deg i$, and Xiao’s inequality gives us $$12\cdot 2r\binom{n}{m-1}\cdot d_B\geq\Bigg(2rd\binom{n+1}{m}-2+r\binom{n}{m-1}\Bigg)\cdot \Bigg(2-\frac{\binom{n-1}{m-1}}{\binom{n}{m-1}}\Bigg)\cdot d_B,$$ which is $$\frac{n+m-1}{n}\left(\frac{n+1}{m}d+\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{r\binom{n}{m-1}}\right)\leq 12$$ and hence the generic exclusion when the inequality above fails. For example, when $m=1$, we obtain the generic exclusion for such Shimura subvarieties satisfying $$(n+1)d>\frac{23}{2}+\frac{1}{r}$$ which is - $(n+1)d\geq 13$ when $r=1,2$; this is, for example, the case when the symplectic representation is directly obtained as the imaginary part of an Hermitian form of signature $(n,1)$ over some CM quadratic extension $E/F$, and $g=d(n+1)$; - $(n+1)d\geq 12$ when $r\geq 3$; this is the same as the inequality $d(n+1)\geq 12$ given in [@chen; @lu; @zuo; @compositio] under more restrictive assumptions. Shimura varieties of orthogonal type ==================================== In this section we consider a class of Shimura varieties of orthogonal type containing Shimura subvarieties of ${\mathbf{SU}}(n,1)$-type. Recall the following: A Shimura subvariety of orthogonal type, or more precisely, of ${\mathbf{Spin}}(N,2)$-type, in ${\mathcal{A}}_V$ is defined by a subdatum $({\mathbf{G}},X;X^+)$ such that ${\mathbf{G}}^{\mathrm{der}}({\mathbb{R}}){\simeq}{\mathbf{Spin}}(N,2)\times{\mathbf{Spin}}(N+2)^{d-1}$ for some $d$. Here ${\mathbf{Spin}}(a,b)$ is the spin group of the standard quadratic space ${\mathbb{R}}^{a+b}$ of signature $(a,b)$. The Hermitian symmetric domain $X$ above is the one associated to ${\mathbf{Spin}}(N,2)$, and we often make use of the following two equivalent descriptions of $X$: - $X$ is the open subset of two-dimensional negative definite ${\mathbb{R}}$-subspaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^{N+2}$ in the Grassmannian ${\mathbf{Gr}}(2,{\mathbb{R}}^{N+2})$; - $X$ is the open subset of negative definite isotropic ${\mathbb{C}}$-lines in ${\mathbb{P}}({\mathbb{C}}^{N+2})$, namely those ${\mathbb{C}}v$ such that $b(v,{\bar{v}})=0$ and $b(v,{\bar{v}})<0$ for $b$ the quadratic form of signature on ${\mathbb{R}}^{N+2}$ extended to ${\mathbb{C}}^{N+2}$; in particular $X$ is an open subset of the quadric defined by $b$ in ${\mathbb{P}}({\mathbb{C}}^{N+2})$. The equivalence between (1) and (2) is well-known: starting with $u,u'\in {\mathbb{R}}^{N+2}$ which are negative definite and orthogonal to each other, we can choose a suitable $J\in{\mathbb{C}}^\times$ purely imaginary so that $v=u+Ju'$ defines a line in (2); conversely, given a line ${\mathbb{C}}v$ in (2), one produces a pair of negative definite vectors $(u,u')$ orthogonal to each other giving rise to a negative definite ${\mathbb{R}}$-plane in (1). The two descriptions above also give us a natural equivariant embedding of Hermitian symmetric domains: if $(V,q)$ is a quadratic space of signature $(N,2)$ over ${\mathbb{R}}$, and $U\subset V$ is a positive definite subspace of dimension $N-2n(\geq 0)$, such that the restriction of $q$ to the orthogonal complement of $U$ in $V$ is the real part of some Hermitian space $(W,h)$ of signature $(n,1)$, then we have a natural inclusion of semi-simple Lie groups ${\mathbf{SU}}(W,h){\hookrightarrow}{\mathbf{SO}}(V,q)$ inducing an equivariant holomorphic embedding of the corresponding Hermitian symmetric domains $X(W,h){\hookrightarrow}X(V,q)$, sending a negative definite ${\mathbb{C}}$-line in $X(W,h)$ to the associated negative definite ${\mathbb{R}}$-plane in $X(V,q)$. Note that this inclusion actually factors through $${\mathbf{SU}}(W,h){\hookrightarrow}{\mathbf{SO}}(W,b){\hookrightarrow}{\mathbf{SO}}(V,q)$$ and $$X(W,h){\hookrightarrow}X(W,b){\hookrightarrow}X(V,q),$$ where we write $b$ for the real part of $h$, equal to the restriction of $q$ to $W$ as a real subspace of $V$. Also the inclusions ${\mathbf{SU}}(W,h)$ into special orthogonal groups lift into homomorphisms into the corresponding spin groups, because special unitary groups are simply connected. In this section we are only interested in the Coleman-Oort problem for Shimura varieties of ${\mathbf{Spin}}(N,2)$-type containing Shimura varieties of ${\mathbf{SU}}(n,1)$-type. We start with the case $N=2n$ before entering the general case where $N> 2n$. Let $(W,h)$ be an Hermitian space over a CM field $E$, and write $F$ for the totally real part of $E$. Assume that the signature of $h$ is: - $(n,1)$ along one real embedding $\sigma:F{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbb{R}}$; - definite along the other embeddings $\sigma_2,\cdots,\sigma_d:F{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbb{R}}$ with $d=[F:{\mathbb{Q}}]$. We also have the real part of $(W,h)$, namely $(U,q)$ with $U={\mathrm{Res}}_{E/F}W$ and $q={\mathrm{tr}}_{E/F}h$. Write ${\mathbf{H}}={\mathbf{SU}}(W,h)$ for the special unitary $F$-group associated to $(W,h)$, contained in ${\mathbf{H}}'={\mathbf{Spin}}(U,q)$ the spin $F$-group of $(U,q)$. Let $M'\subset{\mathcal{A}}_V={\mathcal{A}}_g$ be a Shimura subvariety of ${\mathbf{Spin}}(2n,2)$-type, i.e. defined by a Shimura subdatum $({\mathbf{G}}',X';X'^+)$ with ${\mathbf{G}}'^{\mathrm{der}}={\mathrm{Res}}_{F/{\mathbb{Q}}}{\mathbf{H}}'$, which contains a Shimura subvariety $M$ of ${\mathbf{SU}}(n,1)$-type defined by a Shimura subdatum $({\mathbf{G}},X;X^+)$ with ${\mathbf{G}}^{\mathrm{der}}={\mathrm{Res}}_{F/{\mathbb{Q}}}{\mathbf{H}}$. We have used spinor representations in [@chen; @lu; @zuo; @compositio]: - the spinor representations of the Lie group ${\mathbf{Spin}}(2n,2)$ are $P_+$ and $P_-$: choose any splitting of ${\mathbb{C}}^{2n+2}$ into $T\oplus T^\vee$ such that the quadratic form is equivalent to the pairing $$((u,u^\vee),(v,v^\vee))\mapsto u^\vee(v)+v^\vee(u)$$ we have $P_+=\wedge^+T:=\wedge^{\mathrm{even}}_{\mathbb{C}}T$ and $P_-=\wedge^-T:=\wedge^{\mathrm{odd}}_{\mathbb{C}}T{\simeq}P_+^\vee$, both of dimension $2^{n}$ over ${\mathbb{C}}$. We need to find suitable splitting for $(U,q)$, at least over ${\mathbb{C}}$, using $(W,h)$. Consider the following lemma for the quadratic extension ${\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{R}}$, in which we temporarily use $(U,q)$ and $(W,h)$ to denote the quadratic and Hermitian forms involved: Let $h:W\times W\ra{\mathbb{C}}$ be an Hermitian form over ${\mathbb{C}}$, with real part $q:U\times U\ra{\mathbb{R}}$, and $q_{\mathbb{C}}:U_{\mathbb{C}}\times U_{\mathbb{C}}\ra{\mathbb{C}}$. Then $U_{\mathbb{C}}$ admits a natural splitting by $W{\hookrightarrow}U_{\mathbb{C}}=W\otimes_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{C}}$, and $U_{\mathbb{C}}{\simeq}W\oplus{\overline{W}}$ with respect to the real structure on $U_{\mathbb{C}}$ given by $U$. We may diagonalize $(W,h)$ into direct sums of one dimensional ${\mathbb{C}}$-spaces, and reduce to the case when $\dim_{\mathbb{C}}W=1$: $W={\mathbb{C}}w$ for some basis $w$, and $h(zw,z'w)=c{\bar{z}}z'$ for $z,z'\in{\mathbb{C}}$ and $c\in{\mathbb{R}}^\times$. Thus $U$ admits a basis $(w,{\mathbf{i}}w)$ for a fixed choice ${\mathbf{i}}=\sqrt{-1}$, and $q={\mathrm{tr}}_{{\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{R}}}h$ sends $(aw+b{\mathbf{i}}w,a'w+b'{\mathbf{i}}w)$ to $c(aa'+bb')$. It suffices to choose the splitting to be $$W{\hookrightarrow}U_{\mathbb{C}}=W\otimes_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{C}},\ w\mapsto w\otimes(1+{\mathbf{i}})$$ in which case ${\overline{W}}$ is simply $W\otimes(1-{\mathbf{i}})$. Return to the general setting over a CM field $E/F$. Evaluate the inclusion ${\mathbf{H}}={\mathbf{SU}}(W,h){\hookrightarrow}{\mathbf{H}}'={\mathbf{Spin}}(U,q)$ at $\sigma=\sigma_1:F{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbb{R}}$, we get ${\mathbf{SU}}(n,1){\hookrightarrow}{\mathbf{Spin}}(2n,2)$. The ${\mathbb{C}}$-representations $P_\pm{\simeq}\wedge^\pm(W_{\mathbb{C}})$ of ${\mathbf{H}}'({\mathbb{R}},\sigma)$ restricts to sums of wedge product ${\mathbb{C}}$-representations of ${\mathbf{H}}({\mathbb{R}},\sigma)$: Let $M{\hookrightarrow}M'$ be the inclusion of a Shimura variety of ${\mathbf{SU}}(n,1)$-type into a Shimura variety of ${\mathbf{Spin}}(2n,2)$-type associated to ${\mathbf{H}}{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbf{H}}'$ as above. Consider the Higgs bundles ${\mathcal{P}}_\pm$ on $M'$ associated to the spinor representation $P_\pm$ of ${\mathbf{H}}'({\mathbb{R}},\sigma)$. Then the restriction of ${\mathcal{P}}_\pm$ to $M$ decomposes into $${\mathcal{P}}_+=\bigoplus_{m\ {\mathrm{even}}}{\mathcal{E}}_m,\ {\mathcal{P}}_-=\bigoplus_{m\ {\mathrm{odd}}}{\mathcal{E}}_m$$ with ${\mathcal{E}}_m$ the Higgs bundle associated to the $m$-th exterior power $\Lambda_m$ of the the representation $${\mathbf{G}}^{\mathrm{der}}({\mathbb{R}})\ra{\mathbf{H}}({\mathbb{R}},\sigma_1)\overset{{\mathrm{Std}}}{\lra}{\mathbf{GL}}_{n+1}({\mathbb{C}}).$$ In particular, ${\mathcal{E}}_1={\mathcal{E}}$ and ${\mathcal{E}}^{1,0}={\mathcal{S}}\oplus{\mathcal{L}}$, and ${\mathcal{E}}_m^{1,0}$ decomposes into the direct sum of $\wedge^m{\mathcal{S}}$ and $\wedge^{m-1}{\mathcal{S}}\otimes{\mathcal{L}}$, whose ranks and Chern classes are given as in . Take $C$ a generic curve in ${{\ol M}}$ produced from the linear system of $\omega_M^N$ a fixed very ample power of $\omega_M$, the slopes of these summands on $C$ are as follows: $$\mu(\wedge^m{\mathcal{S}}_C)=\frac{m}{n}d_C,\quad \mu(\wedge^{m-1}{\mathcal{S}}_C\otimes{\mathcal{L}}_C)=\frac{2n-m}{n}d_C$$ for $m=1,\cdots,n$, with $d_C=\frac{N^{n-1}}{n+1}c_1(\omega_{{\ol M}})^n$. We also have $c_1({\mathcal{E}}_0^{1,0})=0$ and $c_1({\mathcal{E}}_{n+1}^{1,0})=\frac{2}{n+1}c_1(\omega_M)$, and thus $\mu({\mathcal{E}}_{0,C}^{1,0})=0$ and $\mu({\mathcal{E}}_{n+1,C}^{1,0})=2d_C$. The proof is immediate after . The following proposition takes care of the inclusion ${\mathbf{SU}}(n,1){\hookrightarrow}{\mathbf{Spin}}(2n,2)$ in a natural arithmetic setting. Note that the case (1) is singled out for later use in . \[proposition restriction on the real part\] Let $M'\subset{\mathcal{A}}_V={\mathcal{A}}_g$ be a Shimura subvariety of ${\mathbf{Spin}}(2n,2)$-type, containing a Shimura subvariety $M\subset M'$ of ${\mathbf{SU}}(n,1)$-type in the sense above. Assume that the symplectic representation ${\mathbf{G}}'^{\mathrm{der}}{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbf{Sp}}_V$ defining $M'{\hookrightarrow}{\mathcal{A}}_V$ admits no trivial subrepresentations. If $M'$ is contained generically in ${\mathcal{T}}_g$, then the following hold: \(1) if $P_+$ and $P_-$ appear with equal multiplicity $r$, then $d\leq 3+2^{-n-1}(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{2})$; \(2) if $M'{\hookrightarrow}{\mathcal{A}}_V$ is primary of type $P_-$ of multiplicity $r$, then along the parity of $n$ we have: - $d\leq 3+2^{-n}(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{2})$ when $n$ is even; - $d\leq \frac{6n}{2n-1}+2^{-n}(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{2})$ when $n$ is odd; \(3) if $M'{\hookrightarrow}{\mathcal{A}}_V$ is primary of type $P_+$ of multiplicity $r$, then along the parity of $n$ we have: - $d\leq \frac{3n}{n-1}+2^{-n}(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{n}{2})$ when $n$ is even; - $d\leq 3+2^{-n}(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{2})$ when $n$ is odd. We have ${\mathbf{G}}^{\mathrm{der}}={\mathrm{Res}}_{F/{\mathbb{Q}}}{\mathbf{H}}$ and ${\mathbf{G}}'^{\mathrm{der}}={\mathrm{Res}}_{F/{\mathbb{Q}}}{\mathbf{H}}'$, and the inclusion ${\mathbf{G}}'{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbf{Sp}}_V$ is restricted from ${\mathbf{H}}'{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbf{Sp}}_W$ where $W$ is an $F$-symplectic space, so that $V{\simeq}{\mathrm{Res}}_{F/{\mathbb{Q}}}W$ and the canonical logarithmic Higgs bundle ${\mathcal{V}}={\mathcal{V}}_{M'}$ admits a decomposition ${\mathcal{V}}=\oplus_{i=1,\cdots,d}{\mathcal{W}}_i$ with ${\mathcal{W}}_i$ corresponds to the action of ${\mathbf{G}}'^{\mathrm{der}}({\mathbb{R}})$ on $W\otimes_{F,\sigma_i}{\mathbb{R}}$ through ${\mathbf{H}}'({\mathbb{R}},\sigma_i)$. In particular, the $(1,0)$-parts ${\mathcal{W}}_2^{1,0},\cdots,{\mathcal{W}}_d^{1,0}$ are already flat. Similar to , we may assume that a generic curve $C$ is chosen in ${{\ol M}}'$ such that $C$ is contained generically in ${\mathcal{T}}_g$ and lifts to a semi-stable surface fibration $f:S\ra B$ together with a finite morphism $i:B\ra S$ satisfying . \(1) In this case we have $$W\otimes_{F,\sigma_1}{\mathbb{R}}{\simeq}(P_+\oplus P_-)^{\oplus r}{\simeq}(\wedge^\cdot({\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}))^{\oplus r}$$ for some multiplicity $r$, and thus ${\mathcal{W}}_1^{1,0}{\simeq}(\oplus_{m=0}^{n+1}{\mathcal{E}}_m^{1,0})^{\oplus r}$. Therefore the maximal slope in ${\mathcal{V}}_C^{1,0}$ the restriction to $C$ is given by $$\mu_{\mathrm{max}}=\mu(({\mathcal{E}}_{n+1,C}^{1,0})^{\oplus r})=\mu({\mathcal{E}}_{n+1,C}^{1,0})=2d_C$$ with $({\mathcal{E}}^{1,0}_{n+1,C})^{\oplus r}$ of rank $r$, while $\deg{\mathcal{V}}_C^{1,0}=\deg{\mathcal{W}}_{1,C}^{1,0}=r\sum_m\deg({\mathcal{E}}_{m,C}^{1,0})=r\cdot 2^{n+1}d_C$. and the flat part is $$(\wedge^0{\mathcal{E}}_1^{1,0})^{\oplus r}\oplus{\mathcal{W}}_2^{1,0}\oplus\cdots\oplus{\mathcal{W}}_d^{1,0}.$$ Here we have used the same constant $d_C$ as in . Passing to $B$ using $i:B\ra C$, the slopes and degrees only differ by a common multiple $\deg(i)$, namely one replaces the constant $d_C$ by $d_B=\deg(i)d_C$. When $M'$ is contained generically in ${\mathcal{T}}_g$, we may choose $C$ in ${{\ol M}}\subset{{\ol M}}'$ such that $C$ is contained generically in ${\mathcal{T}}_g$, so that Xiao’s inequality for $f:S\ra B$ gives $$12\cdot 2^{n+1}r\geq(2\cdot 2^{n+1}rd-2+r)2$$ which is $d\leq 3+2^{-n-1}(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{2})$. \(2) In this case ${\mathcal{V}}_C^{1,0}={\mathcal{W}}_{1,C}^{1,0}\oplus\cdots{\mathcal{W}}_{d,C}^{1,0}$ is of rank $rd\cdot 2^{n}$, with ${\mathcal{W}}_{2,C}^{1,0},\cdots,{\mathcal{W}}_{d,C}^{1,0}$ flat, and ${\mathcal{W}}^{1,0}_C{\simeq}({\mathcal{P}}_-^{1,0})^{\oplus r}$ contains no flat part, and it already contains $({\mathcal{E}}_{1,C}^{1,0})^{\oplus r}$ of slope $(2-\frac{1}{n})d_C$, which is: (2-1) maximal when ${\mathcal{E}}_{n+1,C}$ does not contribute, namely $n$ is odd, and in this case the maximal slope is realized on ${\mathcal{L}}^{\oplus r}$ contained in $({\mathcal{E}}^{1,0}_{1,C})^{\oplus r}$, of rank $r$; (2-2) strictly smaller than the maximal slope $2d_C=\mu({\mathcal{E}}^{1,0}_{n+1,C})$ when $n$ is even, and the maximal slope is realized on $({\mathcal{E}}^{1,0}_{n+1,C})^{\oplus r}$ of rank $r$. Note that ${\mathcal{W}}_C^{1,0}{\simeq}({\mathcal{P}}_-^{1,0})^{\oplus r}$ is of rank $2^nr$ and degree $2^nrd_C$, hence Xiao’s inequality implies: (2-1) when $n$ is odd: $12\cdot 2^nr\geq(2^{n+1}rd-2+r)(2-\frac{1}{n})$, which is $d\leq\frac{6n}{2n-1}+2^{-n}(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{2})$; (2-2) when $n$ is even: $12\cdot 2^nr\geq(2^{n+1}rd-2+r)\cdot 2$, which is $d\leq 3+2^{-n}(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{2})$. \(3) In this case ${\mathcal{W}}_C^{1,0}{\simeq}({\mathcal{P}}_+^{1,0})^{\oplus r}$ is of rank $2^nr$. Along the parity of $n$ we have: (3-1) when $n$ is even: the maximal slope comes from the summand ${\mathcal{S}}_C\otimes{\mathcal{L}}_C$ in ${\mathcal{E}}_{2,C}^{1,0}$, which is $(2-\frac{2}{n})d_C$ of rank $rn$, and Xiao’s inequality becomes $$12\cdot 2^nr\geq(2^{n+1}rd-2+rn)(1-\frac{1}{n})\cdot 2,$$ namely $d\leq \frac{3n}{n-1}+2^{-n}(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{n}{2})$ (note that $n\geq 2$). (3-2) when $n$ is odd: the maximal slope comes from the summand ${\mathcal{E}}^{1,0}_{n+1,C}$, which is $2d_C$ of rank $r$, and similar to the case (2-2), Xiao’s inequality is $12\cdot 2^nr\geq(2^{n+1}rd-2+r)\cdot 2$, namely $d\leq 3+2^{-n}(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{2})$. In particular, when $r\geq 3$, the generic exclusion of $M$ holds whenever $d\geq\frac{3n}{n-1}$ for $n$ even and $d\geq\frac{6n}{2n-1}$ for $n$ odd, which are slightly finer that the bound $d\geq 6$ given in [@chen; @lu; @zuo; @compositio]. We proceed to the remaining case when $N>2n$: \[theorem generic exclusion of Shimura varieties of orthogonal types\] Let $M'\subset {\mathcal{A}}_V$ be a Shimura variety of ${\mathbf{Spin}}(N,2)$-type which contains a Shimura subvariety $M$ of ${\mathbf{SU}}(n,1)$-type in the sense above, namely $M'$ is associated to some quadratic space $(W,q)$ over some CM field $E/F$ subject to the constraints of signature used in this section, and let $U$ be a positive definite subspace of signature $(N-2n,0)$, whose orthogonal complement is the real part of some Hermitian space $(H,h)$ over $E/F$ giving rise to the Shimura subvariety $M$ mentioned above. Assume that the symplectic representation defining $M'{\hookrightarrow}{\mathcal{A}}_V$ is primary. Then $M'$ is NOT contained generically in ${\mathcal{T}}_g$ as long as $[F:{\mathbb{Q}}]>3+\frac{1}{m\cdot 2^{\lfloor(N+1)/2\rfloor}}-\frac{1}{2^{n+2}}$, where $m$ is the multiplicity of the spinor representation in $W\otimes_{F,\sigma}{\mathbb{R}}$ for the group ${\mathbf{Spin}}(N,2)$. Recall the behavior of spinor representations to spin subgroups used in [@chen; @lu; @zuo; @compositio], where we consider the case over ${\mathbb{C}}$ for simplicity: - the restriction of the spinor representation $P$ of ${\mathbf{Spin}}(2k+1)$ to ${\mathbf{Spin}}(2k)$, using an orthogonal decomposition of the form ${\mathbb{C}}^{2k+1}=L\oplus{\mathbb{C}}^{2k}$ for some line $L$, is the direct sum of $P_+$ and $P_-$, the two half-spin representations of ${\mathbf{Spin}}(2k)$; - similarly, the restrictions of $P_+$ and $P_-$ of ${\mathbf{Spin}}(2k+2)$ to ${\mathbf{Spin}}(2k+1)$ are both isomorphic to the spinor representation of ${\mathbf{Spin}}(2k+1)$ as long as the restriction comes from an orthogonal decomposition ${\mathbb{C}}^{2k+2}=L\oplus{\mathbb{C}}^{2k+1}$ by some line $L$. In our setting, the condition $N-2n>0$ refines the inclusion $W\supset{\mathrm{Res}}_{E/F}H$ into $W\supset W'\supsetneq{\mathrm{Res}}_{E/F}H$ with $W'$ of dimension $3+2n$ over $F$, such that - $W=U'\oplus W'$ is an orthogonal direct sum decomposition with $U'$ of signature $(N-2n-1,0)$ along $\sigma$; - $W'=L\oplus {\mathrm{Res}}_{E/F}H$ is an orthogonal direct sum decomposition with $L$ a positive definite line. The inclusion of Shimura varieties $M\subset M'$ is thus refined into $M\subset M''\subset M'$ with $M''$ the Shimura variety of ${\mathbf{Spin}}(2n+1,2)$-type associated to $(W',q\|_{W'})$, and we write $({\mathbf{G}}'',X'';X''^+)$ for the corresponding Shimura subdatum of $({\mathbf{GSp}}_V,{\mathcal{H}}_V;{\mathcal{H}}_V^+)$. Since $M'{\hookrightarrow}{\mathcal{A}}_V$ is defined by some symplectic representation ${\mathbf{G}}'^{\mathrm{der}}{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbf{Sp}}_V$ primary of spinor type, its restriction to ${\mathbf{G}}''^{\mathrm{der}}{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbf{Sp}}_V$ is primary of spinor type, namely it is the scalar restriction from $\rho:{\mathbf{H}}''{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbf{Sp}}_{V''}$ along $F$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}$, where ${\mathbf{H}}''$ is the spin $F$-group of $W''$ and $V''$ is an $F$-symplectic space such that $V={\mathrm{Res}}_{F/{\mathbb{Q}}}V''$ and the base change of $\rho$ along $\sigma:F{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbb{R}}$ decomposes into a direct sum of copies of the unique spinor representation $P$ for ${\mathbf{Spin}}(2n+1,2)$. We have explained that the restriction of $P$ to ${\mathbf{Spin}}(2n,2)$ is the direct sum of the two half-spin representations $P_-$ and $P_+$ of equal multiplicity, hence it suffices to apply (1) to the further inclusion ${\mathbf{SU}}(n,1)\subset{\mathbf{Spin}}(2n,2)\subset{\mathbf{Spin}}(2n+1,2)$ to deduce the bound $d=[F:{\mathbb{Q}}]> 3+2^{-n-1}\big(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{2}\big)$ from Xiao’s inequality. It remains to make precise the multiplicity $r$ along the parity of $N$. Assume that the inclusion $M'{\hookrightarrow}{\mathcal{A}}_V$ is primary of multiplicity $m$: in other words, the rational symplectic representation defining $M'{\hookrightarrow}{\mathcal{A}}_V$ is the scalar restriction of some $F$-linear symplectic representation ${\mathbf{H}}\ra{\mathbf{Sp}}_W$, and $W\otimes_{F,\sigma}{\mathbb{R}}$ is isomorphic to $m$-copies of the spinor representation of ${\mathbf{Spin}}(N,2)$. - If $N=1+2N'>2n$ is odd, with $N'\geq n$, then there exists only one spinor representation $P'$ for ${\mathbf{H}}'({\mathbb{R}},\sigma){\simeq}{\mathbf{Spin}}(1+2N',2)$, and its restriction to ${\mathbf{H}}''({\mathbb{R}},\sigma){\simeq}{\mathbf{Spin}}(2n,2)$ is isomorphic to $2^{N'-n}$ copies of $P_+\oplus P_-$. Since $P'$ is of multiplicity $m$ in $W\otimes_{F,\sigma}{\mathbb{R}}$, this gives $r=m\cdot 2^{N'-n}$ for the multiplicity of $P_+\oplus P_-$ in the representation of ${\mathbf{H}}''({\mathbb{R}},\sigma)$. - If $N=2N'>2n$ is even, with $N'>n$, then either of the two half-spin representations $P'_+$ and $P'_-$ of ${\mathbf{Spin}}(2N',2)$ restricts to the unique spinor representation of ${\mathbf{Spin}}(2N'-1,2)$ and further to $2^{N'-n-1}$ copies of $P_+\oplus P_-$ of ${\mathbf{Spin}}(2n,2)$, and one obtains $r=m\cdot 2^{N'-n-1}$ for the multiplicity of $P_+\oplus P_-$ in the representation of ${\mathbf{H}}''({\mathbb{R}},\sigma)$. Hence the multiplicity is always $r=m\cdot 2^{\lfloor(N-1)/2\rfloor-n}=m\cdot 2^{\lfloor(N+1)/2\rfloor-n-1}$, with $m$ the multiplicity of $W$, and the proof is completed. Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered} =============== It is our pleasure and honor to dedicate this work to Prof. Ngaiming Mok at his sixtieth anniversary. Prof. Mok has been well-known for his contribution to complex differential geometry and algebraic geometry, and his works have seen growing influences on young geometers. We congratulate him sincerely at this occasion, and wish him a fruitful career yet to come. [00]{} K. Chen, X. Lu, and K. Zuo, On the Oort conjecture for Shimura varieties of unitary and orthogonal types, Compositio Mathematica 152(2016), 889-917 P. Deligne, Variétés de Shimura, interpretation modulaire et construction de modèles canoniques, Automorphic Forms, Representations, and L-functions, Part 2, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 33 (AMS Providence RI, 1979), 247-289 R. Hain, Locally symmetric families of curves and Jacobians, Aspects of Mathematics, vol. E33 (Vieweg, Braunschwig, 1999), 91-108 J. de Jong, S. Zhang, Generic Abelian varieties with real multiplication are not Jacobians, Diophantine Geometry, CRM Series, vol. 4 (Ediziono della Normale, Pisa, 2007), 165-172 X. Lu and K. Zuo, The Oort conjecture for Shimura curves in the Torelli locus of curves, arXiv:1405:4751 M. Möller, E. Viehweg, and K. Zuo, Stability of Hodge bundles and characterization of Shimura curves, Journal of Differential Geometry 92(2012), 71-151 N. Mok, Metric rigidity theorems on Hermitian locally symmetric manifolds, Series in pure mathematics, vol. 6, World Scientific B. Moonen and F. Oort, The Torelli locus and special subvarieties, Handbook of Moduli, Vol. II, 549-594 I. Satake, Holomorphic embeddings of symplectic domains into a Siegel space, Americal Journal of Mathematics, 87(1965), 425-461 I. Satake, Symplectic representations of algebraic groups satisfying a certain analyticity condition, Acta Mathematica 117(1965), 215-279 J. Tsimerman, A proof of the André-Oort conjecture, cf. arXiv: 1506.01466 G. Xiao, Fibred algebraic surfaces with low slope, Mathematische Annalen, 276(1987), no.3, 449-466	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We study the time dynamics of a single boson coupled to a bath of two-level systems (spins 1/2) with different excitation energies, described by an inhomogeneous Dicke model. Analyzing the time-dependent Schrödinger equation exactly we find that at resonance the boson decays in time to an oscillatory state with a finite amplitude characterized by a single Rabi frequency if the inhomogeneity is below a certain threshold. In the limit of small inhomogeneity, the decay is suppressed and exhibits a complex (mainly Gaussian-like) behavior, whereas the decay is complete and of exponential form in the opposite limit. For intermediate inhomogeneity, the boson decay is partial and governed by a combination of exponential and power laws.' author: - Oleksandr Tsyplyatyev - Daniel Loss title: Dynamics of the inhomogeneous Dicke model --- Introduction ============ Coherent interaction between light and matter [@Gardiner] continues to receive strong interest due to significant experimental progress in various areas of physics. Prime examples are the achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation of cold-atom gases in electromagnetic traps [@cold_atoms_BEC] which made possible the coherent coupling of $10^{5}$ atoms to a single photon of an optical resonator [@kimble; @esslinger]. The time dynamics of quantum optical systems has received particular attention [@Rempe; @Bloch] due to fast optical probing techniques, especially in the context of quantum metrology based on cavity-QED systems containing atomic ensembles [@Wineland; @Kasevich]. Advances in solid-state technology enabled the fabrication of optical microcavities in semiconductors where electron-hole excitations in quantum wells are strongly coupled to a photon eigenmode of the cavity [@kasprzak; @ep3]. Strong coupling of a transmission-line resonator to a Cooper-pair box [@wallraff] as well as coupling of a cavity to a single semiconductor quantum dot have been demonstrated[@Berezovsky; @Badolato1]. Several schemes for quantum computing based on light-matter interaction have been proposed [@Cirac; @AwschalomQED; @Lukin; @Burkard; @Trifa:2008]. The theoretical understanding of all these coupled light-matter systems is based on a model introduced long ago by Dicke [@Dicke], which describes $N$ two-level systems (’spin bath’) with excitation energies $\epsilon_{j}$ coupled to a single boson mode $\omega$ of the quantized light-field, see Eq. (\[eq:Dicke\_model\]) below. For the special case of identical atoms ($\epsilon_{j}=\epsilon$) and constant couplings constant $g_{j}$ between boson and spin bath this model has been diagonalized [@TavisCummings], and the time dynamics obtained exactly [@CummingsDorri]. For inhomogeneous $g_{j}$ (but still constant $\epsilon_{j}$) the boson was shown to oscillate with a single Rabi frequency $\Omega=\sqrt{N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }$, where $\sqrt{\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle} $ is an effective spin coupling. Also perturbative [@Chumakov] and numerical [@Solano] approaches to the time dynamics were considered. In this paper we solve the quantum time-dynamics of a single boson mode coupled to a bath of [non-identical]{} spins 1/2 characterized by inhomogeneous energy (’Zeeman’) splittings $\epsilon_{j}$ with bandwidth $\Delta$. In condensed matter systems such energy inhomogeneities are generally expected, a typical example being the exciton-polariton system where such inhomogeneities arise from the unavoidable disorder in a semiconductor [@ExcitonPolaritonsEstimate]. In quantum optical systems atomic levels are usually quite perfect ($\epsilon_j\equiv \epsilon$); however, for example, in cold-atom QED systems such inhomogeneities can play a role as a trap induces spatial variation of the magnetic field [@ColdGasesEstimate]. Analyzing the time-dependent Schrödinger equation exactly we find that the bosonic occupation number decays only partially if the inhomogeneity $\Delta$ is below a threshold given by a single Rabi frequency $\Omega$. Below the threshold the boson decays to an oscillatory state determined by $\Omega$ and a reduced amplitude which decreases with increasing ratio $\Delta/\Omega$. The time decay is exponential for large spin-bath inhomogeneity $\Delta\gg\Omega$, is complex (mainly Gaussian-like) in the opposite limit $\Delta\ll\Omega$ and is a combination of exponential and power law behavior in the intermediate regime $\Delta\simeq\Omega$. These results are valid if the boson energy is tuned in resonance with the average spin excitation energy $\left\langle \epsilon\right\rangle -\omega=0$. With increasing detuning $\left\|\left\langle \epsilon\right\rangle -\omega\right\|\gg\textrm{max}\left\{\Omega,\Delta\right\}$ the time dynamics of the boson becomes suppressed. The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[II\] we analyze the time-dependent Schrödinger equation and derive the exact solution in the Laplace domain. In Section \[III\] we consider rectangular and Gaussian distribution functions of $\epsilon_j$ in resonance with the boson mode, $\langle \epsilon \rangle=\omega$, to obtain the time evolution of the wave functions. Section \[IV\] contains the analysis and discussion of a finite detuning, $\langle \epsilon \rangle\neq\omega$. In the appendices we give details of the calculations in Sections \[III\] and \[IV\]. The Inhomogeneous Dicke model\[II\] =================================== The Hamiltonian for the Dicke model governing the dynamics of a single boson mode coupled to $N$ two-level systems is given by $$H=\omega b^{\dagger}b+\sum_{j=1}^{N}\epsilon_{j}S_{j}^{z}+\sum_{j=1}^{N}g_{j}\left(S_{j}^{+}b+ S_{j}^{-}b^{\dagger}\right)\label{eq:Dicke_model}\, ,$$ where $S_{j}^{\alpha}$ are spin-1/2 operators, $S_{j}^{\pm}=S_{j}^{x}\pm iS_{j}^{y}$, and $b\left(b^{\dagger}\right)$ the standard Bose annihilation (creation) operator [@applicability]. The total number of excitations, $L=n+\sum_{j}S_{j}^{z}$, is conserved in the Dicke model, where ${n}=b^{\dagger}b$ is the bosonic occupation number. The eigenvalues $c$ of $L$ are the so-called cooperation numbers, given by $c=\left\langle L\right\rangle$, where $\left\langle... \right\rangle$ denotes the expectation value. In the following we assume that the spin bath can be prepared in its ground state with all spins down, e.g. either dynamically or by thermal cooling [@superradiance]. Also, the mode $\omega$ is assumed to be empty or occupied by one boson only. The non-equilibrium dynamics of a single boson excitation can then be initiated by a short radiation pulse from an external source. The dissipation of the boson mode, e.g. through leakage of photons through the mirrors that define an optical cavity, can be used to detect the dynamics if the cavity escape time exceeds the internal time scales of the system dynamics. In a multi-shot experiment [@Rempe; @Bloch] the probability of detecting a leaking photon at a given time is proportional to the boson expectation value. Next, we note that if initially the system has only one excitation, either in the spin or in the boson subsystem, the subsequent time evolution is restricted to this subspace and described by the general state $$\left\|\Psi\left(t\right)\right\rangle=\alpha\left(t\right)\left\|\Downarrow,1\right\rangle +\sum_{j=1}^{N}\beta_{j}\left(t\right)\left\|\Downarrow\uparrow_{j},0\right\rangle$$ with $c=-N/2+1$, and where $\alpha\left(t\right)$ and $\beta_{j}\left(t\right)$ are normalized amplitudes, $\left\|\alpha\left(t\right)\right\|^{2}+\sum_{j}\left\|\beta_{j}\right\|^{2}=1$, of finding either a state with one boson and no spin excitations present or a state with no boson and the $j^{\textrm{th}}$-spin excited (flipped) [@centralspin]. The time evolution within this subspace is determined by the interaction term in Eq. (\[eq:Dicke\_model\]) that transfers back and forth the excitations between the spin bath and the boson. Inserting $\left\|\Psi\left(t\right)\right\rangle$ into the time-dependent Schrödinger equation we obtain $$\begin{aligned} -i\frac{d\alpha\left(t\right)}{dt} & = & -\sum_{j}\frac{\left(\epsilon_{j}-\omega\right)}{2}\alpha\left(t\right)+\sum_{j}g_{j}\beta_{j}\left(t\right),\label{eq:eqs_of_motion}\\ -i\frac{d\beta_{k}\left(t\right)}{dt} & = & \sum_{j}\left(\epsilon_{j}-\omega\right)\left(\delta_{jk}-\frac{1}{2}\right)\beta_{k}\left(t\right)+g_{k}\alpha\left(t\right).\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ In above derivation we have subtracted the integral of motion $\omega L$ from the Hamiltonian Eq. (\[eq:Dicke\_model\]) as it leads only to an overall phase of $ \left\|\Psi\right\rangle$ with no observable effect. The initial conditions $\alpha\left(0\right)=1$, $\beta_{j}\left(0\right)=0$ assumed in the following correspond to a singly occupied boson mode. The physical observable of interest is the time-dependent expectation value of the boson occupation number, which can be expressed in terms of the amplitude $\alpha$ as $\left\langle n\left(t\right)\right\rangle =\left\langle\Psi\left(t\right) \right\| n\left\|\Psi\left(t\right)\right\rangle= \|\alpha\left(t\right)\|^{2}$. The set of equations, Eq. (\[eq:eqs\_of\_motion\]), is equivalent to the one obtained in the Weisskopf-Wigner theory in the study of bosonic systems [@YamamotoImamoglu] in contrast of spins 1/2 considered here. We solve Eq. (\[eq:eqs\_of\_motion\]) by making use of the Laplace transform, $\alpha\left(s\right)=\int_{0}^{\infty}dt\alpha\left(t\right)e^{-st}$, $\Re{s}>0$. In the Laplace domain we obtain then a system of linear algebraic equations. By solving them we find $$\alpha\left(s\right)=\frac{i}{is+\frac{N\left\langle \omega-\epsilon_{j}\right\rangle }{2}-\left\langle \frac{g_{j}^{2}N}{i s+\left\langle \omega-\epsilon_{j}\right\rangle N/2-\omega+\epsilon_{j}}\right\rangle }\, ,\label{eq:alpha_s_general}$$ where $\left\langle \dots\right\rangle =(\sum_{j}\dots)/N$. The sum over $j$ depends on the particular form of the inhomogeneities of $\epsilon_{j}$ and $g_{j}$. To be specific, we consider the following limiting cases when $\epsilon_{j}$ varies on a much longer or shorter length scale than $g_{j}$, which also includes the case with either $\epsilon_{j}$ or $g_{j}$ being constant. In this case and for large $N$ the sum can be substituted by an integral, $(\sum_{j}\dots)/N\rightarrow\int d\epsilon dg\ P\left(\epsilon\right)Q\left(g\right)$, where $P\left(\epsilon\right)$ and $Q\left(g\right)$ are independent normalized distribution functions of the excitation energies and coupling constants, respectively. The integral over $g$ in Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_s\_general\]) separates and gives an effective coupling $\sqrt{\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle}$ [@distribution_functions]. Further, we assume that the boson mode $\omega$ is tuned in resonance with the spin bath, i.e. $\omega-\left\langle \epsilon\right\rangle =0$. Inverse Laplace transform\[III\] ================================ The inverse Laplace transform of Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_s\_general\]) depends on the particular form of $P\left(\epsilon\right)$ that determines the analytic structure of $\alpha\left(s\right)$. We will analyze several cases below. If the spin bath is homogeneous then $P\left(\epsilon\right)=\delta\left(\epsilon-\omega\right)$, and $\alpha\left(s\right)$ has two poles on the imaginary axis at $s=\pm i\sqrt{N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }$, with the associated residues $1/2$. In the time domain these poles give $\alpha\left(t\right)=\cos(\Omega t)$, where $\Omega=\sqrt{N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }$ is the collective Rabi frequency due to all $N$ spins. This agrees with the result obtained from exact diagonalization [@CummingsDorri]. Next, we consider an inhomogeneous spin bath with excitation energies spread over a band of width $\Delta$, for which we have $P\left(\epsilon\right) =\theta\left(-\epsilon+\omega+\Delta/2\right) \theta\left(\epsilon-\omega+\Delta/2\right)/\Delta$, where $\theta\left(x\right)$ is the step function. This case is realized e.g. for $\epsilon_{j}=j\Delta/N$, $-N/2\leq j\leq N/2$, i.e. spins in a magnetic field with constant gradient. The integral over $\epsilon$ in Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_s\_general\]) gives $$\alpha\left(s\right)=\frac{i}{is+\frac{N\left\langle g^{2} \right\rangle }{\Delta}\ln\left(\frac{i s-\Delta/2}{i s+\Delta/2}\right)}.\label{eq:alpha_s_no_detuning}$$ Note that the inverse Laplace transform of Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_s\_general\]) is in principle a quasi-periodic function of $t$. Therefore, Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_s\_no\_detuning\]) is correct up to the Poincare recurrence time $t_{p}$ which we can estimate as follows. We evaluate the discrete sum over $\epsilon_{j}$ exactly, expand it in $1/N$, and estimate the time at which corrections to the logarithmic term in Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_s\_no\_detuning\]) (due to discretness of the sum) become important to be $t_{p}=N/\Delta$. Thus, the following time behavior is valid for times less than $t_{p}=N/\Delta$. For small $N$ it is more convenient to find the few poles of Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_s\_general\]) directly and analyze $\alpha(t)$ numerically as a sum of few harmonic modes rather than to use Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_s\_no\_detuning\]). We discuss now the analytic structure of $\alpha\left(s\right)$ in Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_s\_no\_detuning\]). There are two branch points at $s=\pm i\Delta/2$ due to the logarithm. We choose the branch cut as a straight line between these two points. In addition, there are two poles at $s=\pm is_{0}$ given by the zeroes of the denominator where $s_{0}$ is a real and positive solution of $$\exp\left(-\frac{s_{0}\Delta}{N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }\right)=\frac{s_{0}-\Delta/2}{s_{0}+\Delta/2}.\label{eq:eq_s0}$$ In the time domain, the amplitude $\alpha$ has two contributions, $\alpha=\alpha_{p}+\alpha_{c}$. One is given by the poles, $$\alpha_{p}\left(t\right)=\frac{2}{1+N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle /\left(s_{0}^{2}-\Delta^{2}/4\right)}\cos\left(s_{0}t\right).\label{eq:alpha_p}$$ This contribution describes a residual oscillation at long times with amplitude that is reduced from the initial value $\alpha\left(0\right)=1$. The other one is given by the integral enclosing the branch cut, $$\alpha_{c}\left(t\right)= \int_{0}^{1}dy \frac{{(4N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }/{\Delta^{2}})\,\cos\left(y\Delta t/2\right)}{\left(y-\frac{2N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }{\Delta^{2}}\ln\left(\frac{1+y}{1-y}\right)\right)^{2}+\left(\frac{2\pi N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }{\Delta^{2}}\right)^{2}} .\label{eq:alpha_c_general}$$ This contribution describes the decay that occurs due to destructive interference of many modes forming a continuous spectrum (for large N). The integral in Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_c\_general\]) can be approximated quite accurately for $t\gg2/\Delta$. Due to the fast oscillating cosine the main contribution to the integral comes from $y\lesssim 2/\Delta t\ll1$. Expansion of the logarithm in Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_c\_general\]) for small $y$ permits us to evaluate the integral in terms of the Integral Sine and Cosine. An expansion of these special functions for $\Delta t/2\gg1$ gives $$\alpha_{c}\left(t\right)=\frac{\Delta^{2}}{N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }\left(\frac{Ae^{-A\Delta t/2}}{2\pi}+\frac{A^{2}\sin\left(\Delta t/2\right)}{\pi^{2}\left(1+A^{2}\right)\Delta t/2}\right)\label{eq:alpha_s_CiSi}\, ,$$ where $A=\pi/2/\left\|1-\Delta^{2}/4N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle \right\|$. Note that for vanishing coupling $g$, $\alpha_{p}\left(t\right)$ vanishes and $\alpha_{c}\left(t\right)$ tends to one. Further, the integrand in Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_c\_general\]) can be expanded for $\Delta^2/N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle$ for $\Delta^2\ll N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle$. The leading term is linear in $\Delta^2/ N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle$ and the remaing integral in the prefactor is a complicated decaying function of $t$ which we approximate qualitatively. First, we perform a change of variable - $y=\tanh(x)$ turning the denominator into $1/f=\exp\left(-\log\left(f\right)\right)$, where we expand $\log\left(f\right)$ up to $x^{2}$ and linearize the argument of the cosine in $x$ for $x\ll1$. Finally, as a result of the Gaussian integral over $x$ we obtain a Gaussian decay law, $$\alpha_{c}\left(t\right)=\frac{\Delta^{2}}{2\pi N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{\pi^2+4}}\exp\left(-\frac{\pi^2\Delta^{2}t^{2}}{4(\pi^2+4)}\right). \label{eq:alpha_c_gaussian}$$ This approximation agrees reasonably well with Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_c\_general\]) when evaluated numerically for $t<6/\Delta$ but breaks down for $t>6/\Delta$ where Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_s\_CiSi\]) is valid, see Fig. \[fig1\]. The time-dynamics of $\left\langle n\left(t\right)\right\rangle =\|\alpha\left(t\right)\|^{2}$ can be classified in terms of the ratio $\Omega/\Delta$, with Rabi frequency $\Omega=\sqrt{N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }$. If the inhomogeneity of the spin bath is small, $\Delta\ll\Omega$, the boson oscillates with a single frequency like in the homogeneous case. The main contribution to $\alpha\left(t\right)$ comes from the poles Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_p\]) with $s_{0}=\Omega+\Delta^2/24\Omega$, which is shifted with respect to the homogeneous system. The amplitude of $\alpha\left(t\right)$ is only slightly reduced from its initial value, $1-\Delta^{2}/12\Omega^{2}$. The decay law to this value is mainly Gaussian-like, Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_c\_gaussian\]), with the decay time $t_{1}\approx2.4/\Delta$, see Fig. \[fig1\]. If the spin bath is strongly inhomogeneous, $\Delta\gg\Omega$, the boson mode decays completely from $\alpha\left(0\right)=1$ to $0$. The main contribution to $\alpha\left(t\right)$ comes from the branch cut, Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_s\_CiSi\]), with $A\approx2\pi\Omega^{2}/\Delta^{2}$, whereas the pole contribution is exponentially small. The decay behavior is mainly exponential with timescale $t_{2}\approx\Delta/\pi\Omega^{2}$. At long times $t\gg t_{2}$ the second term in Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_s\_CiSi\]) becomes dominant, exhibiting a slow power-law decay. In the intermediate regime, $\Delta\simeq\Omega$, the time decay is only partial, with the amplitude of the residual oscillation of $\alpha\left(t\right)$ being less than unity but staying constant in time. Its precise value can be found from the numerical solution of Eqs. (\[eq:eq\_s0\],\[eq:alpha\_p\]). The decay displayed in Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_s\_CiSi\]) is governed by a combination of exponential and power law behavior. As $A\simeq1$ and $s_{0}\simeq\Omega\simeq\Delta$ there is no clear separation of time scales coming from the exponential, the inverse power law and the oscillatory contribution, see Fig. \[fig1\]. ![Time evolution of the boson $\langle n(t) \rangle=\|\alpha(t)\|^2$ obtained from numerical evaluation of Eqs. (\[eq:alpha\_p\], \[eq:alpha\_c\_general\]) - full lines. Period of oscillation is $T=2\pi/s_0$ and grey bars are $\|\alpha_p(0)\|^2$. Main plot: $\Delta/\Omega=2.2$; dashed line: $\|\alpha_p(t)+\alpha_c(t)\|^2$ from Eqs. (\[eq:alpha\_p\], \[eq:alpha\_s\_CiSi\]), $s_0=0.57\Delta$, and $\|\alpha_p(0)\|^2=0.26$. Inset: $\Delta/\Omega=0.2$; dashed line: $\|\alpha_p(0)\pm\alpha_c(t)\|^2$ from Eqs. (\[eq:alpha\_p\], \[eq:alpha\_c\_gaussian\]) (valid for $\Delta t/2<3$) and from Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_s\_CiSi\]) (valid for $\Delta t/2>3$). The decay of $\|\alpha(t)\|^2$ is small, ($\|\alpha_p(0)\|^2=1-\Delta^2/6\Omega^2$), and the main contribution comes from $\alpha_p$. []{data-label="fig1"}](fig_1v2){width="1\columnwidth"} Note that in case of $\Delta=2\Omega$ the first term in Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_s\_CiSi\]) vanishes, thus the decay in this particular case is purely power law. The non-standard dynamics, in particular the non-exponetial decay in the intermediate regime, is a manifestation of the quantum nature of the system. For other models with non-Markovian decay see e.g. [@Leggett; @Khaetskii]. For a Gaussian distribution $P\left(\epsilon\right)=\exp(-\left(\epsilon-\omega\right)^{2}/\Delta^{2})/\sqrt{\pi}\Delta$ the dynamics we find is qualitatively the same as the one obtained before for the rectangular distribution, see Appendix A. The $\epsilon$-integral in Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_s\_general\]) leads to the complex error function of $s$. In Laplace space, $\alpha\left(s\right)$ exhibits one branch cut along the imaginary axis that vanishes at $\pm i\infty$. In the time domain, $\alpha\left(t\right)$ is given by an integral around this branch cut. In the limit of $\Delta\ll\Omega$ we recover the previous result for the homogeneous spin bath. In the opposite limit of strong inhomogeneity, $\Delta\gg\Omega$, we obtain the same result as in Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_s\_CiSi\]) up to numerical prefactors $\sqrt{\pi}$. The physical interpretation of the decay is as follows. The boson flips, say, spin $j$, and then this spin precesses for some time with a frequency $\epsilon_{j}$ before this excitation gets transfered back to the boson. The acquired phase of the boson is thus different for each particular spin. The sum over these random phases eventually leads to destructive interference (for $N\gg 1$) and thus to a decay. Finite detuning\[IV\] ===================== Next, we analyze the effect of finite detuning. If the spin bath is homogeneous, a small detuning $\left\|\omega-\epsilon\right\|\ll\Omega$ forces $\alpha\left(t\right)$ to oscillate with two distinct frequencies $\left(N-1\right)\left(\omega-\epsilon\right)/2\pm\sqrt{\left(\epsilon-\omega\right)^{2}+\Omega}/2$ instead of only one $\Omega$. A large detuning $\left\|\omega-\epsilon\right\|\gg\Omega$ suppreses the dynamics of $\alpha\left(t\right)$. The phase of the wave function oscillates with frequency $N\left(\omega-\epsilon\right)/2$ but the amplitude stays constant at the initial value of $\alpha\left(0\right)=1$ up to a small correction of the order of $\Omega^{2}/\left(\omega-\epsilon\right)^{2}$. In the inhomogeneous case we perform a similar calculation as for zero-detuning and obtain $\alpha\left(s\right)$ with an analytic structure similar to Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_s\_no\_detuning\]), see Appendix B. There are two poles on the imaginary axis and a branch cut that is responsible for the relaxation. Explicit expressions for $\alpha_{p}\left(t\right)$ and $\alpha_{c}\left(t\right)$ can be obtained and are generalizations of Eqs. (\[eq:alpha\_p\],\[eq:alpha\_c\_general\]), see Eq. (\[alpha\_s\_detuning\]). For small detuning $\left\|\left\langle \epsilon\right\rangle -\omega\right\|\ll\Omega$ two poles emerge that are not complex conjugates of each other and thus lead to two distinct frequencies of the residual oscillations of $\alpha\left(t\right)$. Large detuning $\left\|\left\langle \epsilon\right\rangle -\omega\right\|\gg\textrm{max}\{\Delta,\Omega\}$ suppresses the relaxation and any long-time dynamics. The main contribution to $\alpha\left(t\right)$ comes from one of the poles with residue $1-\Omega^{2}/\left(\omega-\left\langle \epsilon\right\rangle \right)^{2}$. Thus, the initial value $\alpha\left(0\right)=1$ remains almost unaltered under evolution independent of the ratio $\Omega/\Delta$. The dynamics at large detuning can also be analyzed using perturbation theory. Applying a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation to the Dicke Hamiltonian the boson-spin coupling can be removed to lowest order in $g$ and thereby an effective XY spin-coupling within the spin bath is obtained [@Trifa:2008]. As a result, the boson number $n$ and the z-component of the total spin $\sum_{j}S_{j}^{z}$ are conserved separately by this effective Hamiltonian. Thus, again, the initially excited boson mode will remain unaltered under the evolution in leading order of the perturbation. However, there is a virtual boson process which induces the dynamics within the spin bath. Conclusions =========== In conclusion, we analyzed the dynamics of a single boson mode coupled to an inhomogeneous spin bath exactly, and found a complex decay behavior of the boson. While we focused in this work on particular inhomogeneities of the spin bath excitation energies, it is straightforward to apply the approach presented here to other cases. Aknowledgments ============== We thank M. Duckheim and M. Trif for discussions. We acknowledge support from the Swiss NSF, NCCR Nanoscience Basel, JST ICORP, and DARPA Quest. Gaussian distribution of the spins’ splitting energies ====================================================== Here we derive the time dynamics resulting from the Gaussian distribution function of $\epsilon$, $P\left(\epsilon\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}\Delta}e^{-\left(\epsilon-\omega\right)^{2}/\Delta^{2}}$. Performing the integral over $\epsilon$ in Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_s\_general\]) we obtain $$\alpha(s)=\frac{1}{s+\frac{\sqrt{\pi}N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }{\Delta}\varpi\left(\imath\frac{s}{\Delta}\right)},\label{eq:alpha_s_gauss}$$ where $\varpi\left(z\right)$ is defined in the upper and lower complex half-planes separately as $$\varpi\left(z\right)=\begin{cases} w\left(z\right) & ,\textrm{Im}\; z\ge0\\ -w\left(-z\right) & ,\textrm{Im}\; z<0\end{cases}$$ and where $w\left(z\right)=e^{-z^{2}}\textrm{erfc}\left(-\imath z\right)$ is the error function. The function $\varpi\left(z\right)$ has a branch cut along the real axis, $\lim_{\delta\rightarrow0}\varpi\left(\pm\imath\delta\right)=\pm1$, which vanishes at infinity, $$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm\infty}\lim_{\delta\rightarrow0}\varpi\left(x\pm\imath\delta\right)=\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm\infty}e^{-x^{2}}\left(\pm1+\textrm{erf}\left(\imath x\right)\right)=0.$$ The inverse Laplace transform is given by an integral around the entire imaginary axis $$\begin{aligned} \alpha\left(t\right) & = & -\frac{N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }{2\sqrt{\pi}\Delta^{2}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dy\frac{e^{-\imath yt/2\Delta}e^{-4y^{2}}}{\left(\imath y-\frac{\sqrt{\pi}N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }{2\Delta^{2}}w\left(2y\right)\right)^{2}+\frac{\sqrt{\pi}N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle e^{-4y^{2}}}{\Delta^{2}}\left(\imath y-\frac{\sqrt{\pi}N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }{2\Delta^{2}}w\left(2y\right)\right)}\label{eq:alpha_case_c}\end{aligned}$$ where the substitutions $s=\imath2\Delta y$ and $\omega\left(-z\right)=2e^{-z^{2}}-\omega\left(z\right)$ were used. For $\Delta\ll\sqrt{N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }$ Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_s\_gauss\]) can be expanded in the small parameter $\Delta $. The leading term has an analytical structure similar to Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_s\_no\_detuning\]). There are two symmetric poles on the imaginary axis and a finite length branch cut between $s=\pm\imath2\Delta$. The contribution from the poles is $$\alpha_{p}\left(t\right)=\frac{2\cos\left(s_{0}t\right)}{1-N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle /s_{0}^{2}}.$$ Using the large $z$ asymptotics of the error function $\textrm{erfc}\left(z\right)=\frac{e^{-z^{2}}}{\sqrt{\pi}z}\left(1-\frac{1}{2z^{2}}\right)$, the two poles are given by $s_{0}=\pm\imath\sqrt{N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }$. The residues at this poles are $$\underset{s=s_{0}}{\textrm{Res}}\;\alpha(s)e^{st}=\frac{e^{s_{0}t}}{2}.$$ Thus, the contribution from the poles is dominant. In this limit we recover the non-interacting case, a single Rabi oscillation,$$\alpha\left(t\right)=\cos\left(\sqrt{N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }t\right).$$ In the opposite regime $\Delta\gg\sqrt{N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }$ there are no poles and there is just a single branch cut. The long time asymptotics can be evaluated by expanding the denominator for small $y$ and approximating $e^{-4y^{2}}\approx 1$ in the numerator, $$\begin{aligned} \alpha_{c}\left(t\right) & = & \frac{N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }{\sqrt{\pi}\Delta^{2}}\int_{0}^{1}dy\frac{\cos\left(yt/2\gamma\right)}{y^{2}+\left(\frac{\sqrt{\pi}N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }{2\Delta^{2}}\right)^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ This integral, up to a numerical factor, is the same as in Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_c\_general\]) in this limit. Calculation for $\langle\epsilon\rangle\neq\omega$ ================================================== Here we assume that the detuning is finite $\gamma=\left\langle \epsilon\right\rangle -\omega\neq0$. We repeat the same steps as before and similarly to the zero detuning case we obtain in the Laplace domain $$\alpha\left(s\right)=\frac{\imath}{\imath s+\frac{N\gamma}{2}+\frac{N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }{\Delta}\ln\left(\frac{\imath s+\left(N-2\right)\gamma/2-\Delta/2}{\imath s+\left(N-2\right)\gamma/2+\Delta/2}\right)}.\label{alpha_s_detuning}$$ This function is characterized by two poles and one branch cut. The two poles are given by zeroes of the denominator $s=\imath\left(N\gamma/2+s_{1,2}\right)$ where $s_{1,2}$ are the solutions of $$\exp\left(-\frac{s\Delta}{N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }\right)=\frac{s-\gamma-\Delta/2}{s-\gamma+\Delta/2}.\label{eq:s_01_h}$$ This equation is not symmetric with respect to $s\rightarrow-s$, thus the two poles are not symmetric. The residues of the poles are given by $$\underset{s}{\textrm{Res}}\alpha_{s}e^{st}=\frac{1}{1+\frac{N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }{\left(s_{1,2}-\gamma\right)^{2}-\Delta^{2}/4}}e^{st}.$$ Performing the inverse Laplace transformation we obtain similarly to Eq. (\[eq:eq\_s0\]) $$\alpha_{p}\left(t\right)=\sum_{k=1,2}\frac{e^{\imath N\gamma t/2+\imath s_{k}t}}{1+\frac{N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }{\left(s_{k}-\gamma\right)^{2}-\Delta^{2}/4}}.\label{eq:alpha_p2}$$ The branch points are $s=\imath\left(N\gamma/2\pm\Delta/2\right)$. Similarly to the case of zero detuning the contribution from the branch cut is given by the integral $$\begin{aligned} \alpha_{c}\left(t\right) & = & \frac{2N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle e^{\imath\left(\left(N-2\right)\gamma+\Delta\right)t/2}}{\Delta^{2}}\int_{-1}^{1}dy\frac{e^{\imath y\Delta t/2}}{\left(y-\frac{2\gamma}{\Delta}-\frac{2N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }{\Delta^{2}}\ln\left(\frac{1+y}{1-y}\right)\right)^{2}+\left(\frac{2\pi N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }{\Delta^{2}}\right)^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ At small detuning $\left\|\omega-\left\langle \epsilon\right\rangle \right\|\ll\textrm{max}\left(\Delta/2,N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle \right)$ there are two distinct frequencies in Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_p2\]), thus the final state oscillates with two frequencies. For a large detuning $\left\|\omega-\left\langle \epsilon\right\rangle \right\|\gg\textrm{max}\left(\Delta/2,N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle \right)$ the relaxation is suppressed. In the limit of strong detuning the roots of Eq. (\[eq:s\_01\_h\]) are given by $s_{1}=-2N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle /\gamma$ and $s_{2}=\gamma-\Delta/2$. The residue at $s_{2}$ is exponentially small and the contribution from the poles is given only by the pole $s_{1}$ $$\alpha_{p}\left(t\right) = \frac{e^{-\imath2N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle t/\Delta+\imath N\gamma t/2}}{1+\frac{N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle }{\left(2N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle /\gamma+\gamma\right)^{2}-\Delta^{2}/4}} \approx e^{\imath N\gamma t/2}.$$ In this result the amplitude of $\alpha\left(t\right)$ remains constant in time. From the initial condition $\alpha_{p}\left(0\right)+\alpha_{c}\left(0\right)=1$ the contribution from the branch cut is negligible, and therefore there is no decay for sufficiently strong detuning. The corrections to this result are small and of the order of $\textrm{max}\left(\Delta/2,N\left\langle g^{2}\right\rangle \right)/\left\|\omega-\left\langle \epsilon\right\rangle \right\|$. [10]{} C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum Noise, Springer, 2004. K. B. Davis, M. -O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten, D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3969 (1995) T. Aoki, B. Dayan, E. Wilcut, W. P. Bowen, A. S. Parkins, T. J. Kippenberg, K. J. Vahala, and H. J. Kimble, Nature 443, 671 (2006). F. Brennecke, T. Donner, S. Ritter, T. Bourdel, M. Köhl, and T. Esslinger, Nature 450, 268 (2007). G. Rempe, H. Walther, and N. Klein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 353 (1987). M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. W. Hänsch, and I. Bloch, Nature 419, 51 (2002). D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bolinger, W. M. Itano, and D. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A 50, 67 (1994). A. K. Tuchman, R. Long, G. Vrijsen, J. Boudet, J. Lee, and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. A 74, 053821 (2006). J. Kasprzak, M. Richard, S. Kundermann, A. Baas, P. Jeambrun, J. M. J. Keeling, F. M. Marchetti, M. H. Szymańska, R. André, J. L. Staehli, V. Savona, P. B. Littlewood, B. Deveaud, and Le Si Dang, Nature 443, 409 (2006). R. Balili, V. Hartwell, D. Snoke, L. Pfeiffer, and K. West, Science 316, 1007 (2007). A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R.- S. Huang, J. Majer, S. Kumar, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature 431, 162 (2004) . J. Berezovsky, M. H. Mikkelsen, N. G. Stoltz, L. A. Coldren, and D. D. Awschalom, Science 320, 349 (2008). K. Hennessy, A. Badolato, M. Winger, D. Gerace, M. Atatüre, S. Gulde, S. Fält, E. L. Hu, and A. İmamoğlu, Nature 445, 896 (2007). J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4091 (1995). A. İmamoğlu, D. D. Awschalom, G. Burkard, D. P. DiVincenzo, D. Loss, M. Sherwin, and A. Small, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4204 (1999). L. Childress, A. S. Sorensen, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. A 69, 042302 (2004). G. Burkard and A. Imamoglu, Phys. Rev. B 74, 041307R (2006). M. Trif, V. N. Golovach, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B 77, 045434 (2008). R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 93, 99 (1954). M. Tavis and F. W. Cummings, Phys. Rev. 170, 379 (1968). F. W. Cummings and A. Dorri, Phys. Rev. A 28, 2282 (1983). M. Kozierowski, A. A. Mamedov, and S. M. Chumakov, Phys. Rev. A 42, 1762 (1990); I. Sainz, A. B. Klimov, and S. M. Chumakov, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 5, 190(2003). C. E. Lopez, H. Christ, J. C. Retamal, and E. Solano, Phys. Rev. A 75, 033818 (2007). For an exciton-polariton system the spin is electron-hole excitation. In [@kasprzak] $\Omega\simeq 26$ meV and $\omega\simeq 1.7$ eV. Disorder in a semiconductor can be 0.1-50 meV. For a cold gas system single spin is a hyperfine state of an atom. In [@esslinger] $\Omega\simeq 2$ GHz and $\omega\simeq 7$ GHz. In [@Kasevich] $\Omega\simeq 10$ MHz and $\omega\simeq 0.7$ GHz. From $10$ T gradient of the magnetic field inhomogeneity can be estimated $\Delta\simeq 10$ MHz. Y. Yamamoto and A. Imamoglu, Mesoscopic Quantum Optics, John Willey and Sons, Inc., 1999. The Dicke model is valid near the resonance between boson and spin bath energies, $\left\|\omega-\epsilon_{j}\right\|\ll\omega,\epsilon_{j}$. Still, if $\Delta\ll\omega$, a relatively large detuning $\left\|\left\langle \epsilon\right\rangle -\omega\right\|>\Delta,\Omega$ can also be studied within this model. For high temperatures, $T\gg N\epsilon$, thermal spin excitations get transfered collectively to the boson. Such a spontaneous high population ($n\gg 1$) of a photon mode leads to the Dicke ‘superradiance’ effect [@Dicke]. A similar ansatz is used in the central spin model describing the inhomogeneous isotropic interaction between a single electron spin and a nuclear spin bath [@Khaetskii]. A. Khaetskii, D. Loss, and L. Glazman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 186802 (2002). If $g_{i}$ and $\epsilon_{i}$ are correlated, e.g. $P(\epsilon,g)=\delta(\epsilon-g) \theta(-\epsilon+\omega+\Delta/2) \theta(\epsilon-\omega+\Delta/2)/\Delta$, the integrals over $g$ and $\epsilon$ do not separate in Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_s\_general\]) even for $N\gg 1$. A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 1 (1987).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The 10m Prototype facility at the Albert-Einstein-Institute (AEI) in Hanover, Germany, employs three large seismic attenuation systems to reduce mechanical motion. The AEI Seismic-Attenuation-System (AEI-SAS) uses mechanical anti-springs in order to achieve resonance frequencies below 0.5Hz. This system provides passive isolation from ground motion by a factor of about 400 in the horizontal direction at 4Hz and in the vertical direction at 9Hz. The presented isolation performance is measured under vacuum conditions using a combination of commercial and custom-made inertial sensors. Detailed analysis of this performance led to the design and implementation of tuned dampers to mitigate the effect of the unavoidable higher order modes of the system. These dampers reduce RMS motion substantially in the frequency range between 10 and 100Hz in 6 degrees of freedom. The results presented here demonstrate that the AEI-SAS provides substantial passive isolation at all the fundamental mirror-suspension resonances.' address: - '$^1$ Albert-Einstein-Institut, Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik, D-30167 Hannover, Germany' - '$^2$ Leibniz Universität Hannover, D-30167 Hannover, Germany' - '$^3$ SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK' - '$^4$ University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom' - '$^5$ Nikhef, Science Park, 1098 XG Amsterdam, Netherlands' author: - 'G Bergmann$^1$, C M Mow-Lowry$^{1,4}$, V B Adya$^2$, A Bertolini$^5$, M M Hanke$^1$, R Kirchhoff$^1$, S M Köhlenbeck$^1$, G Kühn$^1$, P Oppermann$^1$ A Wanner$^2$, T Westphal$^1$, J Wöhler$^1$, D S Wu$^1$, H Lück$^{2}$, K A Strain$^3$, K Danzmann$^{1,2 }$' bibliography: - 'literatur.bib' title: 'Passive-performance, analysis, and upgrades of a 1-ton seismic attenuation system' --- Introduction ============ The AEI 10m Prototype was designed to provide a low-noise environment for testing gravitational-wave detector technology and to probe the limits of high-precision interferometry [@gossler2010aei]. Currently, an interferometer to reach and surpass the Standard Quantum Limit (SQL) with 100g mirror masses is being installed [@buonanno2001optical]. In parallel, novel techniques are being developed and tested both for upgrades to advanced gravitational-wave detectors (Advanced LIGO [@aasi2015advanced], Advanced Virgo [@TheVirgo:2014hva], and KAGRA [@aso2013interferometer]) as well as for future observatories such as the Einstein Telescope [@punturo2010einstein].\ A crucial element of the 10m Prototype design is isolation from environmental vibrations. A large vacuum envelope (100m$^3$, $10^{-7}\,$hPa) houses the entire apparatus and shields against acoustic coupling. Seismic Attenuation Systems (SASs) isolate all essential components from vibrations caused by seismic and anthropogenic ground motion, and from structural acoustics. Two SASs are installed and operating and a third SAS is currently being used to test mechanical design upgrades. The $1.75\,{\rm m} \times 1.75\,{\rm m}$ optical table isolated by the AEI-SAS offers a spacious platform to perform various high precision experiments. In particular, the design of the mirror suspensions for the SQL-interferometer and a reference cavity [@futhesis] rely on pre-isolation at their fundamental resonances (between 0.6Hz and 27Hz). This isolation of the suspension point reduces the total actuation forces required to control the suspended mirrors, enabling the use of low-noise actuators that meet the SQL-interferometer’s noise requirements. In this paper, we present the passive performance of the AEI-SAS, compare it with a simple analytical model, and discuss the observed differences. These are mainly due to cross-coupling, at low frequencies, and internal resonances, at high frequencies. This knowledge was used to improve the isolation performance by damping and shifting the internal resonances. An adapted version of the AEI-SAS, the External Injection Bench Seismic Attenuation System (EIB-SAS), is used to isolate injection optics at Advanced Virgo [@blom2015vertical]. The EIB-SAS has higher fundamental resonant frequencies compared with the AEI-SAS, allowable due to the relatively relaxed noise requirement. This increases stability at the expense of isolation performance. Advanced LIGO’s in-vacuum seismic isolation relies on an active isolation feedback to reduce motion below about 5Hz. The single-stage Internal Seismic Isolators (HAM-ISI) is most comparable with the AEI-SAS. Despite the difference in design philosophies and performance requirements, it is possible to compare figures \[vperformance\] and \[hperformance\] of this paper with figures 16 and 17 in reference [@matichard2015seismic]. Active feedback will significantly improve the AEI-SAS performance around its fundamental resonances and will be subject of a future publication. Mechanical design of the AEI-SAS ================================ The AEI-SAS is composed of two stages: a horizontal isolation stage based on three Inverted-Pendulum (IP) legs, and a vertical isolation stage with three Geometric Anti-Spring (GAS) filters [@wanner2012seismic]. ![Simplified sketch of the original AEI-SAS design: The payload is supported by three GAS-filters providing vertical isolation. The diagram shows an unfolded version, but in reality the GAS filters are nested inside an aluminum structure, the spring-box, within the horizontal stage (see figure \[CADsection\]). The spring-box is supported by three IP-legs providing horizontal isolation. The bottom of the IP-legs are connected via flexures to the baseplate. This baseplate is rigidly connected to the ‘feet’ of the vacuum tank. Three vertical geophones are installed inside the payload Horizontal motion is sensed by three custom made accelerometers [@bertolini2006mechanical] that are placed on the springbox. An auxiliary horizontal accelerometer is installed on top of the payload. []{data-label="tablediagram"}](table-diagram.pdf){width="85.00000%"} ![CAD model of the AEI-SAS: A section view shows the structure of the individual isolation stages and the location of the single components. For simplicity componants as the motorized springs and the tilt stabilization are not shown in this model. This figure shows the original version of the AEI-SAS with the old IP-legs and a rigid intermediate plate- payload connection. []{data-label="CADsection"}](CADsection1lowquality11.pdf){width="85.00000%"} Each SAS supports a payload of approximately 900kg. This includes a 530kg, $1.75\,{\rm m} \times 1.75\,$m stainless steel breadboard with an internal honeycomb structure. The breadboard is mounted on the three GAS filters. Each GAS filter consists of a crown-shaped assembly of eight maraging steel blades [@Stochino2007]. These blades are bent and fastened to a central key-stone that supports the table top. Compression of opposing blades against each other introduces negative stiffness along the vertical axis, lowering the effective spring constant [@bertolini1999seismic; @cella2005monolithic]. The spring-box is suspended by means of $3\,$mm thick and $25\,$mm long cylindrical maraging-steel flexures connected to the top of the IP legs on their other side. The leg itself is an aluminum tube with $1\,$mm wall thickness. The horizontal restoring force is provided by a $10.6\,$mm thick and $60\,$mm long maraging-steel flexure connecting the IP leg to the baseplate at the bottom (see figure \[tablediagram\] and \[CADsection\]). The SAS baseplate is bolted to the inside of the rigid ‘feet’ of the vacuum tank. On the outside, these feet are bolted to the 80cm thick concrete foundation of the lab. The AEI-SAS provides passive vibration isolation for the payload above the fundamental resonance frequencies. Additionally, several sensors and actuators are installed to measure and control the payload position actively. Three commercial L-22D geophones [@sercel], arranged in an equilateral triangle, measure the inertial vertical payload motion. Three custom made accelerometers [@bertolini2006mechanical] sense the inertial horizontal motion of the system. They are placed close to the edges of the spring-box and are also arranged in an equilateral triangle. The displacement between the ground and the payload is measured by Linear Variable Differential Transformers (LVDTs) [@tariq2002linear]. There are three vertical and three horizontal LVDTs. Each one is co-located with a voice-coil actuator. All table control forces are applied using these actuators. A commercial STS-2 triaxial broadband seismometer is used to measure the ground motion of the laboratory floor. Above the individual resonance frequencies, the AEI-SAS decouples the payload from ground motion in 6 degrees of freedom. Table 1 shows the resonance frequencies of the AEI-SAS and the corresponding masses [@wanner2013seismic] and moments of inertia. The displayed values vary during commissioning of the system. The resonance frequencies of the horizontal degrees of freedom are tuned by mass adjustment. All three moments of inertia depend on the mass distribution of the payload, which will vary, due to changing experiments in the 10m Prototype. Fairly high tilt stiffness is ensured in rx and ry for stability reasons. \[tabel\_res\] Direction Resonance frequency [\[]{}Hz[\]]{} Mass [\[]{}kg[\]]{} ----------- ------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- x 0.16 1231 y 0.16 1231 z 0.27 900 Moment of inertia [\[]{}kg m$^2$[\]]{} rx 0.4 260 ry 0.4 260 rz 0.1 598 : Resonance frequencies, and corresponding masses [@wanner2013seismic] and moments of inertia of the AEI-SAS. Figure \[CADsection\] shows the corresponding coordinate system. The moments of inertia are determined with respect to the principal axes of either the payload (for rx and ry) or the payload and the spring-box (rz). Note that the rx and ry axes do not coincide with the principle axes of the SAS. A more detailed description of the AEI-SAS and its instruments can be found in Wanner [et al.]{} [@wanner2012seismic]. Passive isolation performance ============================= The passive performance of the AEI-SAS is shown in figure \[vperformance\] and \[hperformance\] in red. This measurement is compared to a simple one-dimensional model, which is explained in the following paragraph. A good measure of isolation performance is the transmissibility, $x_\mathrm p/x_\mathrm g$, of ground motion, $x_\mathrm g$, to payload motion, $x_\mathrm p$. It can be deduced from the equation of motion of the system. Both the horizontal and vertical stages can be modeled as a harmonic oscillator with finite mass with $$\omega_\mathrm n ^2 \left(x_\mathrm p-x_\mathrm g \right) + \beta \ \ddot{x}_\mathrm g + \ddot{x}_\mathrm p =0 \enspace, \label{equofmotion}$$ where $\omega_\mathrm n$ is the complex natural frequency, related to the fundamental resonance frequency $\omega_\mathrm 0$ and the loss angle of the spring material $\phi_\mathrm h$ by $\omega_\mathrm n^2=\omega_ 0^2(1+ i \phi_\mathrm h)$. The bypass $\beta$ is a function of the IP-legs’ (or GAS filter blades’) geometry and mass distribution, and the payload mass. It determines the height of the Center of Percussion (CoP) plateau [@losurdo1999inverted; @stochino2007improvement]. The mechanics of the CoP tuning are described in [@wanner2013seismic] in more detail. The transmissibility from ground motion to payload position follows from the Fourier transform of equation \[equofmotion\] $$T(\omega) = \frac{x_\mathrm p(\omega)}{x_\mathrm g(\omega)} =\frac{\omega_\mathrm n ^2+\beta \omega^2}{\omega_\mathrm n ^2-\omega^2} \enspace.$$ ![Vertical passive AEI-SAS performance: A comparison of the measured table-top motion (red) and the predicted table-top motion (blue) based on the ground motion (black). The model is a simple harmonic oscillator with a fitted resonance frequency, quality factor, and CoP plateau. Above $30\,$Hz the sensor noise (gray) is dominant in the measurement. The relative deviation of measurement and predicted table motion averaged across all measurement points between $0.1\,$Hz and $20\,$Hz is less than $4\,$%. The internal resonances with the lowest frequencies (described in section \[sectionspringboxres\]) are the spring-box resonances between $30$ and $40\,$Hz.[]{data-label="vperformance"}](fit_vs_measurem_v11_A4_new.pdf){width="85.00000%"} To generate a vertical transmissibility function, the resonance frequency, $f_\mathrm{0v}=0.27\,$Hz, damping factor $\phi_\mathrm v=\frac{1}{30}$, and CoP factor, $\beta_\mathrm v=7\times 10^{-4}$, were fitted to the measured vertical payload motion (the red curve in figure \[vperformance\]). The vertical ground motion (the black curve) was then multiplied by the vertical transmissibility function $T_\mathrm v$ to produce the blue curve, a single-dof model of the vertical payload motion. The sensor noise of the three vertical L-22D [@sercel] installed in the payload dominates the measurement above $\sim 30\,$Hz. The figure shows the passive performance, free from position control or feedback forces, and it was recorded with the vacuum system pumped down to a pressure below $10^{-5}\,$hPa. Up to the first internal resonances above 30Hz, the measurement matches the predicted payload motion very well. The small peak at 0.4Hz is due to cross-coupling from the fundamental tilt resonance. ![Horizontal passive AEI-SAS performance: a comparison of the measured table-top motion (red), the single-dof model of the table-top motion (blue), and the ground motion (black). The model is again a simple, massive harmonic oscillator model multiplied by the ground motion. A full noise model (green) includes cross-coupling from the payload tilt, dominant at low frequencies, and the accelerometer sensor noise, dominant above 5Hz. A model of the accelerometer noise is shown in gray. The average difference between the measured and predicted motion between $0.1\,$Hz and $5\,$Hz is less than $1\,$%.[]{data-label="hperformance"}](fit_vs_measurem_h_crossc_A4_new.pdf){width="85.00000%"} The horizontal payload motion in figure \[hperformance\] (red) was measured by an auxiliary horizontal accelerometer placed on the top of the payload. It is compared with the ideal theoretical horizontal table motion (blue). The transmissibility of a harmonic oscillator $T_\mathrm h$ having a fundamental resonance at $f_\mathrm{0h}=0.16\,$Hz, a damping factor of $\phi_\mathrm h=\frac{1}{5}$, and a center of percussion factor of $\beta_\mathrm h=10^{-4}$ is multiplied by the ground motion (black). At low frequencies the measurement differs from the model due to coupling between payload tilt and the accelerometer readout. The tilt of the payload by an angle $\Theta$ is seen by the accelerometer as a translation of $x_\mathrm t=\Theta \times g/\omega^2$. That is because of tilt-horizontal coupling, where gravity is assumed constant, and cannot separate tilt and acceleration with a single instrument [@matichard2015review]. ![Spectral ratio and coherence of ground motion to payload motion: Compared to figure \[vperformance\], the ground motion at the time of this measurement was lower, so sensor noise is limiting the vertical measurement (blue) below $\sim0.2\,$Hz and above $\sim 9\,$Hz. The horizontal measurement (red) is limited by sensor noise below $\sim 0.08\,$Hz and above $\sim 4\,$Hz. The sharp peaks around 1 Hz are due to the recoil of the fundamental modes of the mirror suspensions, which were already installed on top of the AEI-SAS at the time of this measurement. At 4Hz the horizontal payload motion is $2.6 \times 10^{-3}$ lower than the ground motion. The vertical payload motion can be measured up to 9Hz, where it is $2.4 \times 10^{-3}$ times lower than the ground motion in this direction. The data in this figure was recorded after the Fluorel pads and the spring-box damper (described in section \[sectionfluorel\] and \[springboxdamper\]) were installed. []{data-label="inchtr"}](incoherent_Transm.pdf){width="85.00000%"} This tilt-horizontal coupling at low frequencies as well as the sensor noise at high frequencies is included in the full noise model N (green) in figure \[hperformance\]. $$N^2=\left(T_\mathrm h x_\mathrm g \right)^2+\left( \Theta_\mathrm p \frac{g}{\left(2 \pi f \right)^2} \right)^2+n_\mathrm s ^2$$ The payload tilt motion $\Theta_\mathrm p$ was measured using differential vertical signals from the L-22D geophones mounted in the payload. Low-frequency noise in the geophones causes the strong deviation of the green trace below $0.15\,$Hz. Above 5Hz the green curve follows the measured sensor noise $n_\mathrm s$ of the accelerometers. As with the vertical payload motion, internal resonances show up above 30Hz. These resonances are discussed in more detail in the following section. Note that the measurements in figures \[vperformance\], figure \[hperformance\], and figure \[inchtr\] were made after the installation of Fluorel pads described in section \[sectionfluorel\], and as such the 17Hz resonance is not present in this data. Additional information about the overall passive performance of the AEI-SAS can be obtained by comparing payload motion to ground motion. Figure \[inchtr\] shows the spectral ratio $\left\|x_\mathrm p\right\|/\left\|x_\mathrm g\right\|$. The coherence of $x_\mathrm p$ and $x_\mathrm g$ in the lower graph shows in which frequency band the sensor signal is caused by the ground motion in the same direction. The ground motion sensor is not limited by sensor noise at any frequency where the payload sensors provide good signals. In the horizontal direction, the low coherence between 0.3 Hz and 1Hz is caused by cross coupling from other degrees of freedom. Below $0.08\,$Hz and above $4\,$Hz the payload measurement is limited by sensor noise. Similar to the measurement in figure \[vperformance\] and figure \[hperformance\], low-frequency payload tilt couples strongly in to the horizontal sensors. In the vertical direction sensor noise limits the measurement below $0.2\,$Hz and above $9\,$Hz. The data in figure \[inchtr\] shows that the payload motion is $2.6 \times 10^{-3}$ times lower than the ground motion in the horizontal direction at 4Hz, and $2.4 \times 10^{-3}$ times lower than ground motion in the vertical direction at 9Hz. Above those frequencies the measurement is limited by measurement noise, but based on prior measurements of the driven transmissibility, we expect more attenuation at higher frequencies. In a shaker test-stand, where the baseplate was excited in the horizontal direction, a peak horizontal isolation of $10^{-4}$ at 7Hz was achieved. A maximal vertical isolation of $10^{-4}$ above 20Hz was measured using a single GAS-filter [@wanner2012seismic]. The lowest horizontal resonance frequency of the mirror suspensions installed on the AEI-SAS is 0.64Hz. At this frequency the horizontal payload motion is already 12 times lower than ground motion. At the lowest vertical mirror suspension resonance of 1Hz, the vertical payload motion is 8 times lower than ground motion. Analysis and mitigation of horizontal modes =========================================== As shown in figure \[vperformance\] the AEI-SAS follows the physics of a massive harmonic oscillator up to a frequency where the individual components are not ideally stiff, but instead behave as additional spring-mass systems. The origin of these internal resonances and possible improvements to the AEI-SAS are discussed. In the following, our efforts are focused on parasitic resonances below 60Hz, where ground motion suppression is required in order to reduce the excitation of the fundamental resonances of the payload, in particular the mirror suspensions. The model used in the previous section, based on the assumption that the spring-box is massless and that horizontal and vertical suspension stages are totally decoupled, is too simple. A more realistic description of the system must take into account that: - the CoM of the payload is located well above the CoM of the spring-box. This determines the observed large coupling between horizontal and tilt degrees of freedom, - the IP legs have a finite vertical compliance, and - the GAS filters have a finite horizontal compliance. In particular, the parasitic compliance of the suspension elements, combined with the sizeable mass (about 300kg) of the spring-box, is such that the 6 rigid-body modes of the spring-box lie in the 10-50Hz frequency band. This affects the overall attenuation performance of the system significantly. The large mass ratio between spring-box and payload (about 1:3) causes a large transmissibility of ground vibrations around the spring-box parasitic modes. In the following section, these modes are characterized and efforts to mitigate their impact are presented. Testing and modeling of horizontal modes ---------------------------------------- The parasitic modes of the isolation system with the lowest frequency are differential modes between the spring-box and the payload, both in horizontal translation and rotation. These modes show up at about 17Hz and were investigated experimentally and with simulations. In order to measure and tune the SAS performance, the whole 1 ton table was installed in a shaker test-stand. The SAS’s baseplate was suspended from four wires so that the SAS could freely move in the horizontal degrees of freedom. A horizontal voice coil actuator was used to apply translational force to the baseplate, enabling fast and coherent measurements of the isolation system’s transmissibility. Figure \[shaker\] shows the horizontal transmissibility from the base plate to the payload (red). For comparison the transmissibility was re-measured when the spring-box was clamped to the baseplate, effectively bypassing the IP-legs (blue). ![Investigation of internal resonances using the test-stand: The SAS’s baseplate is driven horizontally, and the transmissibility from the base plate to the payload is shown for normal operation (red) and with the horizontal stage clamped (blue). The 9Hz structure in the blue curve is the spring-box mode caused by the horizontal compliance of the GAS-filters. In the free table (red curve), the horizontal compliance of the GAS filters causes differential oscillations between spring-box and payload at 13Hz and 17Hz. Finite element simulations suggest, that the 22Hz resonance peak is due to a bending mode of the intermediate plate. []{data-label="shaker"}](secondtable_shaker.pdf){width="85.00000%"} When the spring-box is clamped, the softest connection in the horizontal direction is the horizontal compliance of the three GAS-filters. The free SAS has its lowest horizontal internal resonance at 17Hz. For the clamped system it shifts to about $9\,$Hz. Considering this setup as a simplified one-dimensional harmonic oscillator, where the 932kg payload is connected by a spring to the ground, its effective spring constant is $\kappa_{hGAS} (9\,$Hz$)=3\times10^6\,$N/m. The free AEI-SAS would then correspond to a simplified one-dimensional model, where the payload mass is connected via the same spring to the spring-box mass of 331kg. Neglecting the horizontal IP-leg stiffness, this system has its resonance frequency at 17.5Hz. An Ansys Workbench finite element simulation (figure \[fem\]) shows the resulting mode shapes. The model is a simplified version of the AEI-SAS with the correct horizontal dimensions and masses for both the spring-box and the payload. The model for the IP-legs is close to reality. Vertical dimensions and mass distribution are simplified to produce an efficient mesh. The GAS-filters are modelled as a set of two horizontal springs, using the spring constant calculated above, and one vertical spring with a stiffness of $400\,$N/m, calculated based on the fundamental vertical resonance frequency seen in figure \[vperformance\]. ![Finite element simulation of the horizontal GAS-filter compliance: The spring-box and the payload are represented by stiff plates. The GAS-filters are modelled as a set of springs with the measured horizontal and vertical stiffness. The resulting modes are translational and rotational differential oscillations between spring-box and payload.[]{data-label="fem"}](hzmode.png){width="75.00000%"} The 17Hz resonances are horizontal differential oscillations between the spring-box and the payload. The corresponding mode to the differential rotation around the vertical axis is at 12.8Hz. This mode is seen at 13Hz in the horizontal frequency response in figure \[shaker\]. Fluorel stage {#sectionfluorel} ------------- The 17Hz horizontal GAS-filter mode is highly undesirable in the $10\,$m prototype interferometer since some of the mirror suspensions have a vertical (bounce) modes very close to this frequency. Any overlap of these resonances would result in strongly enhanced mirror motion. Initially, we attempted to stiffen the GAS-filters in the horizontal direction by installing additional structures. However, this approach was discarded because either the low vertical stiffness of the GAS-filters was compromised or because the functional range of the stiffening structure was too small. A second approach, the inclusion of an additional, well-damped spring-mass stage in the SAS proved to be very successful. Three vacuum compatible rubber pads (Fluorel) were placed between the payload and the ‘intermediate plate’, a $113\,$kg aluminum plate mounted on top of the GAS filters, where previously this plate was rigidly connected to the payload. Figure \[fluorelp\] compares the two configurations using simple one-dimensional models. The model for the original design consists of two horizontal springs. One represents the IP-legs with a stiffness of about $\kappa_\mathrm{ip}= 500\,$N/m and the the other the horizontal GAS filter stiffness $\kappa_\mathrm{hGAS}=3\times10^6\,$N/m. The eigenfrequencies of the coupled system are $0.1\,$Hz and 17Hz. Implementing the Fluorel stage results in a three-spring, three-mass system. The fundamental mode at 0.1Hz is the common mode of the whole system on the IP-leg flexures. At $9\,$Hz the spring-box and the intermediate plate oscillate together between the heavy payload and the ground. A third resonance at 34Hz corresponds to the oscillation of the intermediate plate between the payload and the spring-box. Since the lossy Fluorel pads’ springs are involved in the latter two modes, they are well damped and do not significantly influence the SAS performance at low frequencies. Figure \[fluorelPSD\] shows the substantial performance improvement provided by the additional stage. ![Simplified one-dimensional models of the isolation system show how the implementation of a Fluorel stage changes the horizontal eigenfrequencies.\ Left: Original system. The IP-leg spring ($\kappa_\mathrm{ip}\approx 500\,$N/m) connects the spring-box (331kg) to the ground. The horizontal GAS-filter spring $\kappa_\mathrm{hGAS}=3\times10^6\,$N/m connects the spring-box to the 932kg payload (including the intermediate plate). The common mode of this system is at 0.1Hz, the differential mode is at 17Hz.\ Right: Fluorel pads are placed between intermediate plate and payload. The horizontal stiffness of this spring is about $1.2\times10^6\,$N/m, resulting in eigenfrequencies of 0.1Hz, 9Hz, and 34Hz. Even though one of the internal resonances is at a lower frequency than before, the lossy Fluorel pads strongly damp these oscillations.[]{data-label="fluorelp"}](fluoretable_diagram.pdf){width="80.00000%"} ![A comparison between horizontal payload motion with (blue) and without (red) the additional Fluorel stage. The strong 17Hz resonance is no longer visible. Unlike the spectrum in figure \[hperformance\], this measurement was recorded in air, resulting in excess motion between 1Hz and 10Hz. The structures from 3-6Hz are not present when measurements are performed under vacuum. The peaks above 30Hz are vertical spring-box modes. They are discussed in the following sections. []{data-label="fluorelPSD"}](fluorel_southtable_A4.pdf){width="85.00000%"} Vertical modes damping {#sectionspringboxres} ====================== Due to the finite vertical compliance of the IP legs, three additional modes are observable in the system, with the spring-box bouncing vertically, and rotating in pitch and in roll. These modes have natural frequencies between 30 and 50Hz. The finite element simulation (figure \[springboxmodes\]) shows the corresponding spring-box mode shapes. It also shows that even though the thin upper flexures (operated in tension) and the thin walls of the IP-legs dominate the vertical compliance, the bending of the spring-box is a significant contribution. We investigated two approaches in order to improve the performance in the frequency band above 30Hz: the first was to change the geometry of the IP-legs to stiffen them in the vertical direction (see section \[IPredesign\]). This, in combination with spring-box stiffening will shift the vertical spring-box modes to higher frequencies and thereby widen the isolation frequency window. The second approach was to passively damp the resonances by installing dedicated inertial damping units (see section \[springboxdamper\]). ![Finite element simulation of the spring-box and IP-leg modes. A set of three springs represent each IP-leg’s stiffness matrix. The mass and dimensions of the spring-box are close to reality. The first two modes shown here are primarily rotational oscillations. The third mode is the ‘bounce’ mode of the IP-legs. All three oscillations are caused by a combination of vertical deformation of the IP-legs and bending of the spring-box. Inertial dampers can be placed in anti-nodes of the oscillations in order to effectively remove energy from these modes.[]{data-label="springboxmodes"}](springboxmodes1.png){width="100.00000%"} IP-legs re-design {#IPredesign} ----------------- The vertical IP-leg compliance can be improved by a redesign. However, there are several requirements for a new IP-leg design. Primarily, there must be a substantial increase in vertical stiffness without compromising the horizontal compliance. The new design must be compatible with the existing mechanics and attachment mechanisms, allow for the same range of horizontal motion (about one centimeter), and made from materials that can be machined and modified in-house. Additionally, the center of percussion compensation system (a bell-shaped addition to the base of the leg, see [@wanner2013seismic]) must be able to compensate for the new mass and mass distribution of the leg. The original IP-leg flexures were made from maraging steel, a material chosen because it combines very high strength (1.94GPa ultimate tensile strength), very low creep, and a low loss angle [@beccaria1998creep; @losurdo1999inverted]. However, maraging steel has a long lead-time for procurement. For the new design we substituted this material with Titanium grade 5. It is easy to machine, has a low internal loss and high strength [@titanium; @maraging]. Finite element simulations of the new IP-leg design show that displacing the payload by 10mm results in a maximum bending stress of approximately 60% of the yield. Although this is much closer to yield than equivalent maraging steel flexures (which were at approximately 20% of yield), the margin is still sufficient considering that in normal operation the payload translates less than 1mm. The flexure thickness and shape were determined iteratively by finite element simulations and measurements to achieve a horizontal stiffness closer to the desired value. With $10\,$mm thick and $24.7\,$mm long flexures a horizontal stiffness of 11150N/m was achieved. This corresponds to a maximum load of 511kg. The leg itself is made from a stainless steel tube with $2\,$mm wall thickness, making it much stiffer than the original $1\,$mm wall thickness aluminum leg. The center of percussion compensator can be attached to the new design in the same way as the original. A photograph of the old and new IP-leg without the center of percussion compensator is shown in figure \[newip\]. The vertical stiffness of the new IP-legs was measured in an auxiliary experiment, where they were were individually loaded with the same mass. The vertical transmissibility was measured by placing one geophone on the ground and one on the suspended mass. We determined their vertical stiffnesses from the fundamental bounce resonance of the IP-leg. Figure \[newip\] shows the vertical transmissibility of both IP-leg designs. The bounce mode of the old and new legs are 76Hz and 164Hz respectively. The resulting vertical spring constant of the old IP-leg is $9.1\times10^6\,$N/m, 8% less than the results from the finite element simulation. The new symmetric IP-leg is more than 4 times stiffer, $42.4\times10^6\,$N/m. In combination with a planned stiffening of the spring-box, this will increase the frequency of the spring-box modes. If the spring-box was assumed to be a rigid body, the bounce mode on the new IP-legs would be about 100Hz, although the bending of the spring-box will lower the mode frequency. Preliminary simulations of the spring-box, that include additional stiffening structures, predict that the lowest vertical and vertical-tilt spring-box modes will be between 70Hz and 80Hz. ![(left) Vertical transmissibility of old and new IP-legs: The improvement in vertical stiffness from the new design was experimentally tested by measuring the fundamental bounce mode of both IP-legs. Each leg was loaded with a $40\,$kg mass and the transmissibility was measured. The measurement result shows that the stiffness of the new design is more than four times higher than the original design. The dip in the symmetric IP-leg curve at $80\,$Hz and in the old IP-leg curve at $98\,$Hz is caused by tilt of the suspended mass. Due to geometric constraints, it was mounted on the two IP-Legs in different ways.\ (right) Old and new IP-legs: In the original design the spring-box was suspended in tension from a thin upper flexure and the leg is a thin aluminum tube. The new design achieves greater vertical stiffness by using identical flexures at the top and the bottom and a thicker steel tube.[]{data-label="newip"}](bode_newIP_and_foto.pdf){width="85.00000%"} The new symmetric IP-legs in combination with spring-box stiffening will be implemented in the third AEI-SAS, which is currently under construction. The two other systems are already installed in the vacuum system and populated with electronics and optics. Replacing the old IP-legs is not feasible. However, the effect of the vertical spring-box modes can be mitigated by means of tuned dampers. Spring-box damping {#springboxdamper} ------------------ Damping geometries, such as resonance dampers ([@wanner2013seismic; @blomlvc]), can be retro-fitted into the AEI-SAS. A resonant damper is a secondary harmonic oscillator with large internal damping that is tuned to the resonance frequency of a primary oscillator. For practicality, the mass of the secondary oscillator is often much smaller than the mass of the primary oscillator. By placing it at an anti-node of the (primary) oscillation to be damped, the damper absorbs and dissipates energy through its internal loss mechanisms. If the mass ratio of the two oscillators is close to one, all resonances above the eigenfrequency of the damper can be efficiently damped. In this case the damper’s inertia keeps it relatively stationary with respect to the primary oscillator, again dissipating energy via differential motion. Anti-nodes of the spring-box oscillations were determined from finite element simulations (see figure \[springboxmodes\]). These are compared with experimental measurements of vertical vibration in the spring-box, made by placing a vertical geophone at potential damper positions. ![The transmissibility of horizontal ground motion to horizontal payload motion with (red) and without (blue) spring-box dampers. The payload motion was measured with an auxiliary accelerometer mounted directly on the payload. By placing three damping structures inside the spring-box, the three lowest spring-box modes were strongly damped.[]{data-label="damper1"}](resdamper_transmitt_x.pdf){width="85.00000%"} ![Spring-box damper performance in all 6 degrees of freedom. The plots on the left of this figure show the vertical payload motion (measured with the payload geophones) with (red) and without (blue) spring-box dampers. The plots on the right show the horizontal spring-box motion (measured with the three spring-box accelerometers) again with (red) and without (blue) spring-box dampers. Not only are the three fundamental spring-box modes between $30\,$Hz and $35\,$Hz damped, but higher frequency resonances are also significantly reduced. The RMS motion, integrated from high frequencies to low frequencies (dashed lines), is substantially reduced over a large frequency band. []{data-label="damper2"}](resdamperHandV.pdf){width="100.00000%"} Our dampers were $5\,$kg stainless steel masses placed on three Viton cylinders cut from O-ring seals. The lengths of the cylinders determines the resonance frequency, and the lossy Viton efficiently dissipates energy. A set of three such dampers was placed inside the spring-box. The improvement in table performance is shown in figure \[damper1\] and \[damper2\]. As an example of the damping of spring-box modes, figure \[damper1\] shows the transmissibility from the ground to the spring-box in the horizontal direction. The transmissibility is reduced by a factor of up to 75 for the third mode. Resonances at higher frequencies are also strongly damped. Figure \[damper2\] shows the payload motion (z, rx, ry degrees of freedom) and the spring-box motion (x, y, rz degrees of freedom). The RMS motion is substantially reduced over a wide frequency band in all degrees of freedom. Conclusion ========== We measured the performance of a seismic attenuation system that uses anti-springs to create very low-frequency resonances. The performance matches ideal models very well up to the first internal resonances. A peak isolation performance of $2.6 \times 10^{-3}$ was measured at 4Hz in the horizontal direction. In the vertical direction the ground motion is reduced by a factor of $2.4 \times 10^{-3}$ at 9Hz. A horizontal fundamental resonance of the AEI-SAS of 0.1Hz enables a substantial reduction in motion in the frequency band near the mirror suspension resonances. At the lowest suspension resonance, 0.64Hz, the horizontal payload motion is 12 times lower than ground motion. This enables a suspension design with low force actuators and passive eddy-current damping. The internal resonances of the system were characterized by a combination of measurement, analytical modeling, and finite-element analysis. Following means of mitigating the effect of these resonances were proposed and tested: - Fluorel pads decouple the spring-box and the payload. - Spring-box dampers improve the isolation performance between 10 and 100Hz significantly. - New symmetric IP-legs which are 4 times stiffer than the old design will shift parasitic spring-box modes to higher frequencies, thus broaden the AEI-SAS’s isolation window. The first two design changes were suitable to be retro-fitted into the first two AEI-SASs. All three presented improvements will be incorporated in the third system. By shifting and damping the internal resonances, all mirror suspension resonances are now well isolated from ground motion. Acknowledgments =============== The authors acknowledge support from the International Max Planck Research School (IMPRS) on Gravitational Wave Astronomy and from QUEST, the Center for Quantum Engineering and Space-Time Research. References {#references .unnumbered} ==========	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'I introduce a method to obtain the stress-energy tensor of the perfect fluid by adding a suitable term to the Einstein-Hilbert action. Variation should be understood with respect to the metric.' author: - 'E. Minguzzi [^1]' title: 'Inclusion of a perfect fluid term into the Einstein-Hilbert action' --- Introduction ============ Since the gravitational side of the Einstein equations is variational one would like to obtain the right-hand said from the variation of a matter Lagrangian. This raises the problem as to whether the dynamical equations for the most straightforward form of matter, the perfect fluid, are variational in character. These equations, namely the continuity and the Euler equations have been given variational formulation following different approaches [@taub54; @hawking73; @schutz77; @baylin80; @brown93; @poplawski09; @minazzoli12]. The most common strategy [@taub54; @carter73; @kijowski79; @kunzle84; @carter89; @kijowski90; @carter94; @comer93; @kijowski98; @hajicek98; @dunbosky06; @slobodeanu11; @alba15] considers a submersion $\xi\colon M\to B$ to the body frame. The fibers $\xi^{-1}(b)$ represent the flow lines. The action depends on the flow lines namely on the map $\xi$, i.e. the coordinate functions $\xi^A$, and on their spacetime derivatives $\xi^A_\mu$. In this fashion the dynamics of the continua admits a field theoretical formulation. Different type of continua are described by different geometric structures placed on $B$, for instance, in a fluid $B$ would be endowed with a volume form $r(\xi) {{\rm d}}\xi^1\cdots\wedge {{\rm d}}\xi^n$ (telling us the amount of matter in a portion of the continua), while in an elastic material $B$ would be endowed with a metric $\gamma$ (telling us the distance between particles in their rest state). In all cases $B$ inherits a time dependent contravariant metric (telling us the distance between particles on spacetime) by push forward of the contravariant spacetime metric $G^{-1}=\xi_* g^{-1}$, i.e. $G^{AB}=g^{\mu \nu} \xi^A_\mu \xi^B_\mu$. The density can then be shown to be $\rho= r \sqrt{\det G^{AB}}$, and natural Lagrangians can be constructed as functions of $G^{AB}$ or, in the case of a perfect fluid, of $\rho$, $L=F(\rho)$. In fact one can show that variation with respect to the metric returns the stress-energy tensor of the perfect fluid. This approach is natural but somewhat elaborated. It is necessary to introduce the projection $\xi$ and to write an action dependent on the derivatives of such projection, though one is really interested on dynamical equations which do not involve these variables. This drawback has motivated some authors to look for alternative approaches [@ootsuka16; @ariki16]. In this little note I show that the perfect fluid stress-energy tensor can be obtained variationally in a more elementary and direct way. The derivation is really easy and has turned out to be essentially the same of Schutz and Schmid [@schutz70; @schmid70]. Though at present this work is not meant for publication, it could still be useful as an introduction to the topic. As with some other references [@carter73; @comer93; @slobodeanu11], I take the view that the variation should be taken with respect to the metric, and I shall not consider variation with respect to the flow lines. There are three reasons for this choice. Firstly this is the type of variation needed in the variational formulation of gravity coupled with matter. Secondly, while there is evidence that at the fundamental level matter is composed by particles described by vector fields which obey variational equations, there is no reason of principle to believe that [continua]{} should have a dynamical variational description. Indeed, the process of averaging needed to obtain the continua description might lead to ’averaged’ equations which, though coming from variational equations, might not be themselves variational. Finally, it is known that variation with respect to $u$ and other thermodynamic quantities cannot give the correct dynamical equations without the introduction of constraints [@schutz77]. On the contrary, we shall not need to introduce neither constrains nor Lagrange multipliers. Completing the Einstein-Hilbert action -------------------------------------- Let us denote for short $\sqrt{-g} \,{{\rm d}}^{4} x \to {{\rm d}}x$, and let us adopt the conventions of [@misner73] (metric signature $(-,+,+,+)$, units chosen so that $c=G=1$). The Einstein equations are $$G_{\alpha \beta}+\Lambda g_{\mu \nu} =8 \pi T_{\alpha \beta} ,$$ where if variational the stress-energy tensor $T_{\alpha \beta}$ is identified with $$T_{\alpha \beta}=g_{\alpha \beta}L_{(m)}-2 \frac{{\partial}L_{(m)}}{{\partial}g^{\alpha \beta}},$$ where $L_{(m)}$ is the matter Lagrangian. In this case the variational principle is $$S=\int \left(\frac{1}{16\pi }(R-2 \Lambda) +L_{(m)}\right) {{\rm d}}x ,$$ indeed the variation gives $$\begin{aligned} \delta S&=\int \left(-\frac{1}{16\pi } (G^{\mu \nu}+\Lambda g^{\mu \nu})+\frac{1}{2}L_{(m)} g^{\mu \nu}-\frac{{\partial}L_{(m)}}{{\partial}g^{\alpha \beta}}\, g^{\alpha \mu} g^{\beta \nu} \right) \delta g_{\mu \nu}\, {{\rm d}}x, $$ where we used $\delta {{\rm d}}x=\frac{1}{2} g^{\alpha \beta} \delta g_{\alpha \beta} {{\rm d}}x$. By definition a perfect fluid is a continua which admits a stress-energy tensor of the form $$\label{jus} T_{\alpha \beta}= \rho\, u_\alpha u_\beta+p (g_{\alpha \beta}+ u_\alpha u_\beta),$$ where $u$ is the normalized velocity, $g_{\alpha \beta} u^\alpha u^\beta=-1$, and for barotropic fluids the constitutive relation, $\rho=f(p)$, establishes a functional contraint between the density $\rho$ and the pressure $p$. Barotropic fluids ----------------- Let us show that there is indeed a Lagrangian $L_{(m)}(g_{\alpha \beta} )$ which returns the perfect fluid stress-energy tensor with a chosen-in-advance functional dependence between $\rho$ and $p$. We claim that the action with this property is $$\begin{aligned} \label{act} S[g_{\alpha \beta}]&=\int \left (\frac{1}{16\pi }(R-2 \Lambda) + P\left(\sqrt{-g^{\alpha \beta} v_\alpha v_\beta}\,\right) \right) {{\rm d}}x ,\end{aligned}$$ where function $P(x)$ is determined by the differential equation $$\label{msc} xP'-P=f(P).$$ Observe that the left-had side is $P^(P'(x))$ if the Legendre transform $P^$ exists. Equation (\[msc\]) can be easily integrated since the variables can be separated $$x=\exp\left(\int^P \!\!\!\frac{{{\rm d}}\tilde P}{f(\tilde P)+\tilde P}\right).$$ At the stationary point the integral curves of $v^\alpha:=g^{\alpha \beta} v_\beta$ are physically interpreted as the flow lines of the fluid, the pressure is $p:=P$ and $\rho=f(p)$. The variable $x$ is called [index of the fluid]{} and has been proved very useful in the study of perfect fluids [@choquet-bruhat09], for it is basically the logarithmic acceleration potential (see Euler equation (\[hdc\]) below). The starting point of the integration is arbitrary, as a consequence $x$ can be redefined up to a factor. It turns out that at the stationary point $v^\alpha=x u^\alpha$, namely $v$ is the [dynamical velocity]{} of the fluid, again a very useful quantity in the study of perfect fluids [@choquet-bruhat09]. In (\[act\]) $v_\alpha$ is a future directed timelike 1-form field but it [is not]{} a dynamical field with respect to which we need to take a variation (and we stress that the data is the covariant object $v_\alpha$, not $v^\alpha$). Furthermore, it could be normalized with respect to $g$ but that does not imply that the variations of $g$ respect the normalization. This is the key observation which gives room for an interesting variational principle, for otherwise we would have to replace $g^{\alpha \beta} v_\alpha v_\beta$ with $-1$ in Eq. (\[act\]), obtaining something uninteresting. The main idea is that some terms might be trivial ‘on shell’ but variationally non-trivial in general. This fact helps to explain why this action passed unnoticed. Let us prove the claims. Taking the variation and setting $x=(-g^{\alpha \beta} v_\alpha v_\beta)^{1/2}$ $$T_{\alpha \beta}=\frac{1}{x} P'(x) \,v_\alpha v_\beta+g_{\alpha \beta} P(x). \label{jhf}$$ On the stationary point let us set $$\begin{aligned} u_\mu &:= \frac{v_\mu }{ \sqrt{-g^{\alpha \beta} v_\alpha v_\beta} }, \\ \rho&:= x P'(x) -P(x),\\ p&:=P(x),\end{aligned}$$ where $u^\alpha$ is interpreted as the covariant velocity of the continua and $\rho$ and $p$ as density and pressure, respectively. With these definitions $T_{\alpha \beta}$ takes the form (\[jus\]) and by Eq. (\[msc\]), $\rho=f(p)$ as desired. It is natural to ask if a similar result could be obtained given as data a vector field $v^\alpha$. Indeed, it can be done using as action $$\begin{aligned} \label{ace} S[g_{\alpha \beta}]&=\int \left (\frac{1}{16\pi }(R-2 \Lambda) + P\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g_{\alpha \beta} v^\alpha v^\beta}}\right) \right) {{\rm d}}x ,\end{aligned}$$ where $P(x)$ is related to $f$ as before, at the stationary point $x$ is still the index of the fluid, and $p$ and $\rho$ depend on $x$ as before. However, it is not true that $v^\alpha$ is the dynamical velocity of the fluid, which is why we presented the theory in the 1-form version. General perfect fluids ---------------------- Let us denote with $n$ the density of baryons, with $T$ the temperature, with $s$ the entropy per baryon (so $v:=1/n$ is the specific volume and $u:=\rho/n$ is the energy per baryon). The first law of thermodynamics is [@misner73 Sect. 22] $$\label{cko} {{\rm d}}\left(\frac{\rho}{n}\right)=-p \, {{\rm d}}\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)+T {{\rm d}}s$$ which can also be rewritten $${{\rm d}}\rho= \frac{\rho+p}{n}\,{{\rm d}}n+n T {{\rm d}}s .$$ The enthalpy per baryon $h(p,s)$ is the thermodynamic potential defined by $h:=u+p v$, namely $$\label{jud} h=\frac{\rho+p}{n}.$$ From Eq. (\[cko\]) $${{\rm d}}h=\frac{1}{n}\, {{\rm d}}p+T {{\rm d}}s .$$ We can invert $h(p,s)$ so obtaining the function $p=P(h,s)$ which satisfies [@schutz70] $${{\rm d}}p=n {{\rm d}}h- nT {{\rm d}}s ,$$ thus $p_h)_s=n$, $p_s)_h=-nT$. Using Eq. (\[jud\]) we get $\rho=h p_h-h$. Given the function $P$ let $$\begin{aligned} \label{acc} S[g_{\alpha \beta}]&=\int \left (\frac{1}{16\pi }(R-2 \Lambda) + P\left(\sqrt{-g^{\alpha \beta} v_\alpha v_\beta}\,, s\right) \right) {{\rm d}}x ,\end{aligned}$$ then by the already presented calculations we obtain that variation with respect to $g_{\alpha \beta}$ gives the stress-energy tensor of the fluid. It can be observed that the variable $x$ this time is the enthalpy and at the stationary point $v^\alpha = h u^\alpha$ which again is the dynamical velocity (Taub current) in the general case [@choquet-bruhat09]. Furthermore, if we consider the equation obtained varying $v_\alpha$ through exact forms (notice that $v_\alpha$ is not necessarily closed), namely $v_\alpha \to v_\alpha+{\partial}_\alpha \varphi$, we get $$-\int P_h\, \frac{g^{\alpha \beta} v_\alpha {\partial}_\beta \varphi}{\sqrt{-g^{\alpha \beta} v_\alpha v_\beta}} \, {{\rm d}}x=0$$ which after integration by parts and using $p_h)_s=n$ gives $$\label{mod} \nabla_\alpha(n u^\alpha)=0,$$ which is the conservation of baryons. This approach is essentially that of [@schutz70] (see also [@schmid70; @brown93]). We shall see in the next section that the Einstein equations imply $\nabla_u \rho+(\rho+p) \nabla \cdot u=0$. Since the first principle built in the function $P$ implies $\nabla_u \rho=h \nabla_u n+nT \nabla_u s$, we have $$\label{hop} h \nabla_\alpha(n u^\alpha) +n T\nabla_u s=0,$$ and since we have baryon conservation we have also entropy conservation along the flow lines. The idea is that entropy cannot increase if we don’t have neither heat flow nor creation of particles. However, in my opinion, it could be incorrect to impose stationarity under variation of $v$. If done one should hope to get the same equations implied by stress-energy conservation or more, not just different ones. In this way we could consider the matter Lagrangian not in pair with the gravitational one. Schutz goes on to consider a variation of the form $v_\alpha \to v_\alpha+{\partial}_\alpha \varphi+ \theta {\partial}_\alpha s$ where $s$ is the entropy per baryon. The variation with respect to $\varphi$ gives again (\[mod\]). The variation with respect to $\theta$ gives $$\nabla_u s=0$$ while variation with respect to $s$ gives $$\nabla_\alpha (\theta n u^\alpha)-nT=0 \ \Rightarrow \ \nabla_u \theta =T.$$ The variable $\theta=\int T {{\rm d}}\tau+ cnst$ is called [thermasy]{}. Actually, Schutz rather than considering these restricted variations of $v$ claims that $v$ can be parametrized using potentials of which $s, \varphi,\theta$ are a subset. However, it is strange that $s$ appears twice, also outside $v$ in the Lagrangian, and furthermore, if the potentials parametrize any $v$ the variation with respect to the potentials should imply the equation obtained through the variation of $v$ namely $n=0$, which is clearly untenable. I am therefore not entirely convinced that it could be meaningful to vary with respect to the potentials. If one allows for other forms of variations then the option $v_\alpha \to v_\alpha+{\partial}_\alpha \varphi+ \varphi \frac{1}{h}{\partial}_\alpha s$ is interesting since it gives directly (\[hop\]). The equations of motion ----------------------- We have shown that it is possible to obtain the stress-energy tensor of the perfect fluid variationally. Now, since the left-hand side of the Einstein equation is divergence free (by the naturality of the gravitational action, see [@hawking73 Sect. 3.3]), so is the right-hand side, namely $T_{(m) ;\nu}^{\mu \nu}=0$. From here there follow the conservation of mass-energy (continuity equation/first law of thermodynamics) $$\nabla_u \rho+(\rho+p) \nabla \cdot u=0,$$ and the dynamical equation for the continua [@misner73 p. 563] (Euler’s equation) $$\label{hdc} (\rho+p)\, a^\alpha=-h^{\alpha\beta} \nabla_\beta p ,$$ where $a^\alpha=u^\alpha_{;\beta} u^\beta$ is the acceleration and $h^{\alpha}_{ \beta}=\delta^{\alpha}_{ \beta}+u^\alpha u_\beta$ is the projection on the subspace orthogonal to $u$. Since these calculations are well known they will not be repeated here. $\empty$\ For the linear constitutive relation, $f(y)=k y$, we have $P=C x^{1+k}$. Observe that for the vacuum equation of state, namely for $k=-1$, we obtain $P=C$ namely a contribution to the cosmological constant. For a gas of radiation $k=3$ and $P=Cx^{4}$. We conclude that the dynamical equations for perfect fluid continua do admit a simple variational formulation. It is interesting to observe the mechanisms for obtaining these equations requires the Einstein-Hilbert term, namely, the fluid moves as expected but with respect to a spacetime geometry which reacts to the motion of the fluid. Mathematically it could be seen as a drawback since the spacetime geometry is not held fixed, say to the Minkowski form. Physically, however, this could be a satisfactory behavior for the variational formulation seems admissible precisely under physically reasonable assumptions. Still one could perhaps fix the geometry in various ways, either introducing constraints or more naturally, taking the limit in which the gravitational constant goes to zero after the variation, so as to make the influence of matter on geometry negligible. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== I thank Radu Slobodeanu for pointing out several references.\ [10]{} D. Alba and L. Lusanna. Dust in the [Y]{}ork canonical basis of [ADM]{} tetrad gravity: The problem of vorticity. , 12:1550076, 2015. T. Ariki and P. A. Morales. Field theory of the [E]{}ulerian perfect fluid. arXiv:1603.05935v2. M. Baylin. Variational principle for perfect and imperfect fluids in general relativity. , 22:267–279, 1980. J. D. Brown. Action functionals for relativistic perfect fluids. , 10(8):1579, 1993. B. Carter. Elastic perturbation theory in general relativity and a variation principle for a rotating solid star. , 30:261–286, 1973. B. Carter. , volume Relativistic fluid dynamics of [Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1385 C.I.M.E. Foundation Subseries]{}, pages 1–64. Springer, Berlin, 1989. B. Carter. Axionic vorticity variational formulation for relativistic perfect fluids. , 11(8):2013–2030, 1994. Y. Choquet-Bruhat. . Oxford Mathematical Monographs. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009. D Comer, G L; Langlois. Hamiltonian formulation for multi-constituent relativistic perfect fluids. , 10, 1993. S. Dubovsky, T. Gr[é]{}goire, A. Nicolis, and R. Rattazzi. Null energy condition and superluminal propagation. , 03:025, 2006. P. Háj[í]{}[č]{}ek and J. Kijowski. Lagrangian and hamiltonian formalism for discontinuous fluid and gravitational field. , 57:914–935, 1998. S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis. . Cambridge [U]{}niversity [P]{}ress, Cambridge, 1973. J. Kijowski and G. Magli. Unconstrained [H]{}amiltonian formulation of general relativity with thermo-elastic sources. , 15, 1998. J. Kijowski, A. Sm[ó]{}lski, and A. G[ó]{}rnicka. Hamiltonian theory of self-gravitating perfect fluid and a method of effective deparametrization of [E]{}instein’s theory of gravitation. , 41:1875–1884, 1990. J. Kijowski and W. M. Tulczyjew. , volume 107 of [ Lecture Notes in Physics]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1979. J. M. K[ü]{}nzle, H. P.; Nester. Hamiltonian formulation of gravitating perfect fluids and the [N]{}ewtonian limit. , 25, 1984. O. Minazzoli and T. Harko. New derivation of the [L]{}agrangian of a perfect fluid with a barotropic equation of state. , 86:087502, 2012. C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler. . Freeman, San Francisco, 1973. T. Ootsuka, M. Ishida, E. Tanaka, and R. Yahagi. Variational principle of relativistic perfect fluid. arXiv:1605.09087v1, 2016. N. J. Poplawski. A variational formulation of relativistic hydrodynamics. , 373(31):2620–2621, 2009. L. A. Schmid. Variational formulation of relativistic fluid thermodynamics. , 22:493–502, 1970. B. F. Schutz. Perfect fluids in general relativity: [V]{}elocity potentials and a variational principle. , 2:2762–2773, 1970. B. F. Schutz and R. Sorkin. Variational aspects of relativistic field theories, with application to perfect fluids. , 107:1–43, 1977. R. Slobodeanu. Perfect fluid from high power sigma-models. , 8:1763–1782, 2011. A. H. Taub. General relativistic variational principle for perfect fluids. , 94:1468–1470, 1954. [^1]: Dipartimento di Matematica Applicata, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Via S. Marta 3, I-50139 Firenze, Italy. E-mail: [email protected]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We study the low-frequency timing properties and the spectral state evolution of the transient neutron star low-mass X-ray binary EXO 1745–248 using the entire [Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer]{} Proportional Counter Array data. We tentatively conclude that EXO 1745–248 is an atoll source, and report the discovery of a $\approx 0.45$ Hz low-frequency quasi-periodic oscillation and $\sim 10$ Hz peaked noises. If it is an atoll, this source is unusual because (1) instead of a ‘C’-like curve, it traced a clear overall clockwise hysteresis curve in each of the colour-colour diagram and the hardness-intensity diagram; and (2) the source took at least 2.5 months to trace the softer banana state, as opposed to a few hours to a day, which is typical for an atoll source. The shape of the hysteresis track was intermediate between the characteristic ‘q’-like curves of several black hole systems and ‘C’-like curves of atolls, implying that EXO 1745–248 is an important source for the unification of the black hole and neutron star accretion processes.' author: - \| Arunava Mukherjee$^{1}$[^1] and Sudip Bhattacharyya$^{1}$[^2]\ $^{1}$Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai 400005, India date: title: 'Hysteresis in the spectral states of the neutron star low-mass X-ray binary EXO 1745–248' --- \[firstpage\] accretion, accretion discs — methods: data analysis — stars: neutron — techniques: miscellaneous — X-rays: binaries — X-rays: individual (EXO 1745–248) Introduction {#Introduction} ============ The spectral states and the correlated timing properties of neutron star and black hole low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs) can be very useful to understand the extreme environments of these sources [@vanderKlis2006]. An excellent way to study these properties is to track these sources in the colour-colour diagram (CD; hard colour (HC) vs. soft colour (SC)) and in the hardness-intensity diagram (HID; hard colour vs. intensity; see § \[DataAnalysisandResults\]). From the beginning of an outburst, the intensity of a transient black hole source increases, typically keeping the HC at a near-constant value. Near the highest intensity the HC value quickly decreases, followed by an intensity decrease at a lower HC value, and a soft-to-hard transition at a lower intensity value. Thus a black hole LMXB typically traces a ‘q’-like hysteresis curve in the HID [@vanderKlis2006; @Belloni2009]. It is usually believed that neutron star LMXBs do not trace hysteresis curves in CD/HIDs [@vanderKlis2006]. For example, the near-Eddington Z sources trace out roughly ‘Z’ shaped tracks on time scales of hours to a day, while the less luminous atoll sources have ‘C’ shaped tracks [@vanStraatenetal2003; @vanderKlis2006]. The lower HC banana-like portion (BS) of the ‘C’ track can be divided into upper banana (UB), lower banana (LB) and lower left banana (LLB) based on spectral and timing properties. The BS is traced out on time scales of hours to a day without any hysteresis [@vanderKlis2006]. On the other hand, the higher HC extreme island state (EIS) is traced out in days to weeks, and secular motions in the form of parallel tracks are seen in EIS. An atoll source moves from EIS to BS via an island state (IS). Probably the only transient atoll source showing a ‘q’-like hysteresis HID curve is Aql X-1 (@MaitraBailyn2004 [@Reigetal2004]; see also @Bellonietal2007 for 4U 1636–53 tracks). Such neutron star LMXBs, and more importantly sources showing intermediate tracks between ‘q’ and ‘C’, can be very useful (1) to unify the black hole and neutron star accretion processes, and (2) to sort out the mismatch between the standard EIS-IS-BS framework and the general hysteresis phenomena. In this Letter, we show that the bursting neutron star LMXB EXO 1745–248 [@MarkwardtSwank2000; @Wijnandsetal2002; @Heinkeetal2003] is such an intermediate source with unique properties. Data Analysis and Results {#DataAnalysisandResults} ========================= The neutron star transient LMXB EXO 1745–248 was observed with [Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer]{} ([RXTE]{}) in 2000 and 2002: (1) between Jul 13, 2000 (start time: 04:43:28) and Nov 3, 2000 (end time: 00:17:52; proposal nos.: P50054 and P50138); and (2) between Jul 2, 2002 (start time: 20:38:24) and Jul 22, 2002 (end time: 11:04:00; proposal no.: P70412) for a total observation time of 144 ks. We have produced CD and HID using the entire standard-2 mode data from the top layers of Proportional Counter Unit (PCU) 2. We have defined HC and SC as the ratio of the background-subtracted detector counts in the $(9.2-18.9)/(5.7-9.2)$ and $(3.9-5.7)/(2.6-3.9)$ keV energy bands, respectively. We have been able to divide the 2000 data in nine temporal segments, i.e., nine phases (see Table 1 for time ranges). Each phase traces a distiguishable portion of the HID track (see Fig. \[HID\]). This figure shows that the source starts from a low intensity and a high HC value, and in the hard state (phase 1–4) it traces a few adjacent curved parallel tracks below the intensity $\sim 450$ counts/s/PCU and in the HC range of $\sim 0.6-1.3$. Unlike Aql X–1 and several black-hole sources, the intensity of EXO 1745–248 does not increase much in the highest HC value. Rather, Fig. \[HID\] shows that the HC value decreases substantially and the intensity increases at a lower HC value of $\sim 0.6$ in the hard state. During the transition from phase 4 to phase 5, the source goes through a large intensity (in $2.6-18.9$ keV) jump from $\sim 361$ counts/s/PCU to $\sim 1135$ counts/s/PCU while having a relatively small change in the HC value ($\sim 0.60$ to $\sim 0.36$; see Table 1 and Fig. \[HID\]). In the high intensity state (phase 5–7) the source shows a clear anti-clockwise loop (hysteresis; Fig. \[HID\]). EXO 1745–248 undergoes a moderate intensity jump from phase 7 to phase 8, and the intensity steadily decreases up to phase 9 while keeping the HC value nearly same (Fig. \[HID\]). The lower intensity portion of phase 9 shows a significant increase in HC value. Since the ASM data confirm that the source intensity further decreases into the quiescence, Fig. \[HID\] implies a clear overall clockwise loop (hysteresis) of the source. The Intensity and HC values of phase 10 (2002 data) are consistent with those of phases 8 and 9. The phases 5–10 show a clear banana-like track in the CD (Fig. \[CCD\]). In the hard state, two phases (1,3), which display substantial changes in HC values, show large variation in SC values. In order to identify the spectral states of EXO 1745–248, we have analyzed the low-frequency power spectra of each phase using all the PCA event-mode data with a standard technique [@vanderKlis1989]. Each Leahy-normalized power spectrum has a Nyquist frequency of 128 Hz and the best resolution of 0.004 Hz. We have fitted the continuum component of a power spectrum with a constant+powerlaw model (describing white and red noises, respectively) and any narrow feature with a Lorentzian. The hard state (Phase 1–4) power spectra are typically well described with a constant+powerlaw, having a strong red noise (typical RMS $\sim 25 - 45 \%$) below $\sim 10$ Hz with the Leahy-power reaching $> 1000$ at 0.004 Hz (see panel [a]{} of Fig. \[LF-Powspec\]; Table 1). Only one power spectrum in hard state shows a significant ($1-3.28 \times 10^{-10} $) low-frequency quasi-periodic oscillation (LFQPO) at $0.452 \pm 0.0049$ Hz with a quality (Q) factor of $6.3 \pm 1.93$ (see Table 1 and panel [b]{} of Fig. \[LF-Powspec\]). A high intensity state (phase 5–7) power spectrum typically shows a very-low-frequency-noise (VLFN) below $\sim 1$ Hz with an RMS $\sim 6 - 10 \%$ having the Leahy-power reaching a few times 100 at 0.004 Hz. Such a power spectrum also shows a weak broad hump near 0.3 Hz (panel [c]{} of Fig. \[LF-Powspec\]; Table 1). A phase 8 power spectrum shows a red noise (RMS $\sim 5 - 25 \%$) roughly below 0.1 Hz with the Leahy-power reaching about $100$ at 0.004 Hz (panel [d]{} of Fig. \[LF-Powspec\]). In most cases, such a power spectrum has a significant peaked noise at $\sim 10$ Hz (see Table 1 and panel [e]{} of Fig. \[LF-Powspec\]). For example, the peaked noise in the data set of Nov 17, 2000 (03:46:10–04:45:07) has a significance of $1-7.9 \times 10^{-175}$, a centroid-frequency of $11.01 \pm 0.25$ Hz, an RMS-amplitude of $(5.8 \pm 0.14)\%$ and a Q-factor of $0.73 \pm 0.046$. A typical phase 9 power spectrum has a red noise (RMS $\sim 4 - 12\%$) below $\sim 0.02$ Hz with the Leahy-power reaching a few times 10 at 0.004 Hz (panel [f]{} of Fig. \[LF-Powspec\]). In Fig. \[CCD-HID\], we have displayed the locations of the thermonuclear bursts, the LFQPO and the kilohertz (kHz) QPO [@MukherjeeBhattacharyya2011] in the CD and the HID. While the non-photospheric-radius-expansion (non-PRE) bursts occured in the hard state, the PRE bursts and the kHz QPO appeared in phase 8 (Table 1). Discussion and Conclusions {#Discussion} ========================== In this Letter, we have studied the evolution of spectral states of the neutron star LMXB EXO 1745–248. We tentatively conclude that it is an atoll source because of the following reasons. (1) From the spectral fitting, we find that the observed $2-30$ keV unabsorbed source flux varied in the range $(0.05-2.12)\times10^{-8}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. Such a large intensity variation does not happen in a source, which shows an exclusive ‘Z’ behaviour [@vanderKlis2006]. (2) The hard colours (Fig. \[HID\]) of EXO 1745–248 are consistent with those of atoll sources, but different from Z sources [@Munoetal2002]. (3) The source shows parallel tracks for the higher hard colour values in HID (Fig. \[HID\]), which are typical of atoll sources [@vanderKlis2006]. (4) Shape of the CD track for lower hard colour values looks like a banana (Fig. \[CCD\]). (5) Hard state to soft state transition of the source was plausibly quick [@vanderKlis2006]. (6) PRE bursts were found in the softer state (Fig. \[CCD-HID\]), as usually observed for fast spinning neutron star LMXBs [@Munoetal2004]. (7) The kHz QPO was observed in the transitional state (plausibly LB/LLB), which is usual for atolls [@MaitraBailyn2004; @vanderKlis2006]. (8) VLFN at $< 1$ HZ was observed in BS, and $\sim 10$ Hz peaked noise was detected in the transitional state (plausibly LB/LLB), which are usual for atolls [@MaitraBailyn2004; @vanderKlis2006]. (9) Red noise RMS is higher in the hard state [@vanderKlis2006]. However, although we cannot confirm, there is some chance that at the most intense state, the source transformed into a Z source (e.g., @Homanetal2010). This is because, the estimated source luminosity in this state was $\sim 0.5$ times the Eddington luminosity [@vanderKlis2006], for a $2-30$ keV flux of $2.12\times10^{-8}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, and assuming a 5.5 kpc source distance, 1.4 M$_\odot$ neutron star mass, 6.0 stellar radius-to-mass ratio and ionized hydrogenic accreted matter. EXO 1745–248 is very interesting, unusual and important for the following reasons. (1) The source exhibited a clear overall clockwise hysteresis in HID and CD (Fig. \[HID\] and \[CCD\]). A local anti-clockwise hysteresis is also observed in the high intensity state (plausibly UB). (2) In the hard state (plausibly EIS), unlike a typical atoll, the hard colour changed largely, and no horizontal track is present at the highest hard colour in HID [@vanderKlis2006]. Moreover, the hard-to-soft transition involved a large change in intensity, unlike several black hole sources. These caused an HID-track-shape intermediate between atoll ‘C’ tracks and black hole ‘q’ tracks. (3) In CD/HID, the source moved from EIS to UB, while usually an atoll moves to LB/LLB from EIS [@vanStraatenetal2003; @vanderKlis2006]. (4) The CD/HID tracks of EXO 1745–248 could be segmented in time (Fig. \[HID\] and \[CCD\]). Several segments can be distinguished by timing properties (Fig. \[LF-Powspec\]), which shows that these segments are actually in different states, i.e., not in the same state shifted by secular motions. The source typically dwells in a segment for a few days to about a month (Table 1). (5) EXO 1745–248 took at least 2.5 months to trace the BS, as opposed to a few hours to a day, which is typical for an atoll source [@vanderKlis2006]. The CD/HID hysteresis tracks of EXO 1745–248 could be very useful to relate the accretion processes in neutron star systems and black hole systems (§ \[Introduction\]). Finally, the HID hysteresis track of EXO 1745–248, which is intermediate between the ‘q’-like hysteresis track of Aql X-1 and ‘C’-like non-hysteresis tracks of most atoll sources, suggests that the popular EIS-IS-BS framework of ‘C’-like tracks might be a special case of a more general hysteresis behaviour. However, observations of more such intermediate sources are required to verify this. Belloni T., 2009, (astro-ph/0909.2474v1) Belloni T., Homan J., Motta S., Ratti E., 2007, MNRAS, 379, 247 Heinke C.O., Edmonds P.D., Grindlay J.E., Lloyd D.A., Cohn H.N., Lugger P.M., 2003, ApJ, 590, 809 Homan J., van der Klis M., Fridriksson J.K., et al., 2010, ApJ, 719, 201 Maitra D., Bailyn C.D., 2004, ApJ, 608, 444 Markwardt C.B., Swank J.H., 2000, IAUC, 7454, 1 Mukherjee A., Bhattacharyya S., 2011, (astro-ph/1101.0358) Muno M.P., Galloway D.K., Chakrabarty D., 2004, ApJ, 608, 930 Muno M.P., Remillard R.A., Chakrabarty D., 2002, ApJ, 568, L35 Reig P., van Straaten S., van der Klis M., 2004, ApJ, 602, 918 van der Klis M., 1989, Eds. H. Ögelman and E.P.J. van den Heuvel, (Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston), 27 van der Klis M., 2006, in [Compact Stellar X-ray Sources]{}, eds. Lewin W.H.G., van der Klis M., Cambridge Univ. Press, 39, 39 van Straaten S., van der Klis M., Mèndez M., 2003, ApJ, 596, 1155 Wijnands R., Homan J., Remillard R., 2002, ATel, 101, 1 Phase Start time$^{1}$ End time$^{2}$ Soft-colour$^{3}$ Hard-colour$^{4}$ Intensity$^{5}$ Remarks$^{6}$ --------- --------------------- --------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ----------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phase1 13/07/2000 04:43:28 13/07/2000 05:13:04 2.2418623 0.68810917 137.27226 No narrow feature. 21/07/2000 10:23:28 21/07/2000 11:44:00 2.2798728 0.65725367 133.26667 The Leahy-powers start rising Phase2 24/07/2000 15:15:28 24/07/2000 16:16:00 2.1178232 0.66027898 213.43736 significantly above 2 in $\sim 2-12$ Hz, 06/08/2000 12:55:28 06/08/2000 13:28:00 2.0948016 0.65078129 240.75461 and reach above 1000 at 0.004 Hz Phase3 06/08/2000 14:00:32 06/08/2000 15:10:08 2.1486752 0.63243319 252.97392 (see Fig. \[LF-Powspec\]-a). 13/08/2000 09:58:24 13/08/2000 11:08:00 3.1275264 0.87214917 84.047352 Non-PRE bursts observed. Phase4 13/08/2000 11:39:28 13/08/2000 12:50:08 2.0437827 0.61713214 195.17507 Similar to the phases $1-3$. An LFQPO 15/08/2000 17:57:52 15/08/2000 19:26:40 2.054908 0.59863458 360.6038 is detected in one segment (Fig. \[LF-Powspec\]-b). Phase5 18/08/2000 13:08:32 18/08/2000 13:41:36 1.9404588 0.35567838 1135.4601 The Leahy-powers start rising 21/08/2000 19:36:32 21/08/2000 19:55:44 1.8951522 0.35778984 977.661 significantly above 2 below $\sim 1$ Hz, Phase6 24/08/2000 10:48:48 24/08/2000 11:19:44 2.0420255 0.45687916 1191.8152 and reach above 100 at 0.004 Hz. 27/08/2000 05:51:28 27/08/2000 06:28:00 1.9212794 0.41142752 897.9504 A plausible hump at $\sim0.3$ Hz is Phase7 27/08/2000 06:53:36 27/08/2000 08:10:56 1.8786671 0.36700101 806.13514 typically seen (see Fig. \[LF-Powspec\]-c). 30/08/2000 15:23:28 30/08/2000 15:46:40 1.9175748 0.39400707 777.30473 Phase8 05/09/2000 09:41:20 05/09/2000 11:13:04 1.809879 0.37902471 340.92112 The Leahy-powers start rising 06/10/2000 05:00:32 06/10/2000 05:13:36 1.75375 0.38471589 164.56586 significantly above 2 below $\sim 0.1$ Hz, and reach $\approx 100$ at 0.004 Hz. A peaked noise around 10 Hz is typically seen (see Figs. \[LF-Powspec\]-d and \[LF-Powspec\]-e). PRE bursts and kHz QPO found in this phase. Phase9 09/10/2000 05:13:20 09/10/2000 05:50:56 1.732144 0.4048109 120.68564 The Leahy-powers start rising 03/11/2000 00:02:24 03/11/2000 00:17:52 1.3439725 0.45464597 4.9097872 significantly above 2 below $\sim 0.02$ Hz, and reach above 10 at 0.004 Hz (Fig. \[LF-Powspec\]-f). Phase10 02/07/2002 20:38:24 02/07/2002 20:47:44 1.6929414 0.30983275 280.54887 Roughly similar to phase 9. 22/07/2002 08:46:24 22/07/2002 11:04:00 1.4488735 0.56095016 20.41566 $^1$Start time of the first (upper line) and the last (lower line) continuous time segments of the phase.\ $^2$ End time of the first (upper line) and the last (lower line) continuous time segments of the phase.\ $^3$Soft-colours (defined in § \[DataAnalysisandResults\]) of the first time bin of the first continuous time segment (upper line), and the last time bin of the last continuous time segment (lower line) of the phase.\ $^4$Hard-colours (defined in § \[DataAnalysisandResults\]) of the first time bin of the first continuous time segment (upper line), and the last time bin of the last continuous time segment (lower line) of the phase.\ $^5$Intensities (defined in § \[DataAnalysisandResults\]) of the first time bin of the first continuous time segment (upper line), and the last time bin of the last continuous time segment (lower line) of the phase.\ $^6$Primarily a short description of a typical power spectrum of the phase (§ \[DataAnalysisandResults\]).\ ![image](fig1.ps){width="\textwidth"} ![image](fig2.ps){width="\textwidth"} ---------------------------------------- ![image](fig3.eps){width="\textwidth"} ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ![image](fig4.ps){width="\textwidth"} --------------------------------------- [^1]: E-mail: [email protected] [^2]: E-mail: [email protected]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We show the existence of dynamical purity swapping phenomena in the Jaynes-Cummings model. Moreover we show that purity swapping between a qubit and a generic quantum system is possible, provided they are coupled via non-unitary matrix elements interaction. We particularize to the case of a quantum optical Ramsey interferometer. We show that using purity swapping, a perfect interference pattern can be obtained at the output port of the interferometer even if we start from totally unpolarized sources. This feature is shown to be associated with the phenomena of recreation of the state vector at half of the revival time. In fact, we show that the Gea-Banacloche attractor is robust against degradation of the purity of the qubit input state. We also show that the Tsallis entropy $T_2$ is a useful entanglement monotone allowing one to relate directly entanglement with purity exchange in interacting systems. We conjecture an Araki-Lieb type inequality for $T_2$ that bounds the maximum interchange of purity between interacting systems.' address: \| Departamento de Física Aplicada II.Universidad de Sevilla.\ 41012-Seville, Spain. author: - 'J. Martínez-Manso and J. Martínez-Linares' title: 'Purity Swapping in the Jaynes-Cummings Model: Obtaining Perfect Interference Patterns from Totally Unpolarized Qubits' --- Introduction ============ The Jaynes-Cummings Model (JCM) is a paradigmatic description for many problems involving the interaction of spin-like two-level systems with single mode bosonic systems [@shore]. Examples can be found in a large variety of systems, ranging from quantum dots coupled to optical or microwave fields [@wilson] to circuit-QED, e.g., in a Cooper-pair box of a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) [@blais]. Another well known example is cavity QED [@berman], covering systems like Rydberg atoms in microwave cavities [@Hagley97] or trapped ions cavity QED [@guth; @mundt]. The inherent ability of the strong coupling regime of cavity-QED to coherently convert quantum states between material qubits and photon qubits opens the door to a large number of applications to quantum information processing (QIP) [@raimond]. Entanglement is a fundamental quantum non-local resource in QIP which lacks, however, of a complete quantification [@chuang]. In this paper we will show that linear entropies $\mathcal{G}$ are a useful entanglement measure [@gallis96] that allows us to relate entanglement with the the interchange of purity between interacting systems. We conjecture [@footnote4] that the linear entropies satisfy the Araki-Lieb type inequality $$\|\mathcal{G_A}-\mathcal{G_B}\|\leq \mathcal{G_{AB}} \leq \mathcal{G_A}+\mathcal{G_B} \label{O13.7},$$ for a composite system $\mathcal{AB}$. Eq. (\[O13.7\]) is an important relation, since it bounds the possibility of a mutual transfer of purity between interacting $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ subsystems. The aim of this paper is two fold. First, to study $\mathcal{G}$ as an entanglement measure for the JCM. This will lead us to a remarkable result: the existence of dynamical purity swapping in this system bounded by Eq. (\[O13.7\]). We accompany this results with numerical simulations supporting the validity of Eq. (\[O13.7\]) for the JCM. Second, to find a necessary condition for purity swapping in a general interaction between a qubit and a generic quantum system. To achieve this goal we will follow a recent interferometric approach [@Jesus04; @Jesus07], developed to keep track of which-way information (WWI) in duality experiments. This will allow us to answer the question: can we obtain a perfect interference pattern starting from a totally unpolarized source? This paper is organized as follows. In Section II we will describe the Tsallis entropies as entanglement monotones. In Section III we study an interferometer coupled to unitary which-way markers (WWM). This will allow us to setup the notation and show that for the question posed in the previous paragraph the answer is negative. In section IV we show that this is no longer the case for non-unitary WWM. In Section V we particularize the formalism to a QORI. We end up with conclusions and a summary of the results. Tsallis entropies as entanglement monotones =========================================== The entanglement of the pure states of a bipartite $\mathcal{A},\,\mathcal{B}$ system is completely quantified by a unique measure [@popescu] but only in a specific asymptotic limit. This measure is the entropy of entanglement [@bennett] $$E=S(\rho_\mathcal{A})=S(\rho_\mathcal{B}), \label{O0.1}$$ where $S(\rho)=-\textup{tr}\rho\log_2\rho$ is the Von Neumann entropy and $\rho_{\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B}}=\textup{tr}_{\mathcal{B},\mathcal{A}}\,\rho_{\mathcal{A B}}$ are the reduced density matrices of the $\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{B})$ subsystem obtained after partial tracing the overall state over the other $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{A})$ subsystem. The entropy of entanglement satisfies the Araki-Lieb inequality [@araki-lieb] $$\|\mathcal{S_A}-\mathcal{S_B}\|\leq \mathcal{S_{AB}} \leq \mathcal{S_A}+\mathcal{S_B} \label{O13.61}.$$ Outside the asymptotic limit, or for mixed states, $E$ is no longer a good measure of entanglement. Here, there are a number of different measures of entanglement that have been proposed [@bennett2]. One of them are the entanglement monotones ($EM$) [@vidal2000], which consist in any function of the quantum state non-increasing under LOCC (local operations and classical communication). An example of $EM$ are the $\alpha$-entropies [@wehrl] $$S_\alpha=\frac{1}{1-\alpha}\log_2\textup{tr}\rho^\alpha,\;\;\;\alpha\,\epsilon\,[0,1]. \label{O0.2}$$ It is also easy to show that the non-additive Tsallis q-entropies [@tsallis88] $$T_q=\frac{1}{q-1}\left(1-\textup{tr}\rho^q\right) \label{O0.3}$$ are also $EM$ measures for $q>0$. Note that the entropy of entanglement $E$ is recovered in the limit $\alpha\rightarrow1$ and $q\rightarrow1$, respectively. Tsallis $EM$ will prove an useful tool for analyzing the entanglement properties of our system. Concretely we will use $T_2$, which has a direct physical meaning, since it is directly related to the purity of the state $P=\textup{tr}\rho^2$. $T_2$ has been called the linear entropy [@gallis96] $$\mathcal{G}_\mathcal{O}=1-P_\mathcal{O}, \label{O0.4}$$ where the subscript $\mathcal{O}=(\mathcal{A},\,\mathcal{B},\,\mathcal{AB})$ refers to the system under consideration. $\mathcal{G}_\mathcal{AB}$ satisfies the non-extensive property $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{G_{AB}}=\mathcal{G_A}+\mathcal{G_B}-\mathcal{G_A}\mathcal{G_B},\label{O13.3}\end{aligned}$$ for the case of uncorrelated $\mathcal{A},\, \mathcal{B}$ subsystems [@tsallis88; @raggio]. Inserting Eq. (\[O0.4\]) into (\[O13.3\]), this property reduces to the factorization condition $$P_{\mathcal{AB}}=P_{\mathcal{A}} P_{\mathcal{B}}\label{O13.31}$$ for the purity of a factorizable state $\rho_{\mathcal{AB}}=\rho_{\mathcal{A}}\otimes \rho_{\mathcal{B}}$. As a matter of fact, additivity is not an [a-priori]{} requirement for a good measure of entanglement [@vidal99]. Thus, we will use the linear entropy $\mathcal{G}=T_2$ as an $EM$. This will allow us to relate entanglement with purity exchange in interacting systems. Two-way interferometers with unitary WWM ======================================== Let’s consider the two-way interferometer showed in Fig. 1(a). Following [@Jesus04], we describe the quanton degree of freedom as a two-level system. Its initial state is prepared as $$\rho_Q^{(0)} = \frac{1}{2} \left( 1 + \boldsymbol{s}_Q^{(0)} \cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma} \right), \label{1}$$ where $\boldsymbol{\sigma} = (\sigma_x,\sigma_y,\sigma_z) $ are the usual Pauli spin operators and $\boldsymbol{s}_Q^{(0)} = (s_{Qx}^{(0)}, s_{Qy}^{(0)}, s_{Qz}^{(0)}) $ is the Bloch vector of the quanton describing its initial polarization state. The norm of the Bloch vector comprises particle-like and wave-like information. In fact [@Englert96] $${\|\boldsymbol{s}^{(0)}_Q\|}^2 ={s_{Qx}^{(0)}}^2+\left({s_{Qy}^{(0)}}^2+{s_{Qz}^{(0)}}^2\right)=\mathcal{P}^2+\mathcal{V}_{0}^2={\|\boldsymbol{s}^{(f)}_Q\|}^2, \label{O2}$$ where $\mathcal{V}_0$ is the visibility of the interference pattern at the output port of the interferometer and $\mathcal{P}=\|\omega_+ - \omega_-\|=\|{s}^{(0)}_{Qx}\|$ [@footnote1] is the predictability of the alternative ways taken by the quanton. Here $\omega_\pm$ are the probabilities for the quanton taking the up or down ways after passage of the beam splitter. The norm of the Bloch vector is directly related to the purity of the state $$P_Q=\text{tr}\, \rho_Q^{2}=\frac{1}{2}(1+\|\boldsymbol{s}_Q\|^2) \label{O2.1},$$ so $\|\boldsymbol{s}_Q\|$ is conserved at all times under unitary evolution, i.e., $\|\boldsymbol{s}^{(0)}_Q\|=\|\boldsymbol{s}^{(f)}_Q\|$ where $f$ stands for the final state of the quanton. This is no longer the case if a which-way-marker (WWM) is additionally inserted in order to acquire extra which-way information (WWI), in the guise of Fig. 1(b). Once the quanton passes through the WWM, it transforms the marker’s state as $$\rho _{M}^{(0)}\rightarrow U_{\pm }^{\dag } \, \rho _{M}^{(0)} \, U_{\pm }\equiv \rho _{M}^{(\pm )}, \label{O3}$$ where $\rho _{M}^{(0)}$ is the initial state of the marker. $U_{+}$ and $U_{-}$ are unitary operators describing the action of the WWM. The fringe visibility is now given [@Englert96] by the expression $$\mathcal{V} = \|\mathcal{C}\| \mathcal{V}_0 \, \label{O4},$$ where $$\mathcal{C}\equiv \text{tr}_{M}\left\{ U_{+}^{\dag }\, \rho _{M}^{(0)} \, U_{-}\right\} \label{O5}$$ is a contrast factor, $ 0\le \|\mathcal{C}\|\le 1$. Thus, the visibility with WWM is always equal or lesser than $\mathcal{V}_0$. This implies a degradation of the norm of the Bloch vector, which is now given by [@Englert96] $${\|\boldsymbol{s}^{(f)}_Q\|}^2 =\mathcal{P}^2+\mathcal{V}^2, \label{O6}$$ Combining Eq. (\[O0.4\]) with Eqs. (\[O2.1\]) and (\[O6\]) we obtain $$\Delta P_Q=P^{(f)}_Q- P^{(0)}_Q=\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{V}^2_0\left(\|\mathcal{C}\|^2-1\right).\label{O6.2}$$ Thus, the purity of the quanton always decreases or stays equal as a result of the interaction with unitary WWM. According to Eq. (\[O6.2\]), the purity is conserved ($\|\mathcal{C}\|=1$) in the absence of entanglement between quanton and WWM ($\|U_+\|=\|U_-\|$). Since the purity of the quanton never increases, starting with a totally unpolarized source ($\|\boldsymbol{s}^{(0)}_Q\|=0$) it is just impossible to obtain an interference pattern in any two-way interferometer coupled to any unitary WWM. This can be seen explicitly in Eq. (\[O4\]), since $\mathcal{V}_0=\sqrt{\|\boldsymbol{s}^{(0)}_{Qy}\|^2+\|\boldsymbol{s}^{(0)}_{Qz}\|^2}=0$ in this case. ![\[fig2\] Schematic two-way interferometer setup, composed by: (a) A Beam splitter (BS), a Phase Shifter (PS) and a Beam Merger (BM). (b) The interferometer is supplemented with an additional quantum degree of freedom, the WWM, characterized by unitary $U_{\pm}$ evolution. (c) The unitary condition of $U_{\pm}$ is released to account for more general coupling to a WWM. Here, the evolution operator $U$ may exhibit non-unitary matrix elements.](Fig1.eps) Two-way interferometers with non-unitary WWM ============================================ Let us prepare the quanton initially in the state $s^{(0)}_Q=(0,0,s)$, where $-1\leq s \leq 1$ is the inversion [@footnote2]. Consider now the case plotted in Fig. 1(c). The state is given initially by $\rho^{(0)}=\rho_Q^{(0)}\otimes\rho_M^{(0)}$. The system evolves in time, $\rho^{(0)}\longrightarrow\rho^{(f)}=U^\dagger\rho^{(0)}U$ according to the unitary operator $$\label{O7} U = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \begin{array}{cc} V_{++} & V_{+-} \\ -V_{-+} & V_{--} \end{array} \right),$$\ where we have followed the notation given in [@Englert96b]. Although $U$ is unitary, it might not be the case for its matrix elements separately. The particular case $V_{++}=V_{-+}=U_+,\; V_{+-}=V_{--}=U_-$ recovers the situation described in Eq. (\[O3\]). The final state of the quanton, after application of all the transformation representing all the elements of the interferometer given in Fig. 1(c), is calculated in [@Jesus07] to be $$\label{O19} \rho^{(f)}=\frac{1+s}{2} \; \rho^{(+)} +\frac{1-s}{2} \; \rho^{(-)} ,$$ with $$\begin{aligned} \label{O20} \rho_+^{(f)}=\frac{1+\sigma_x}{4}V_{++}^{\dag}\rho_M^{(0)}V_{++}+\frac{1-\sigma_x}{4}V_{+-}^{\dag}\rho_M^{(0)}V_{+-} \nonumber\\ -\frac{\sigma_z -i\sigma_y}{4}e^{-i\phi}V_{++}^{\dag}\rho_M^{(0)}V_{+-}-\frac{\sigma_z +i\sigma_y}{4}e^{i\phi}V_{+-}^{\dag}\rho_M^{(0)}V_{++}, \nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ \ and $\rho_-^{(f)}$ is obtained from $\rho_+^{(f)}$ through the changes $V_{++}\rightarrow -V_{-+},\;V_{+-}\rightarrow V_{--}$. Tracing over the cavity field degree of freedom, the final Bloch vector of the quanton can be calculated to be $$\begin{aligned} S_{Qx}^{(f)} &=& w_+ -w_- \, , \nonumber \\ %S_{Qy}^{(f)} &=& -\frac{1+s}{2} \; \Im m \left[\mathcal{C}_\uparrow %e^{-i\phi}\right] - \frac{1-s}{2} \; \Im %m\left[\mathcal{C}_\downarrow e^{-i\phi}\right], %\nonumber\\ S_{Qy}^{(f)} &=& \Re e\left[\mathcal{C}e^{-i\phi }\right] , \nonumber\\ S_{Qz}^{(f)} &=& i\Im m \left[\mathcal{C} e^{-i\phi}\right] ,\label{O7.1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi$ is the phase induced by the phase shifter. The contrast factor reads $$\mathcal{C} = \frac{1+s}{2} \; \mathcal{C}_{\uparrow} + \frac{1-s}{2}\; \mathcal{C}_{\downarrow} , \label{O7.5}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{C}_{\uparrow} &\equiv& i\;\mbox{tr}_D \, \left\{ V_{++}^{\dag }\rho_{D}^{(0)}V_{+-}\right\}= i\left< V_{+-} V_{++}^{\dag } \right>_0 , \nonumber \\ \mathcal{C}_{\downarrow} &\equiv& -i\;\mbox{tr}_D \, \left\{ V_{-+}^{\dag }\rho_{D}^{(0)}V_{--}\right\}= -i\left< V_{--} V_{-+}^{\dag } \right>_0 . \label{O7.8}\end{aligned}$$ The general form of $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{V}$ has also been calculated in [@Jesus07]. They read $$\mathcal{P}=\|\omega_+ - \omega_-\|=\|s^{(f)}_{Qx}\|, \label{O7.2}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} w_+ &=&\frac{1+s}{4} \; \left< V_{++} V_{++}^{\dag } \right>_0 +\frac{1-s}{4} \; \left< V_{-+} V_{-+}^{\dag } \right>_0 , \nonumber\\ w_- &=&\frac{1+s}{4} \; \left< V_{+-} V_{+-}^{\dag } \right>_0 +\frac{1-s}{4} \; \left< V_{--} V_{--}^{\dag } \right>_0 . \label{O7.3}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{V} = \|\mathcal{C}\| \leq1. \label{O7.4}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\mathcal{V}_0$ does not factorize now in the right hand side of Eq. (\[O7.4\]) as it did in Eq. (\[O4\]). This fact opens the door to he possibility of obtaining an interference pattern from an unpolarized source ($\mathcal{V}_0=0$) that will be explored in the next section. Combining Eqs. (\[O7.1\]) and (\[O7.4\]) we have $$\mathcal{V}^2=\|s^{(f)}_{Qy}\|^2+\|s^{(f)}_{Qz}\|^2. \label{O7.9}$$ Summing Eqs. (\[O7.9\]) and (\[O7.2\]) we get $$\|s^{(f)}_{Q}\|^2=\mathcal{V}^2 + \mathcal{P}^2. \label{O7.10}$$ We find that Eq. (\[O7.10\]) is a general result, valid even in the case of non-unitary WWM. The final state of the WWM can be calculated after tracing $\rho^{(f)}$ over the quanton’s degree of freedom. It reads [@Jesus07] $$\label{O7.11} \rho_M^{(f)}= \text{tr}_Q\,\rho^{(f)} =\omega_+ \; \rho_M^{(+)} +\omega_- \; \rho^{(-)}_M ,$$ where $$\begin{aligned} w_+ \rho_M^{(+)}&=& \text{tr}_Q \left\{\frac{1+\sigma_x}{2} \; \rho^{(f)}\right\} \nonumber\\ &=& \frac{1+s}{4}\; V_{++}^{\dag} \rho_D^o V_{++} +\frac{1-s}{4} \; V_{-+}^{\dag} \rho_D^o V_{-+} , \nonumber\\ w_- \rho_M^{(-)}&=& \text{tr}_Q \left\{ \frac{1-\sigma_x}{2} \; \rho^{(f)} \right\} \nonumber\\ &=& \frac{1+s}{4} \; V_{+-}^{\dag} \rho_D^o V_{+-} +\frac{1-s}{4} \; V_{--}^{\dag} \rho_D^o V_{--} \label{O7.12}\end{aligned}$$ are the contributions associated to each way. In order to analyze the exchange of entropy between quanton and WWM we make use of the $EM$ measures introduced in Eq. (\[O0.4\]). The purity of the final WWM state can be calculated with the help of Eqs. (\[O7.11\]) and (\[O7.12\]) in the form $$\begin{aligned} P_M=\text{tr}\rho_M^{2}=\frac{(1+s)^2}{16}\;\left[\left< V_{++} V_{++}^{\dag } \right>_0^2 +\left< V_{+-} V_{+-}^{\dag } \right>_0^2 \right. \nonumber\\ \left. + 2\left< V_{++} V_{+-}^{\dag } \right>_0\left< V_{+-} V_{++}^{\dag } \right>_0\right] \nonumber\\ + \frac{(1-s)^2}{16}\;\left[\left< V_{-+} V_{-+}^{\dag } \right>_0^2 +\left< V_{--} V_{--}^{\dag } \right>_0^2\right. \nonumber\\ \left. + 2\left< V_{-+} V_{--}^{\dag } \right>_0\left< V_{--} V_{-+}^{\dag } \right>_0\right] \nonumber\\ + \frac{(1-s^2)}{16}\;\left[2\left< V_{-+} V_{++}^{\dag } \right>_0\left< V_{++} V_{-+}^{\dag } \right>_0\right. \nonumber\\ \left. + 2\left< V_{--} V_{+-}^{\dag } \right>_0\left< V_{+-} V_{--}^{\dag } \right>_0\right. \nonumber\\ \left. + 2\left< V_{-+} V_{+-}^{\dag } \right>_0\left< V_{+-} V_{-+}^{\dag } \right>_0\right. \nonumber\\ \left. + 2\left< V_{++} V_{--}^{\dag } \right>_0\left< V_{--} V_{++}^{\dag } \right>_0\right] \label{O15}\end{aligned}$$ For the quanton’s purity the calculation is much easier. Combining Eqs. (\[O2.1\]) and (\[O7.10\]), we have $$P_Q=\frac{1}{2}(1+\mathcal{P}^2+\mathcal{V}^2). \label{O16}$$ The Quantum Optical Ramsey interferometer ========================================= We particularize now the formalism described in the previous section to the case of a quantum optical Ramsey interferometer (QORI). This system has been extensively studied in the literature, both theoretically [@Englert96b; @JesusJulio04; @Scully91] and experimentally [@newHaroche2001; @Maitre97; @Rauschenbeutel99]. The interaction hamiltonian given by the standard Jaynes-Cummings model (JCM) [@jcm] $$\mathcal{H}=\hbar\Omega\left(\sigma_+a+\sigma_-a^\dagger\right), \label{O16.1}$$ where $\sigma_+=\|e\rangle\langle g\|$ and $\sigma_-=\|g\rangle\langle e\|$ are the ladder operators for a two level atomic system composed by an excited $\|e\rangle$ and a ground $\|g\rangle$ state. These operators interact with a coupling strength $\Omega$ (the Rabi frequency of the atomic transition) with a microwave cavity field mode described by the bosonic $a,\,a^{\dagger}$ annihilation and creation operators. Thus, a low loss cavity resonator acts jointly as a which-way marker (WWM) and a beam splitter (BS) \[see Fig. 1(c)\]. Before entering the cavity, the atom is prepared, say, in the upper level $ \|e\rangle$ (case $s=1$). The atom interacts resonantly with the cavity field, adding a photon to its quantized cavity mode if a transition to the lower level $\|g\rangle$ occurs. Due to the low-loss factor of the resonator, the cavity field can keep track of the way taken by the atom since it can store for long times the energy quantum liberated in the atomic transition [@kuhr]. Thus, the same interaction both splits the beam and makes the two “ways” distinguishable. Next is the turn of the phase shifter (PS)—in the guise, for example, of an external pulse of electric field applied at the central stage of the interferometer. Finally, a classical microwave field at the port of the interferometer supplies the beam merger (BM), effecting a $\pi/2$ pulse after resonant interaction with the atom. The final state of the atom is measured by means of state-selective field ionization techniques at the output port of the interferometer. By varying the phase $\phi$ in successive repetitions of the experiment, a fringe pattern can be built up in the detected probability for the atom to wind up in one state or the other.\ The evolution operators of Eq. (\[O7\]) are given here by [@phoenix], $$\begin{aligned} V_{++} &=& \sqrt{2}\; \cos \left( \Omega \tau \sqrt{aa^{\dag}}\right) \nonumber \\ V_{+-} &=& -i\sqrt{2}\; \frac{\sin \left( \Omega \tau \sqrt{aa^{\dag}}\right) }{% \sqrt{aa^{\dag}}}a\nonumber \\ V_{-+} &=& -V_{+-}^\dagger\nonumber \\ V_{--} &=& V_{++}^\dagger \label{O17}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau$ is the interaction time (the time of flight of the atom through the resonator).\ ![\[fig2\](a) $P_Q$ (solid curve) and $P_M$ (dashed curve). (b) Each one of the three terms in Eq. (\[O18\]): $\|\mathcal{G}_Q-\mathcal{G}_M\|$ (dashed), $\mathcal{G}$ (solid) and $\mathcal{G}_Q+\mathcal{G}_M$ (dot-dashed). Both plots are shown as functions of the vacuum Rabi phase $\theta$ for $\overline{n}_{o}=0$ and $s=0$. ](Fig2.eps) ![\[fig3\]$P_Q$ (black curve) and $P_M$ (grey curve) as functions of the vacuum Rabi phase $\theta$ for $\overline{n}_{o}=20$ and $s=0$. ](Fig3.eps) Consider now the cavity field prepared in the vacuum state so that the mean photon number is $\overline{n}_0=0$. The results for the purity of both subsystems (Eqs. (\[O15\]) and (\[O16\])) are shown in Fig. 2 versus the normalized Rabi phase $\theta=\Omega\tau/{2\pi}$. Fig. 2(a) displays the dynamical process of purity swapping [@sudarshan]. Here, the Bloch vector of the quanton oscillates in lenght in counterphase with the purity of the cavity field. As seen in the plot, both systems interchange purity periodically, with a period $T=\pi/\Omega$. This interchange is bounded by an Araki-Lieb type inequality as can be seen in Fig. 2(b) where the inequality $$\|\mathcal{G}_Q - \mathcal{G}_M\|\leq \mathcal{G}\leq \mathcal{G}_Q + \mathcal{G}_M \label{O18}$$ is satisfied at all times. Moreover, we have numerically confirmed that Eq. (\[O18\]) is satisfied for a dense grid of values of $(s,\,\overline{n}_0,\,\theta)$ [@footnote5]. This result supports the conjecture given in Eq. (\[O13.7\]). Note in Fig. 2(b) that the points of maximal purity interchange makes Eq. (\[O18\]) an equality. The oscillations shown in Fig. 2(a) are similar to those found in [@sudarshan] for a pair of qubits coupled by a nonlocal interaction.\ ![\[fig4\]Contour plots of $P_Q$ and $P_M$ as functions of the cavity field’s intensity $\overline{n}_{0}$ and the vacuum Rabi phase $\theta$. Plots are shown for two different initial preparations of the quanton’s state. (a) The plot on first line belongs to pure state preparation ($s=1$). (b) The remaining two plots belong to a totally mixed state preparation ($s=0$). ](Fig4.eps) But, what happens when we inject to the cavity field more and more photons? In a typical experimental situation, the cavity field is prepared in a coherent state with a large $\overline{n}_{0}$ [@raimond]. We find that purity swapping is still obtained. The oscillations become damped and more irregular, since the dynamics mixes different phases stemming from different photon manifolds. The $P_M$ envelope decreases with $\theta$, indicating that more photon manifolds get entangled as the number of Rabi floppings increases. This is shown in Fig. 3 where $P_{Q, M}$ are plotted for $s=0$ and $\overline{n}_0=20$. What we see here are manifestations of the collapses and revivals of the JCM [@Gea90]. The first plateau in $P_M$ corresponds to the collapse region ($\mathcal{P}\rightarrow 0$). In these zones, $P_Q$ follows the behavior of the visibility $\mathcal{V}$. We show this explicitely in Fig. 4, where $P_{Q,M}$ is plotted for different preparations of $\overline{n}_0$ and $\theta$. On one hand, Fig. 4(a) shows results for initial pure state preparation of the quanton ($s=1$). Here $P_Q=P_M$. We can understand this effect in terms the Araki-Lieb inequality given in Eq. (\[O18\]). After Eq. (\[O13.3\]) we have $\mathcal{G}^{(0)}=0$. The purity is conserved under unitary $U$ global evolution, so $\mathcal{G}^{(f)}=0$. According to Eq. (\[O18\]), $\mathcal{G}_Q=\mathcal{G}_M$ at all times. Apart from Eq. (\[O18\]), this property can also be derived from the general properties of $EM$. In fact, not only the entropy of entanglement but all $EM$ for pure states are symmetric under the exchange of parties [@vidal2000]. Another main feature of Fig. 4 can be easily related to the properties of $EM$. In fact, for every $EM$ measure [@vidal2000] $$EM(\rho)\geq0. \label{O18.001}$$ For a separable state $\rho_{QM}$, $EM(\rho_{QM})=0$. This is what occurs at the $P_Q\rightarrow 1$ zone of Fig. 4(a). The dynamics decouples $\rho_Q$ and $\rho_M$ asymptotically in the recreation zone defined by the relation $$\theta_R=\sqrt{\overline{n}_0}. \label{O18.01}$$ Here Eq. (\[O13.3\]) is satisfied and reduces to $\mathcal{G}_{Q,M}=0$, so $P_Q=P_M\rightarrow1$. The linear entropy properties as an $EM$ accounts for the recreation of state vector phenomena for $s=1$ found by Gea-Banacloche [@Gea90]. On the other hand, new results are shown in Fig. 4(b) for the case of a initial totally unpolarized quanton state (s=0). Remarkably, we obtain here as well an asymptotically recreation of the state vector $P_Q\rightarrow1$ in the first recreation zone. This is apparent comparing the plots for ${P_Q}_{s=1}$ and ${P_Q}_{s=0}$ in Fig. 4(a) and Fig. 4(b). Here, it can be seen that many revival zones wash out in the lower plot. However, the recreation of the state vector in the first zone $\theta_R$ is robust against degradation of the initial purity of the quanton, given by $s$ (i.e., $P_Q^{(0)}=\frac{1}{2}(1+s^2)$). This is one of the main results of the paper. This results contrast the unitary WWM case, where $P_Q^{(0)}=0$ implies $P_Q^{(f)}=0$ at all times (see Eq. (\[O6.2\])). Contrary to this, we obtain here that the JCM interaction can result in a significant increase of the visibility of a totally unpolarized quanton. This can be seen in the right plot of Fig. 5(b), where the visibility for $s=0$ is explicitly plotted in the same fashion as Fig. 4. The blue zone gives a wide region for experimentalists willing to obtain perfect interference patterns starting from totally unpolarized sources. We can understand this phenomena by recalling again Eq. (\[O18\]). According to Eq. (\[O13.3\]), $\mathcal{G}_{Q}^{(0)}=\mathcal{G}^{(0)}>0$, since we start now with a mixed quanton’s state. Eq. (\[O18\]) allows a net transfer of entropy build up from the quanton to the cavity field. $P_Q\simeq1$ can arise at the expenses of maximally increasing the entropy of the cavity field. This can be seen comparing $P_Q$ and $P_M$ in Fig. 4(b). The quanton gets pure $P^{(0)}_Q=1/2\longrightarrow P^{(f)}_Q=1$ at the expense of a reciprocal increase of the entropy of the interacting system $P^{(0)}_M=1\longrightarrow P^{(f)}_M=1/2$. This maximal purity swapping is consistent with the Araki-Lieb bounds of Eq. (\[O18\]). In fact, they are not only consistent but demanded by it. In order to see this, let us insert Eqs. (\[O0.4\]) and (\[O13.31\]) into Eq. (\[O18\]) for $s=0$. We have $$\|P_M-P_Q\|\leq\frac{1}{2}\leq 2-P_M-P_Q. \label{O18.012}$$ Eq. (\[O18.012\]) sets up the bounds of purity exchange between the systems. This bounds can be observed in the results given in Figs. (2-4). These are strong bounds and provide useful information. For instance as $P_Q\rightarrow 1$, it is easy to show that Eq. (\[O18.012\]) demands $P_M\rightarrow 1/2$. Both subsystems decouple in the recreation zone asymptotically with $\overline{n}_0$ for all values of $s$. The mutual information $$\mathcal{I}=\mathcal{G}_Q+\mathcal{G}_M-\mathcal{G}_Q \mathcal{G}_M-\mathcal{G} \label{O18.02}$$ is plotted in Fig. 5. It can be seen that for $s=0$ less entanglement and wider zones of decoupling are obtained in comparison to $s=1$. It can also be noticed in Fig. 5(b) that even if we start from a totally mixed quanton state, an appreciable amount of entanglement can build up at long times for low values of $\overline{n}_0$.\ ![\[Fig5\] Mutual information of the combined system and fringe visibility as functions of the cavity field’s intensity $\overline{n}_{o}$ and the vacuum Rabi phase $\theta$. Plots are shown for two different initial preparations of the quanton’s state: (a) pure and (b) totally unpolarized.](Fig5.eps) Finally, we connect our results with the robustness of the Gea attractor. Julio Gea-Banacloche [@Gea90] studied the $s=1$ case. At the beginning of its evolution, the quanton becomes rapidly unpolarized (collapse region), but right after the quanton evolves to the form of the pure state attractor $$\label{O18.03} \left\|\Psi\right\rangle_Q^{attr}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\left\|e\right\rangle+\,i\,e^{i\alpha}\left\|g\right\rangle),$$ where $\alpha$ is the phase of the cavity field. The above attractor state arises at the half of the revival time leading to the recreation of the state vector. As was demonstrated in [@Gea90], the state of any initial totally polarized atom ($s=1$ case) will evolve to the attractor state, regardless of any other atomic initial conditions. Now, we show that the Gea-Banacloche attractor state is reached also for any initial purity of the state. Towards this goal we calculate the state just after the beam splitter. We can undo the action of the beam merger by taking the transformation on Eqs. (\[O20\]) $$\label{O21} \sigma_x\rightarrow\sigma_z,\;\;\sigma_z\rightarrow-\sigma_x.$$ With these transformations, taking $\phi=0$ and taking the trace of the resulting total state over the WWM’s degree of freedom we obtain the quanton’s state just after the beam splitter $$\label{O22} \rho_Q^{BS}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1-i\sigma_x \Im m \left[\mathcal{C}\right]+\sigma_y\Re e \left[\mathcal{C}\right]+\sigma_z\mathcal{P}\right),$$ where $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{C}$ were already defined in Eqs. (\[O2\]) and (\[O7.5\]). Now we particularize the above state to the recreation zone given by Eq. (\[O18.01\]). As seen in Fig. 4(b), here $\mathcal{V}\rightarrow 1$. Thus $\mathcal{P}\rightarrow 0$, since $\mathcal{V}^2+\mathcal{P}^2\leq1$. Therefore, using Eq. (\[O7.4\]) it is easy to show that in the recreation zone Eq. (\[O22\]) tends to Eq. (\[O18.03\]), once $\alpha$ is defined as the phase of the complex contrast factor $\mathcal{C}$ [@footnote6]. The quanton state evolves to the pure state Gea-Banacloche attractor, gaining purity at the expense of increasing the entropy on the cavity field, which gets decoupled from the quanton in the process. Note that in this calculation we did not particularize at anytime for any initial quanton’s state. Thus, we have generalized the result from [@Gea90] and demonstrated that the Gea-Banacloche attractor is robust against all quanton’s initial conditions, including degradation of the purity of the quanton. Conclusions =========== In conclusion, we have shown the existence of dynamical purity swapping in the JCM. The dynamic itself purifies the qubit at the expense of degrading the purity of the cavity field. Moreover, we have shown that a qubit can exhibit dynamical purity swapping with a generic quantum system, provided they coupled via a non-unitary matrix elements interaction \[in the sense of Eq. (\[O7\])\]. We have been able to obtain such general necessary condition for purity swapping thanks to an interferometric approach, allowing us to connect purity degradation with which-way marking. Then we have analyzed in detail the particular case of the JCM, since it describes a large variety of systems. It also serves as a cornerstone for experimental quantum information, communication and computing. In fact, the observation of this phenomena is perfectly attainable with current technology [@newHaroche2001]. We have shown that the Gea-Banacloche attractor is robust against degradation of the initial purity of the quanton. Any initially totally unpolarized qubit will evolve to the pure state Gea-Banacloche attractor after interacting with the cavity field the time required by Eq. (\[O18.01\]). Thus, we can use the collapses and revivals phenomena of the JCM for dynamical purification of qubits. Since the field’s phase $\alpha$ in Eq. (\[O18.03\]) is an externally controllable parameter, this phenomena can also be used for quantum preparation of pure superposition states starting from totally mixed states. This demonstrates in addition the possibility of a remarkable phenomena: the arising of a perfect visibility interference pattern starting from a totally unpolarized source of qubits. Finally, we show that the Tsallis entropy $T_2$ is a useful entanglement monotone ($EM$) allowing one to relate entanglement with purity swapping. Many features of the phenomena have been shown to derive from the algebraic properties of $EM$. This research was supported by a Return Program from the Consejería de Educación y Ciencia de la Junta de Andalucía in Spain. B. W. Shore and P. L. Knight, J. Mod. Opt. [40]{}, 1195-1238 (1993). I. Wilson-Rae and A. Imamoglu, Phys. Rev. B [65]{} 235311 (2002); G. S. Solomon, M. Pelton and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. [86]{}, 3903 (2001). A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A [69]{}, 062320 (2004). P. Berman, “Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics”, Academic Press, Boston, MA (1994). E. Hagley [et al.]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1 (1997); A. Rauschenbeutel, P. Bertet, S. Osnaghi, G. Nogues, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond and S. Haroche, Phys. Rev. A [64]{}, 050301 (R) (2001). G. R. Guthohrlein, M. Keller, K. Hayasaka, W. Lange, and H. Walther, Nature [414]{}, 49 (2001). A. B. Mundt, A. Kreuter, C. Becher, D. Leibfried, J. Eschner, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [89]{}, 103001 (2002). J. M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Haroche, Rev. Mod. Phys. [73]{}, 565 (2001). M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, “Quantum Computation and Quantum Information”, Cambridge University Press (2000). M.R. Gallis, Phys. Rev. A 53, 655 (1996). To our knowledge, this inequality has not yet been proved. J. Martinez-Linares and D.A. Harmin, Phys. Rev. A[69]{}, 062109 (2004). J. Martinez-Linares, Phys. Rev. A[75]{}, 052112 (2007). S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich, Phy. Rev. A [56]{}, R3319 (1997). C.H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J.A. Smolin and W.K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. [76]{}, 722 (1996). C.H. Bennett, H.J. Bernstein, S. Popescu, and B. Schumacher, Phys. Rev. A [53]{}, 2046 (1996). H. Araki, E. Lieb. Commun. Math. Phys. 18, 160-170 (1970). C.H. Bennett, D.P.DiVincenzo, J.A. Smolin, and W.K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A [54]{}, 3824 (1996); G. Vidal and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. [86]{}, 5803 (2001); V. Vedral, Rev. Mod. Phys. [74]{}, 197 (2002); G. Vidal and R. Tarrach, Phys. Rev. A [59]{}, 141 (1999). G. Vidal, J. Mod. Opt. [47]{}, 355 (2000). A. Wehrl, Rev. Mod. Phys. [50]{}, 221 (1978). C. Tsallis, J. Stat. Phys. 52, 479–487 (1988). G.A. Raggio, J. Math. Phys. 36, 4785–4791 (1995). G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. [83]{}, 1046 (1999). B.-G. Englert, Phys. Rev. Lett. [77]{}, 2154 (1996). Starting with a balanced beam splitter, the only source of assymetry comes from a non-zero $s^{(0)}_{Qx}$. As noted in [@Englert96b], there is no need to consider more generic Bloch vector, since this just amounts to a redefinition of the operators $V_{\pm\pm}$ in Eq. (\[O7\]). B.-G. Englert, Acta Phys. Slov. [46]{}, 249 (1996). J. Martinez-Linares and J. Vargas-Medina. Journal of Optics [B]{}: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics. 6 S560-S565 (2004). This resonant scheme was initially proposed in M. O. Scully, B.-G. Englert, and H. Walther, Nature [351]{}, 111 (1991). P. Bertet [et al.]{}, Nature [411]{}, 166 (2001). X. Maître [et al.]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 769 (1997). A. Rauschenbeutel [et al.]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5166 (1999). E. T. Jaynes, F. W. Cummings, Proc. IEEE [51]{}, 89 (1963). Up to 100 Rabi floppings, as can be seen in: S. Kuhr, S. Gleyzes, C. Guerlin, J. Bernu, U. B. Hoff, S. Deléglise, S. Osnaghi, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, S. Haroche, E. Jacques, P. Bosland and B. Visentin, quant-ph/0612138v2. S. J. D. Phoenix and P. L. Knight, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) [186]{}, 381 (1998). C. A. Rodriguez, A. Shaji and E. C. G. Sudarshan, quant-phys/0504051v4. We have checked Eq. (\[O18\]) over 1600 points in the interval $\overline{n}_0\,\epsilon\,(0,\,1000),\,\theta\,\epsilon\,(0,\,200\pi)$, $s\,\epsilon\,(0,1)$. J. Gea-Banacloche, Phys. Rev. Lett. [65]{}, 3385 (1990); Phys.Rev. A [44]{}, 5913 (1991). In fact, according to Eqs. (\[O7.8\]) and (\[O17\]) $\alpha$ can be shown to be the phase of the cavity field.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| Improvement guarantees for semi-supervised classifiers can currently only be given under restrictive conditions on the data. We propose a general way to perform semi-supervised parameter estimation for likelihood-based classifiers for which, on the full training set, the estimates are never worse than the supervised solution in terms of the log-likelihood. We argue, moreover, that we may expect these solutions to really improve upon the supervised classifier in particular cases. In a worked-out example for LDA, we take it one step further and essentially prove that its semi-supervised version is strictly better than its supervised counterpart. The two new concepts that form the core of our estimation principle are contrast and pessimism. The former refers to the fact that our objective function takes the supervised estimates into account, enabling the semi-supervised solution to explicitly control the potential improvements over this estimate. The latter refers to the fact that our estimates are conservative and therefore resilient to whatever form the true labeling of the unlabeled data takes on. Experiments demonstrate the improvements in terms of both the log-likelihood and the classification error rate on independent test sets.\ [Keywords]{}: maximum likelihood, semi-supervised learning, contrast, pessimism, linear discriminant analysis. bibliography: - 'maximinVarXiveV2.bib' date: 'May 10, 2015' title: \| Contrastive Pessimistic Likelihood Estimation\ for Semi-Supervised Classification --- Introduction ============ A century after its inception [@fisher1912absolute; @fisher1922mathematical; @fisher1925theory], parameter estimation through maximum likelihood (ML) is still one of the most widely used statistical estimation techniques. In a more rudimentary form, maximum likelihood can even be traced back as far as the 18th century [@stigler2007epic]. ML estimation is employed in fields as diverse as genealogy, imaging, genetics, astrophysics, physiology, and quantum communication, as is illustrated by many recent research works such as [@ackermann2013detection; @allen2013network; @chung2013single; @brunton2013rats; @price2012cyanophora; @cang2011probing; @d2012banana; @jiao2011ancestral; @nummenmaa2014bodily; @saglamyurek2011broadband; @tamura2011mega5; @wang2013improvement; @yang2012molecular]. Moreover, new tools and techniques based on or related to ML are still being developed within modern statistics and related fields. Some recent examples are [@bien2011sparse; @cule2010maximum; @chung2013nondegenerate; @laurence2010efficient; @lee2012learning; @simon2011discriminant]. A satisfactory approach to ML-based estimation for semi-supervised classifiers, however, has not been developed so far. In general, the aim of semi-supervised learning is to improve supervised classifiers by exploiting additional, typically easier to obtain, unlabeled data [@chapelle06b; @zhu09a]. Up to now, however, the literature has reported mixed results when it comes to such improvements; it is not always the case that semi-supervision leads to lower expected error rates or the like. On the contrary, severely deteriorated performances have been observed in empirical studies and theory shows that improvement guarantees can often only be provided under rather stringent conditions on the data we are dealing with [@balcan2010discriminative; @castelli95a; @ben-david08a; @lafferty07a; @singh08a]. In this work, we demonstrate when and how ML estimators for classification can be improved in the semi-supervised setting. We show that semi-supervised estimates can be constructed that are essentially closer to the estimates that would be obtained when also all the labels for all unlabeled data would be available in the training phase. That is, the semi-supervised estimates are closer to the estimates obtained with all labels available than the supervised estimates that rely on the same labeled instances as semi-supervision does, but that do not use the additional unlabeled data set. [A crucial difference between the theory in this work and theories from, for instance, [@balcan2010discriminative; @castelli95a; @ben-david08a; @lafferty07a; @singh08a] is that the former can do without strict assumption on the data or the relation between the data and the classifier considered. In fact, as we will see, Theorem \[thm:expect\] in Section \[sect:lda\] especially relies on assumptions that are minimal and can be readily checked on the data at hand. Other results in semi-supervised learning resort to premises that generally cannot be conclusively tested for.]{} In order to show the potential improvements semi-supervised classifiers can deliver, we introduce a novel, generally applicable estimation principle that extends likelihood estimation to the semi-supervised case in a consistent way. In particular, our method is contrastive, which refers to the fact that the objective function takes into account the original supervised solution in an explicit way. This enables the semi-supervised solution to explicitly control the potential improvements over the supervised solution. In addition, our method is pessimistic, which refers to the fact that the unlabeled data is treated as if it behaves in a worst kind of way, i.e., such that the semi-supervised estimates benefit the least from it. It makes the estimates conservative, but resilient to any possible state in which the unlabeled data can be encountered. We refer to this principle as maximum contrastive pessimistic likelihood estimation or MCPL estimation for short. Outline ------- In Section \[sect:theory\], the main theory is introduced, contrast and pessimism are further elucidated, and our core, general estimation principle, MCPL, is presented. In that same section, we also sketch the possibility of improved semi-supervised estimation by means of MCPL. Sections \[sect:lda\] and \[sect:exp\] provide a worked-out illustration and a further specification of our theory. The former section introduces the MCPL-based version of LDA, proves in what way the semi-supervised LDA parameters are expected to really improve over the regular supervised ones, and sketches the heuristic employed to tackle the related optimization problem. The latter section, Section \[sect:exp\], provides extensive results on a range of data sets, comparing regular supervised LDA and an earlier proposed semi-supervised approach to LDA [@loog2013semi] with the novel semi-supervised LDA introduced here. Section \[sect:disc\] puts the results in a somewhat broader perspective and raises some open issues. Finally, Section \[sect:conc\] concludes. To begin with, however, we put our work in context, provide some preliminaries, introduce ML estimation and LDA, give an overview of the principal related works, and discuss related earlier findings. Background and Preliminaries {#sect:rel} ============================ The log-likelihood objective function for a $K$-class supervised classification problem takes on the general form $$\label{eq:lik} \begin{split} L(\theta\|X) = & \sum_{i=1}^N \log p(x_i,y_i\|\theta) \\ = & \sum_{k=1}^K \sum_{j=1}^{N_k} \log p(x_{kj},k\|\theta) \, , \end{split}$$ where class $k$ contains a total of $N_k$ samples, $N = \sum_{k=1}^K N_k$ is the total number of samples, $$X = \{(x_i,y_i)\}_{i=1}^N$$ is the set of all labeled training pairs with $x_i \in \mathbb{R}^d$ $d$-dimensional feature vectors[^1], and $$y_i \in C = \{1,\ldots,K\}$$ are their corresponding labels. Denoted with $x_{kj}$ is the $j$th sample from class $k \in C$. Here, every model parameter—specific to a particular class or not—is absorbed in $\theta \in \Theta$. The set $\Theta$ contains all parameter settings possible, thus defining the full class of models under consideration. Now, the supervised ML estimate, $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}$, maximizes the above criterion: $$\label{eq:supsol} \hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup} = \operatorname{argmax}_{\theta \in \Theta} L(\theta\|X) \, .$$ What follows is an overview of the main approaches to semi-supervised learning with a particular focus on likelihood-based methods. Specific attention will furthermore be given to semi-supervised approaches to LDA. For broader and more extensive literature reviews, we refer to [@chapelle06b] and [@zhu08a]. Self-Learning and Expectation Maximization {#sect:self} ------------------------------------------ With the current work, we in essence revisit a problem in ML estimation that has already been considered as early as the late 1960s. In 1968, Hartley and Rao sketched a general way of exploiting unlabeled data $$U = \{u_i\}_{i=1}^M$$ in likelihood estimation of model parameters for the analysis of variance [@hartley68a]. The basic idea is to consider all possible labelings that the unlabeled data could have and choose that labeling that achieves the largest log-likelihood. As such, this procedure still relies on ML estimation, but where the fully supervised model would merely optimize the log-likelihood of the parameters of the model, here the unobserved labels $$V = \{v_i\}_{i=1}^M$$ of the unlabeled data in $U$ are considered parameters over which the likelihood is maximized as well: $$\label{eq:hartley} \operatorname{argmax}_{\theta \in \Theta} \Big[ L(\theta\|X) + \operatorname{max}_{V \in C^M} \sum_{i=1}^{M} \log p(u_i,v_i\|\theta) \Big] \, .$$ Clearly, as the number of possible labelings grows exponentially with the number of unlabeled data points, even for fairly small sample sizes $M$ this procedure is generally intractable. A learning strategy that is often referred to as self-learning or self-teaching approaches the problem in a similar though greedy way. In its most most simple form, the classifier of choice is trained on the available labeled data in an initial step. Using this trained classifier, all unlabeled data or part of it are assigned a label. Then, in a next step, this now labeled data is added to the training set and the classifier is retrained with this enlarged set. Given the newly trained classifier, one can relabel the initially unlabeled data and retrain the classifier again with these updated labels. This process is iterated until convergence, i.e., when the labeling of the initially unlabeled data remains unchanged. McLachlan [@mclachlan75a], in 1975, was probably the first to apply this procedure and indeed suggested it as a computationally more tractable alternative to the one in [@hartley68a]. Similar procedures have been reintroduced throughout the last couple of decades (see, for instance, [@basu02a; @vittaut02; @yarowsky95a]). Outside of the literature on likelihood estimation, a procedure reminiscent of McLachlan’s had already been proposed. In 1966, while dealing with an issue slightly different from semi-supervised learning, Nagy and Shelton proposed a general technique similar to self-learning [@nagy1966self]. One of the crucial differences is that the labeled data is only used to train the initial classifier. It does not play a role in any of the subsequent self-learning iterations. Also this procedure has been reconsidered many years after it was initially suggested, e.g. in [@basu02a]. Possibly the best known semi-supervised likelihood-based approach treats the absence of labels as a classical missing-data problem and integrates out these nuisance parameters to come to a new, full model likelihood [@nigam98a; @oneill78a; @titterington76a] $$L(\theta\|X) + \sum_{i=1}^{M} \log \bigg( \sum_{k=1}^K p(u_i,k\|\theta) \bigg) \, .$$ [Its maximization over $\theta$ typically relies on the classical technique of expectation maximization (EM) in which the estimates are not updated on the basis of hard labels, but rather using posterior probabilities, which can equivalently be thought of as soft labels or assignments.]{} In 1973, [@dick73] and [@hosmer73a] were possibly the first to consider this specific problem explicitly, though [@tan72] had already employed such formulation in its applied work in 1972. [A more modern overview of EM approaches to partial classification can be found in [@mclachlan92a].]{} At a first glance, self-learning and EM may seem different ways of tackling the semi-supervised classification problem, but there are clear parallels. Indeed, where EM provides soft class assignments to all unlabeled data, self-learning just assigns every such instance in a hard way to one unique class in every iteration. In fact, [@basu02a] effectively shows that self-learners optimize the same objective as EM does. Similar observations have been made in [@abney04a] and [@haffari07a]. The major problem with the aforementioned methods is that they can suffer from severely deteriorated performance with increasing numbers of unlabeled samples. This behavior, already extensively studied [@cohen04a; @cozman06a; @loog2013semi; @yang2011effect], is often caused by model misspecification, i.e., the statistical class of models with parameters $\theta$ is not able to properly fit the actual data distribution. We note that this is in contrast with the supervised setting, where most classifiers are capable of handling mismatched data assumptions rather well and adding more labeled data typically improves performance. The latter is in line with the behavior many misspecified likelihood models display [@white82]. Density-Ratio Correction ------------------------ A rather different approach to semi-supervised estimation for likelihood-based models is offered in [@kawakita2014safe], in which the problem of semi-supervised learning is basically treated as one of learning under covariate shift [@shimodaira2000improving]. Covariate shift is the setting in which the posterior distribution of the labels given the data, $p(y\|x)$, remains the same, while the marginal $p(x)$ might change when going from the training to the testing phase. Following [@sokolovska2008asymptotics], the main idea in [@kawakita2014safe] is that the marginal distribution over the feature space can be better estimated based on all data, both labeled and unlabeled. Subsequently, the density ratio between this estimate and the marginal estimate based on labeled data only can be exploited to weight the training data by means of their importance, as generally suggested in [@shimodaira2000improving]. In their work, the authors prove that, asymptotically, this semi-supervised learning procedure works better than its regular, supervised counterpart. Next to the fact that results hold only asymptotically, the behavior of this semi-supervised learner seems to depend strongly on the way the density ratio is determined. In the finite sample setting, one may run into similar kind of problems as those sketched in the previous subsection: choosing the incorrect model for estimating the density ratio of the marginal feature distributions, could lead to deteriorated performance instead of performance improvements. Experimental results in both [@kawakita2014safe] and [@sokolovska2008asymptotics] seem to reflect this. Intrinsically Constrained Estimation {#sect:intrin} ------------------------------------ In recent years, the author proposed an essentially different take on semi-supervised learning [@loog10x; @loog11x]. On a conceptual level, the idea is that the available unlabeled data indirectly puts restrictions on the parameters possible, i.e., it basically allows us to look at a set that is smaller than the initial set $\Theta$. A first operationalization of this idea has been studied for the simple nearest mean classifier (NMC, [@loog10x]). It exploits constraints that are known to hold for this classifier, defining relationships between the class-specific parameters and certain statistics that are independent of the specific labeling. In particular, for the NMC the following constraint can be exploited: $$\label{eq:mean} \hat{\mu} = \sum_{k=1}^K \hat{\pi}_k \hat{\mu}_k \, ,$$ with $\hat{\mu}$ the estimated overall sample mean of the data, $\hat{\mu}_k$ the sample means of the $K$ classes, and $\hat{\pi}_k = \frac{N_k}{N}$ the estimates of the class priors. In the supervised setting this constraint is automatically fulfilled [@fukunaga90]. Its benefit only becomes apparent, therefore, with the arrival of unlabeled data that can be used to improve the label-independent estimate $\hat{\mu}$. Using this more accurate estimate results in a violation of the constraint. Fixing it by properly adjusting the $\hat{\mu}_k$s, these label-dependent estimates become more accurate as well. Supervised LDA can be improved in a similar way. The same constraint in Equation (\[eq:mean\]) holds, but for LDA additional ones involving the class-conditional covariance matrix apply. Notably, we have that the covariance matrix of all the data, the total covariance $\hat{\Sigma}_T$, equals the sum of the covariance between the class means, the between-class covariance $\hat{\Sigma}_B$, and the class-conditional covariance matrix $\hat{\Sigma}$ (which is also referred to as the within-class covariance) [@fukunaga90]: $$\label{eq:cov} \hat{\Sigma}_T = \hat{\Sigma}_B + \hat{\Sigma} \, .$$ These additional constraints further restrict the possible semi-supervised solutions, allowing for more significant improvements over the regular supervised classifier [@loog11x; @loog2013semi]. The aforementioned works enforce the constraints imposed in a rather ad hoc way. A somewhat more principled constrained likelihood approach is suggested in [@loog12c; @loog13a]. Generally, given any constraint $h(\theta)=0$ that the parameters of the semi-supervised classifier should comply with, the idea is to maximize the original likelihood from Equation (\[eq:lik\])—as in Equation (\[eq:supsol\]), but subject to the constraint, i.e., we solve $$\begin{split} \operatorname{argmax}_{\theta \in \Theta} \mbox{ } L(\theta\|X) \mbox{ } \mathrm{subject~to } \mbox{ } h(\theta) = 0 \, . \end{split}$$ Reference [@loog13a] shows, for instance, how to formulate the constrained NMC from [@loog10x] in this way. A major shortcoming of this approach is that such constraints must have been identified in the first place. For this reason, its applicability to other classifiers is currently limited. A second and more recent instantiation of our general idea coined in [@loog10x] does allow for broader applicability [@krijthe13a; @krijthe14a]. The optimization suggests to find those parameters that maximize the likelihood on the labeled data set $X$, but only allows solutions that can be achieved with a data set that includes labeled versions of the initially unlabeled instances as well. In terms of a likelihood formulation, what it suggests to solve is the following: $$\label{eq:impl} \begin{split} \operatorname{argmax}_{\theta \in T} \mbox{ } & L(\theta\|X) \\ \mathrm{with} \mbox{ } & T = \bigg\{ \operatorname{argmax}_{t \in \Theta} L(t\|X_V) \bigg\| V \in C^M \bigg\} \, . \end{split}$$ The first important ingredient is the set $X_V$, which is the labeled data set $X$ augmented with the unlabeled data $U$ combined with the labels in $V$. So $$X_V = X \cup \{(u_i,v_i)\}_{i=1}^M$$ is a fully labeled data set for all $V \in C^M$. The second important ingredient is the set $T$, which typically is a proper subset of the original parameter set $\Theta$. This set $T$ contains all possible classifier parameters $t$ that are obtained by training classifiers on all of the possible fully labeled data sets $X_V$. As we need to consider all possible labelings for the unlabeled data, this brings us back to Hartley and Rao’s intractable method [@hartley68a]. In [@krijthe13a] and [@krijthe14a], this problem is overcome by introducing the possibility of fractional or soft labels, resulting in a well-behaved quadratic programming problem for the case of the least squares classifier. Putting our earlier work further in the appropriate context, we should finally mention [@chang2007guiding] and [@mann10a], where likelihood-based semi-supervised learning guided by particular constraints is considered as well. The crucial difference is that the constraints proposed in these works are typically derived from domain knowledge and very task specific. If these a priori constraints are correct, a learner can obviously benefit from them, even in the supervised case. If they are incorrect they may lead to severely deteriorated performance. So where these constraints are classifier-extrinsically motivated, any other method in this subsection relies on intrinsically motivated constraints, which are fixed as soon as the data is available and the choice of classifier is made. Supervised and Semi-Supervised LDA ---------------------------------- As our worked-out example in Sections \[sect:lda\] and \[sect:exp\] concerns LDA, this subsection turns to its associated likelihood and the specific semi-supervised solutions that have been proposed for this classical technique. Compared to Equation (\[eq:lik\]), the log-likelihood objective function for $K$-class LDA takes on a more specific form. We can write [@ripley1996pattern] $$\label{eq:ldalik} \begin{split} & L_\mathrm{LDA}(\theta\|X) = \\ = & \sum_{i=1}^N \log p(x_i,y_i\|\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_K,\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_K,\Sigma) \\ = & \sum_{k=1}^K \sum_{j=1}^{N_k} \log p(x_{kj},k\|\pi_k,\mu_k,\Sigma) \\ = & \sum_{k=1}^K \sum_{j=1}^{N_k} \log \pi_k g(x_{kj}\|\mu_k,\Sigma) \, , \end{split}$$ where $\theta = (\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_K,\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_K,\Sigma)$, $\pi_k$ the class priors, $\mu_k$ is the class means, and $\Sigma$ the class-conditional covariance matrix. The $g$, on the last line, denotes the normal (or $g$aussian) probability density function. Of course, to find the supervised solution, we solve the maximization already noted in Equation (\[eq:supsol\]), which leads to the well-known ML estimates of the parameters of regular supervised LDA. Semi-supervised LDA has been considered both in theoretical and methodological work. The main example in Hartley and Rao’s work [@hartley68a] treats univariate LDA in the semi-supervised setting. Also McLachlan [@mclachlan75a] focusses on LDA. Following these contributions, other early studies of the use of unlabeled data in LDA can be found in [@mclachlan77a; @oneill78a; @titterington76a] and [@mclachlan82a]. Self-learned and intrinsically constrained versions of LDA have been compared in [@loog11x] and [@loog2013semi]. Let us finally remark that various contributions from a large number of disciplines still employ classical, supervised LDA as their decision rule of choice. A handful of recent examples from the applied and natural sciences can be found in some of the earlier-mentioned references: [@ackermann2013detection; @allen2013network; @chung2013single; @brunton2013rats; @price2012cyanophora]. Semi-supervised versions of LDA, however, have not been widely applied. The general shortcoming mentioned in Subsection \[sect:self\], the fact that self-learned and EM versions can give sharply inferior performance, probably contributes to this. Contrastive Pessimistic ML {#sect:theory} ========================== [For none of the aforementioned semi-supervised learning schemes and classifiers, there are currently any generally applicable guarantees when it comes to performance improvements, unless one makes strong assumptions about the data.]{} The learning strategy that we devise in this section does allow for such a guarantee on the training set in a strict way. This we will show in Section \[sect:lda\]. The main, general theory is provided in the current section. Consider the fully labeled data set $$X_{V^\ast} = X \cup \{(u_i,v^\ast_i)\}_{i=1}^M \, .$$ It is similar to $X_{V}$ considered in Subsection \[sect:intrin\], but we now assume that $V^\ast$ contains the true labels $v^\ast_i$ belonging to the feature vectors in $U$. Define $$\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{opt} = \operatorname{argmax}_{\theta \in \Theta} L(\theta\|X_{V^\ast}) \, ,$$ which gives the classifier’s parameter estimates on the full training set in which also the unlabeled data is labeled. With respect to this enlarged training set $X_{V^\ast}$, the estimate $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{opt}$ is optimal by construction and cannot be improved upon. As the supervised parameters in $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}$ are estimated merely on a subset $X$ of $X_{V^\ast}$, we have $$L(\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}\|X_{V^\ast}) \le L(\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{opt}\|X_{V^\ast}) \, .$$ In the semi-supervised setting, both $X$ and $U$ are at our disposal, but $V^\ast$ has not been observed. We have more information than in the supervised setting, but less than in the optimal, fully labeled case. The principal result obtained in this section is that, for likelihood-based classifiers, semi-supervised parameter estimates $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{semi}$ obtained by means of MCPL are essentially in between the corresponding supervised and the optimal estimates: $$L(\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}\|X_{V^\ast}) \le L(\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{semi}\|X_{V^\ast}) \le L(\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{opt}\|X_{V^\ast}) \, .$$ In itself, this result might not seem all too helpful as we can easily come up with a semi-supervised parameter estimate for which these inequalities are trivially fulfilled: take $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{semi}$ to equal $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}$. However, we first want to clarify that the inequality holds generally for MCPL before we proceed and make the claim that strict improvements by means of MCPL over regular supervised estimation can be expected. That is, we argue, at least for particular classifiers, that $$L(\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}\|X_{V^\ast}) < L(\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{semi}\|X_{V^\ast}) \, ,$$ i.e., the log-likelihood on the fully labeled set $X_{V^\ast}$ obtained by the semi-supervised estimates is strictly larger than that obtained under supervision. For LDA, this is proven in Section \[sect:lda\]. Contrast and Pessimism {#sect:mcpl} ---------------------- To be able to construct a semi-supervised learner that improves upon its supervised counterpart, we take the supervised estimate into account explicitly and consider the difference in loss incurred by $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{semi}$ and $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}$. Before doing so, however, we first introduce some notation. We define $q_{ki}$ to be the hypothetical posterior $P(k\|u_i)$ of observing a particular label $k$ given the feature vector $u_i$. We may interpret the $q_{ki}$ as soft labels for every $u_i$ and will also refer to them as such. This respects the fact that classes may be overlapping and not every $u_i$ can be be assigned unambiguously to a single class. By definition, $\sum_{k \in C} q_{ki} = 1$. More precisely, we can state that the $K$-dimensional vector $q_{\cdot i}$ is an element of the $K-1$-simplex $\Delta_{K-1}$ in $\mathbb{R}^K$: $$q_{\cdot i} \in \Delta_{K-1} = \bigg\{ (\rho_1 \ldots \rho_K)^T \in \mathbb{R}^K \bigg\| \sum_{i=1}^K \rho_i = 1, \rho_i \ge 0 \bigg\} \, .$$ Provided that these posteriors are given, we can express the log-likelihood on the complete data set for any $\theta$ as $$\label{eq:lin} L(\theta\|X,U,q) = L(\theta\|X) + \sum_{i=1}^M \sum_{k=1}^K q_{ki} \log p(u_i,k\|\theta) \, ,$$ in which the dependence on the $q_{ki}$s is explicitly indicated also on the left-hand side by means of the variable $q$. Note that use of these soft labels in $q$ allows more flexibility than just using a set of hard labels $V \in C^M$, such as was for instance done in Equations (\[eq:hartley\]) and (\[eq:impl\]). For a given $q$, the relative improvement of any semi-supervised estimate $\theta$ over the supervised solution can now be expressed as follows: $$\label{eq:rel} \begin{split} CL(\theta,\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}\|X,U,q) = & L(\theta\|X,U,q) \\ - & L(\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}\|X,U,q) \, . \end{split}$$ This contrasts the semi-supervised solution with the regular supervised solution obtained on the data set $X$, enabling us to explicitly check to what extent semi-supervised improvements are possible in terms of log-likelihood. As we are dealing with a semi-supervised problem, $q$ is unknown and we cannot use Equation (\[eq:rel\]) directly for optimization. The choice we make now is the most pessimistic one: we are going to assume that the true (soft) labeling is most adverse against any semi-supervised approach and consider the $q$ that minimizes the gain in likelihood. That is, our objective function becomes $$\label{eq:pes} \begin{split} CPL(\theta,\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}\|X,U) & = \\ \operatorname{min}_{q \in \Delta_{K-1}^M} \mbox{ } & CL(\theta,\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}\|X,U,q) \, , \end{split}$$ where $\Delta_{K-1}^M = \prod_{i=1}^M \Delta_{K-1}$; the Cartesian product of $M$ simplices. MCPL Estimation {#sect:def} --------------- We are now ready to define MCPL estimation, which extends general likelihood estimation for supervised learners to the general semi-supervised case. Let $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}$ be the supervised ML estimate maximizing $L(\theta\|X)$ and let $U$ be a set of unlabeled data. A maximum contrastive pessimistic likelihood estimate, $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{semi}$, is an estimate that maximizes the criterion $CPL(\theta,\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}\|X,U)$ in Equation (\[eq:pes\]), i.e., $$\label{eq:semi} \begin{split} \hat{\theta}_\mathrm{semi} = \operatorname{argmax}_{\theta \in \Theta} CPL(\theta,\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}\|X,U) \, . \end{split}$$ Maximizing the objective function $CPL$ for $\theta$ leads to a rather conservative estimate, because of the pessimistic choice of $q$. But we need this choice, in combination with the contrastive nature of the objective function, to be able to guarantee that the following holds. \[lem:hard\] $$\label{eq:ineq} L(\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}\|X_{V^\ast}) \le L(\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{semi}\|X_{V^\ast}) \le L(\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{opt}\|X_{V^\ast}) \, .$$ To see that the lemma indeed holds, consider Equation (\[eq:semi\]). Because we can take $\theta = \hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}$, 0 is always among the minimizers in this equation. As a consequence, the maximum will never be smaller than 0: $$\operatorname{max}_{\theta \in \Theta} CPL(\theta,\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}\|X,U) \ge 0 \, .$$ Looking at Equation (\[eq:rel\]), this means that the difference between the semi-supervised and the supervised log-likelihood is larger than 0, but as this holds even for the worst choice of $q$, it must also hold for the true hard labeling considered in $X_{V^\ast}$. From this, the first inequality follows in Equation (\[eq:ineq\]), which shows the lemma to hold. Prospects of Improved Estimates ------------------------------- If we can show for a classifier that we can expect the inequalities in Lemma \[lem:hard\] to be strict, then we can conclude that the semi-supervised parameter estimates are essentially better than those obtained under supervision. When can we expect this to happen? There are at least two different ways. Firstly, a semi-supervised classifier can be better if the true underlying soft labeling is less adversarial than the worst-case that is considered in MCPL estimation. Even though we cannot give any general quantitative statement on how often this happens, we can imagine that this is quite likely. Secondly, we can expect improvements in case the set of feature vectors of the labeled instances, $X$, is an ill representation of the complete set of labeled and unlabeled data, $X$ and $U$. It is clear that nothing can be gained in the other extreme, where the feature vectors in $U$ are just exact copies of those in $X$. In that case, MCPL estimation would just recover the supervised estimate. In the next section, we use such ill-representation argument to show that semi-supervised LDA typically outperforms its supervised counterpart. MCPL Version of LDA {#sect:lda} =================== Combining MCPL estimation as defined in Subsection \[sect:def\] with the log-likelihood formulation of regular supervised LDA from Equation (\[eq:ldalik\]) leads to our proposal of a proper semi-supervised version of LDA. Following the previous section, we have $$L_\mathrm{LDA}(\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}\|X_{V^\ast}) \le L_\mathrm{LDA}(\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{semi}\|X_{V^\ast}) \, .$$ Here and in what follows, the subscripted LDA makes explicit that we are specifically considering this classifier. Subsection \[sect:heur\] briefly presents the heuristic we used to carry out the necessary maximinimization to actually obtain $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{semi}$. But first, in the next two subsections, we demonstrate that we can expect improved semi-supervised estimation. Preliminaries {#sect:prelim} ------------- As the set of normal densities $g(x\|\mu_k,\Sigma)$ makes up an exponential family, it can be reparameterized into a so-called canonical parametrization such that it is concave in its parameters [@brown1986fundamentals; @bickel01]. Denote this reparametrization by $\vartheta$. For fixed $q$, $L_\mathrm{LDA}(\vartheta\|X,U,q)$ is also concave. Now, by definition of the MCPL estimate $$\begin{split} \operatorname{max}_{\vartheta \in \Theta} \mbox{ } & CPL_\mathrm{LDA}(\vartheta,\hat{\vartheta}_\mathrm{sup}\|X,U) = \\ \operatorname{max}_{\vartheta \in \Theta} \mbox{ } & \operatorname{min}_{q \in \Delta_{K-1}^M} CL_\mathrm{LDA}(\vartheta,\hat{\vartheta}_\mathrm{sup}\|X,U,q) = \\ \operatorname{max}_{\vartheta \in \Theta} \mbox{ } & \operatorname*{min}_{q \in \Delta_{K-1}^M} \Big[ L_\mathrm{LDA}(\vartheta\|X,U,q) - L_\mathrm{LDA}(\hat{\vartheta}_\mathrm{sup}\|X,U,q) \Big] \, . \end{split}$$ From this, it is not difficult to see that for fixed $q$, $CL_\mathrm{LDA}$ is concave in $\vartheta$ and for fixed $\vartheta$, $CL_\mathrm{LDA}$ is linear in $q$. So $CL_\mathrm{LDA}$ is in fact concave-convex on $\Theta \times \Delta_{K-1}^M$. In addition, $\Delta_{K-1}^M$ is compact and so we can invoke the important minimax corollary by Sion [@sion58] that allows us to interchange the maximization and minimization, which in turn means that the solution to the above maximinimzation is a saddle point [@dresher61]. [Moreover, the estimate $\hat{\vartheta}_\mathrm{semi}$ is unique if $CL_\mathrm{LDA}$ is strictly concave in $\vartheta$ [@dresher61]. This is ensured if $\Sigma$ is positive definite. From Equation (\[eq:wcov\]) in Subsection \[sect:ssi\], it follows that this holds, for instance, if $\hat{\Sigma}_\mathrm{sup}$ is positive definite. Equivalently, we will assume the supervised estimation problem to be well-posed.]{} [For normal distributions, both the standard parametrization and the canonical parametrization are complete parameterizations. We have [@brown1986fundamentals]: $\vartheta = \vartheta(\theta) = (\Sigma^{-1} \mu, \mathrm{triu}(-\Sigma^{-1}))$, where $\mathrm{triu}(A)$ returns the upper triangular part of the square matrix $A$. As we consider well-posed estimation problems, $\Sigma$ is invertible and so the mapping between $\theta$ and $\vartheta$ is a bijection (cf. [@thrun2005probabilistic]). So coming back from the canonical parametrization $\vartheta$ to our original $\theta$, we see that the maximinimzation also leads to a unique solution for $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{semi}$. This will be important in what follows.]{} Semi-Supervised Improvements {#sect:ssi} ---------------------------- We consider $CL_\mathrm{LDA}(\theta,\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}\|X,U,q)$, which is Equation (\[eq:rel\]) with the particular choice of the likelihood from Equation (\[eq:ldalik\]). Leaving $q$ fixed, we saw that there is a unique maximizer for $CL_\mathrm{LDA}$. Fixing $q$, the supervised part of the contrastive likelihood does not play an essential role in the objective function. It merely provides an offset, and the maximizer of $CL_\mathrm{LDA}$ is equal to the maximizer of $L_\mathrm{LDA}(\theta\|X,U,q)$. Now, the latter is a weighted version of standard LDA—the weights are provided by $q$—and it is not difficult to show that, for every class $k \in C$, the optimal ML parameter estimates are given by $$\label{eq:wlda} \begin{split} \hat{\pi}_k & = \frac{N_k + \sum_{i=1}^M q_{ki}}{N + M} \, , \\ \hat{\mu}_k & = \frac{\sum_{j=1}^{N_k} x_{kj} + \sum_{i=1}^M q_{ki} u_i}{N_k + \sum_{i=1}^M q_{ki}} \, , \\ \end{split}$$ while the estimate of the average class-conditional covariance matrix becomes $$\label{eq:wcov} \begin{split} \hat{\Sigma} & = \frac{1}{N+M} \sum_{k=1}^K \bigg[ \sum_{j=1}^{N_k} (x_{kj}-\hat{\mu}_k)(x_{kj}-\hat{\mu}_k)^T \\ & + \sum_{i=1}^M q_{ki} (u_{i}-\hat{\mu}_k)(u_{i}-\hat{\mu}_k)^T \bigg] \, . \end{split}$$ Note that the total data mean equals $$\label{eq:meansem} \hat{\mu}^\mathrm{semi} = \frac{1}{N+M} \bigg[ \sum_{i=1}^{N} x_i + \sum_{i=1}^M u_i \bigg] \, ,$$ which is independent of the soft labels $q$. We now additionally note that also for weighted LDA, for any choice of $q$, the constraint in Equation (\[eq:mean\]) holds. The MCPL solution $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{semi}$ will have corresponding pessimistic soft labels $\hat{q}^\mathrm{semi}$ and therefore satisfies the constraint as well: $\hat{\mu}^\mathrm{semi} = \sum_{k=1}^K \hat{\pi}^\mathrm{semi}_k \hat{\mu}^\mathrm{semi}_k$. Now, if semi-supervised learning does not improve over the supervised estimate, $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{semi}$ should equal the initial supervised solution $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}$, because the estimate is unique (see Subsection \[sect:prelim\]). This, in turn, implies that we also have $\hat{\mu}^\mathrm{semi} = \sum_{k=1}^K \hat{\pi}^\mathrm{sup}_k \hat{\mu}^\mathrm{sup}_k$. But as the supervised solution is trained on $X$ only, it should simultaneously fulfil the constraint in Equation (\[eq:mean\]) with the total data mean equal to $$\label{eq:meansup} \hat{\mu}^\mathrm{sup} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} x_i \, ,$$ i.e., the sample average of $X$. We therefore have: $$\hat{\mu}^\mathrm{sup} = \sum_{k=1}^K \hat{\pi}_k^\mathrm{sup} \hat{\mu}_k^\mathrm{sup} = \hat{\mu}^\mathrm{semi} \, .$$ If the feature vectors of our classification problem come from a continuous distribution then, unless $U$ is empty, the probability that $\hat{\mu}^\mathrm{sup}$ equals $\hat{\mu}^\mathrm{semi}$ is zero. This, in turn, implies that we can expect $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{semi}$ to be different from $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}$ and, therefore, improve upon it. With this, we have proven our first main result concerning semi-supervised LDA. \[thm:1\] [If the supervised estimation problem is well-posed, $M \ge 1$, and if the feature vectors are continuously distributed]{}, the strict inequality $$L_\mathrm{LDA}(\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{semi}\|X_{V^\ast}) > L_\mathrm{LDA}(\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}\|X_{V^\ast})$$ holds almost surely. We should note that if the feature distribution is discrete, the inequality holds with a probability smaller than one. Nonetheless, when either the number of discrete elements of the distribution, the number $N$ of labeled points, or the number $M$ of unlabeled feature vectors is large, the probability that the inequality is strict typically gets close to one. We dare to conjecture that Theorem \[thm:1\] will be accurate for many practical purposes, even in the discrete case. What we can say in the discrete case is that the probability that $\hat{\mu}^\mathrm{sup}$ does not equal $\hat{\mu}^\mathrm{semi}$ is nonzero and, therefore, we at least have strict improvement in expectation. \[thm:expect\] [If the supervised estimation problem is well-posed and $M \ge 1$]{}, we have $$\begin{split} E [L_\mathrm{LDA}(\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{opt}\|X_{V^\ast})] & \ge \\ E [L_\mathrm{LDA}(\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{semi}\|X_{V^\ast})] & > E [ L_\mathrm{LDA}(\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}\|X_{V^\ast}) ] \, , \end{split}$$ where the expectation is taken over $U$. Hence, LDA parameter estimation by means of MCPL is, in the average, always better than classical supervised log-likelihood estimation. Solving the Maximinimization {#sect:heur} ---------------------------- As was discussed in Subsection \[sect:prelim\] already, the objective function, as provided by Equation (\[eq:rel\]), is linear in $q$ and strictly concave in $\theta$. As a result, we know that we are looking for a saddle point solution with a unique optimizer for $\theta$. Moreover, we know there are no other local saddle point solutions for this maximinimization problem [@dresher61]. The basis of our heuristic to come to an MCPL estimate for the parameters of semi-supervised LDA are the following two steps between which the optimization alternates. 1. Given a soft labeling $q$, the optimal, maximizing LDA parameters $\theta$ are estimated by means of Equations (\[eq:wlda\]) and (\[eq:wcov\]). 2. Given LDA parameters $\theta$, the gradient $\nabla$ for $q$ is calculated, and $q$ is changed to $q - \alpha \nabla$, with $\alpha > 0$ the step size. The following should be noted: 1. $q - \alpha \nabla$ is not guaranteed to be in $\Delta_{K-1}^M$, so we project back into this set in every iteration [@maculan1989linear]; 2. the objective function is linear in $q$, so the gradient $\nabla$ is easily obtained: $$\begin{split} \nabla_{ki} & = \log \pi_k g(x_{ki}\|\mu_k,\Sigma) \\ & - \log \hat{\pi}_{k\,\mathrm{sup}} g(x_{ki}\|\hat{\mu}_{k\,\mathrm{sup}},\hat{\Sigma}_{\mathrm{sup}}) \, ; \end{split}$$ 3. we want to minimize for $q$, so we change its value in the direction opposite of the gradient, i.e., with $- \alpha$. In our experiments in Section \[sect:exp\], the step size $\alpha$ is decreased as one over the number of iterations. Furthermore, we limit the maximum number of iterations to 1000. In addition, if the maximin objective does not change more than $10^{-6}$ in one iteration, the optimization is halted. With these settings, in our experiments, the maximum number of iterations is reached seldom (in less than one in every thousand cases). Finally, we remark that care should be taken when calculating the necessary log-likelihoods or any of the related quantities. For example, the logarithm of the determinant of the average class covariance matrices can, especially for moderate- and high-dimensional problems, easily results in numerical infinities. Fairly reliable results can, in this instance, be obtained by determining the singular values of the covariance matrix through an SVD and taking the sum of the logarithm of these values. Experiments and Results with LDA {#sect:exp} ================================ Having presented the specific theory for semi-supervised LDA and a heuristic approach to find its MCPL parameters in Section \[sect:lda\], there are four main issues we want to investigate experimentally. To start with, the theory states that semi-supervised LDA estimates are better on the training data at hand given the log-likelihood as the performance measure. The two questions this raises are, firstly, how do these estimates compare to the supervised estimates on new and previously unseen test data? And secondly, how do they perform and compare in terms of the 0-1 loss, i.e., the classification error? Concerning the second point, we remark that the relation between likelihood and error rate is not necessarily monotonic and a higher likelihood does not necessarily lead to a lower error. It is only in recent years that considerable effort has been spent on understanding the nontrivial relationship between the criterion a classifier optimizes (here the likelihood) and how that classifier performs in terms of any other criterion of interest (here the error rate). Refer, for instance, to [@bartlett2006convexity; @ben2012minimizing; @loog12dip; @reid2010composite; @reid2011information; @zhang2004statistical]. Thirdly, we measure the log-likelihood for the various parameter estimates also on the training set. This gives us a basic check on the performance of our optimization heuristic: we should find that the semi-supervised solutions never deteriorates the supervised solution and typically even improves upon it. The final, fourth point is to compare our theoretically underpinned method to the semi-supervised LDA technique from [@loog2013semi], which enforced the constraints in Equations (\[eq:mean\]) and (\[eq:cov\]) in an ad hoc way. It puts our novel method in a broader perspective, as the earlier method has been studied extensively already. Among others, this constrained LDA has been shown to perform much better than self-learning or EM approaches to LDA and to be competitive with transductive SVM [@joachims99a] and even entropy regularized logistic regression [@grandvalet04], especially in the small sample setting. Data Sets and Preprocessing --------------------------- We chose 16 data sets from the UCI Machine Learning Repository [@Bache+Lichman:2013] to perform our experiments on. The full names can be found in Table \[tab:name\]. The same table contains abbreviated names that we use to refer to these sets in other tables and throughout the text. A main criterion for choosing these particular data sets was their size. We wanted to be able to easily generate labeled and unlabeled training sets from them plus independent test sets and we wanted especially the last two sets to have a fair size. In addition, we wanted to limit the computational burden and therefore did not choose too high-dimensional sets. Moreover, in order to rid ourselves of potential problems with singular class-conditional covariance matrices (which would leave the supervised estimation problem ill-posed) or numerical challenges related to this, the complete data sets were preprocessed in the following way. In a first step, the variance of every individual feature was normalized to one. A feature was removed altogether if its variance was numerically zero. In a second step, PCA was applied to the full sets and $999\permil$ of the variance was retained in order to remove linearly dependent features. We note that reducing the dimensionality essentially changes the likelihood of a data set, but that any nonsingular linear transformation merely offsets the log-likelihood attained by LDA. Table \[tab:dat\] provides various statistics for the 16 data sets. It also indicates, in the last column, which 6 of the 16 data sets consist purely of discrete feature values. The fourth-to-last to second-to-last column in the table gives the different sizes of labeled ($N$), unlabeled ($M$), and test sets we used in every run of our experiments. We do not expect much gain from employing unlabeled data if the number of labeled points is large. We therefore kept the labeled set small, choosing a size of twice the dimensionality plus once the number of classes: $2d+K$. We also took care that every class has at least one labeled instance in the training set. The remainder of the data was then randomly divided in two, more or less, equally sized sets that make up the unlabeled and test sets, respectively. data set (abbr.) \#objects dim. PCA/$d$ $K$ largest (%) smallest (%) $N$ $M$ \#test discr. ------------------ ----------- ------ --------- ----- --------- -------- ---------- -------- ----- -------- -------- -------- [banknote]{} 1372 4 4 2 762 (55.5) 610 (44.5) 10 681 681 no [climate]{} 540 18 18 2 494 (91.5) 46 (8.5) 38 251 251 no [first-order]{} 6118 51 41 6 2554 (41.7) 486 (7.9) 88 3015 3015 no [gas]{} 13910 128 60 6 3009 (21.6) 1641 (11.8) 126 6892 6892 no [landsat]{} 6435 36 33 6 1533 (23.8) 626 (9.7) 72 3182 3181 yes [letter]{} 20000 16 16 26 813 (4.1) 734 (3.7) 58 9971 9971 yes [low]{} 531 93 70 10 90 (16.9) 4 (0.8) 150 191 190 no [magic]{} 19020 10 10 2 12332 (64.8) 6688 (35.2) 22 9499 9499 no [miniboone]{} 130064 50 11 2 93565 (71.9) 36499 (28.1) 24 65020 65020 no [optical]{} 5620 64 61 10 572 (10.2) 554 (9.9) 132 2744 2744 yes [pen-based]{} 10992 16 16 10 1144 (10.4) 1055 (9.6) 42 5475 5475 yes [qsar]{} 1055 41 38 2 699 (66.3) 356 (33.7) 78 489 488 no [shuttle]{} 58000 9 6 7 45586 (78.6) 10 (0.0) 19 28991 28990 yes [skin]{} 245057 3 3 2 194198 (79.2) 50859 (20.8) 8 122525 122524 no [spambase]{} 4601 57 56 2 2788 (60.6) 1813 (39.4) 114 2244 2243 no [spectf]{} 267 44 43 2 212 (79.4) 55 (20.6) 88 90 89 yes Performance Criteria and Results {#sect:perf} -------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------- --------------------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------- -------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- ------- ------- data set (abbr.) $L_\mathrm{{sup}}$ $L_\mathrm{{semi}}$ $L_\mathrm{{opt}}$ $L_\mathrm{{sup}}$ $L_\mathrm{{semi}}$ $L_\mathrm{{opt}}$ $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{semi}{sup}}}$ $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{opt}{semi}}}$ $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{semi}{sup}}}$ $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{opt}{semi}}}$ test trn. [banknote]{} -11.7 -4.72 -4.51 -11.5 -4.69 -4.48 100.0 98.4 100.0 100.0 0.971 0.970 [climate]{} -34.1 -26.5 -26.2 -32.6 -25.8 -25.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.964 0.961 [first-order]{} -1.88e+03 -62.6 -60.3 -1.78e+03 -40.4 -39.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.999 0.999 [gas]{} -4.46e+04 -4.4e+03 -4.41e+03 -4.37e+04 -13.1 -12.4 100.0 44.8 100.0 100.0 1.000 1.000 [landsat]{} -33.2 -4.64 -3.73 -32.4 -4.35 -3.42 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.969 0.968 [letter]{} -63.6 -22.3 -18.4 -63.3 -22.2 -18.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.914 0.913 [low]{} -90.1 -19.8 -17.6 -37.8 11.7 13.9 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 0.969 0.957 [magic]{} -30.6 -11.7 -11.1 -30.6 -11.6 -11.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.974 0.974 [miniboone]{} -2.2e+09 -7.17e+07 -6.93e+07 -2.42e+09 -9.75 -9.48 99.8 93.1 100.0 100.0 0.999 1.000 [optical]{} -6.24e+15 -6.06e+15 -61.1 -60.1 100.0 83.8 100.0 100.0 1.000 1.000 [pen-based]{} -45.2 -15.9 -13.5 -44.9 -15.8 -13.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.927 0.926 [qsar]{} -4.02e+14 -3.36e+14 -37.2 -36.9 100.0 99.7 100.0 100.0 1.000 1.000 [shuttle]{} -9.81 -9.24 -9.37 -8.76 100.0 96.9 100.0 100.0 1.000 1.000 [skin]{} -125 -3.84 -3.45 -125 -3.84 -3.45 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.997 0.997 [spambase]{} -81.6 -81.3 -73.7 -73.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.000 1.000 [spectf]{} -78.6 -53.6 -53.1 -54.5 -36.8 -36.5 100.0 97.5 100.0 100.0 0.982 0.985 ----------------- -------------------- --------------------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------- -------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- ------- ------- ----------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------ --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- -------- -------- data set (abbr.) $\varepsilon_\mathrm{{sup}}$ $\varepsilon_\mathrm{{semi}}$ $\varepsilon_\mathrm{{opt}}$ $\varepsilon_\mathrm{{sup}}$ $\varepsilon_\mathrm{{semi}}$ $\varepsilon_\mathrm{{opt}}$ $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{semi}{sup}}}$ $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{opt}{semi}}}$ $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{semi}{sup}}}$ $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{opt}{semi}}}$ test trn. [banknote]{} 0.061 0.052 0.025 0.061 0.052 0.024 69.7 89.7 70.5 89.3 0.254 0.240 [climate]{} 0.150 0.143 0.053 0.133 0.129 0.034 63.9 99.8 56.0 100.0 0.071 0.033 [first-order]{} 0.666 0.658 0.529 0.652 0.650 0.514 75.9 100.0 55.3 100.0 0.055 0.015 [gas]{} 0.141 0.134 0.085 0.139 0.133 0.082 68.5 99.9 65.7 99.8 0.134 0.105 [landsat]{} 0.291 0.251 0.161 0.285 0.247 0.153 100.0 100.0 99.9 100.0 0.312 0.286 [letter]{} 0.618 0.599 0.299 0.615 0.595 0.294 97.5 100.0 97.1 100.0 0.061 0.060 [low]{} 0.763 0.747 0.696 0.475 0.501 0.334 70.0 91.5 2.2 100.0 0.233 -0.181 [magic]{} 0.317 0.303 0.216 0.316 0.303 0.216 90.3 100.0 89.4 99.8 0.136 0.134 [miniboone]{} 0.246 0.229 0.159 0.246 0.229 0.159 83.6 99.9 83.7 99.9 0.198 0.197 [optical]{} 0.161 0.113 0.049 0.154 0.111 0.042 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.426 0.385 [pen-based]{} 0.280 0.243 0.124 0.278 0.241 0.122 99.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.238 0.234 [qsar]{} 0.257 0.247 0.154 0.229 0.226 0.132 65.7 100.0 53.1 100.0 0.089 0.031 [shuttle]{} 0.134 0.103 0.059 0.134 0.103 0.059 82.1 83.7 81.7 83.7 0.415 0.413 [skin]{} 0.087 0.068 0.087 0.068 79.8 55.9 79.8 56.0 0.365 0.365 [spambase]{} 0.195 0.185 0.112 0.189 0.182 0.108 76.2 99.8 70.7 100.0 0.117 0.086 [spectf]{} 0.260 0.203 0.210 0.131 41.7 85.7 21.6 100.0 -0.006 -0.108 ----------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------ --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- -------- -------- ----------------- -------------------- -------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- data set test trn. test trn. (abbr.) $L_\mathrm{{hoc}}$ $L_\mathrm{{hoc}}$ $\varepsilon_\mathrm{{hoc}}$ $\varepsilon_\mathrm{{hoc}}$ $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{hoc}{sup}}}$ $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{semi}{hoc}}}$ $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{hoc}{sup}}}$ $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{semi}{hoc}}}$ $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{hoc}{sup}}}$ $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{semi}{hoc}}}$ $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{hoc}{sup}}}$ $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{semi}{hoc}}}$ [banknote]{} -9.38 -9.29 0.087 0.086 73.8 96.5 74.0 96.6 30.1 76.2 30.6 75.2 [climate]{} -27 -26.2 0.117 0.102 100.0 93.7 100.0 93.3 79.9 22.4 81.1 17.5 [first-order]{} -68 -43.7 0.626 0.616 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.8 7.6 95.0 5.8 [gas]{} -5.66e+03 -21.1 0.145 0.143 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 44.7 68.3 42.9 67.9 [landsat]{} -16.8 -16.2 0.308 0.302 99.4 100.0 99.5 100.0 29.8 98.6 27.9 98.0 [letter]{} -53.1 -52.9 0.625 0.622 99.8 100.0 99.7 100.0 33.2 92.4 32.2 92.9 [low]{} -27.9 9.42 0.744 0.485 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 74.9 39.3 26.1 16.4 [magic]{} -12.4 -12.4 0.292 0.292 100.0 80.7 100.0 80.7 74.0 37.8 74.3 38.9 [miniboone]{} -7.65e+07 -10.8 0.218 0.218 99.7 96.1 100.0 98.3 73.1 41.3 72.6 40.7 [optical]{} -7.74e+15 -7.48e+15 0.900 0.900 29.5 99.0 32.7 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 [pen-based]{} -35.4 -35 0.299 0.297 98.9 100.0 99.1 100.0 24.5 98.7 24.8 98.5 [qsar]{} -1.51e+13 -1.1e+13 0.229 0.209 100.0 93.2 100.0 96.6 86.9 16.1 83.8 14.9 [shuttle]{} 0.822 0.822 1.6 100.0 1.6 100.0 1.6 99.1 1.6 99.1 [skin]{} -40.4 -40.4 94.7 95.2 94.7 95.4 40.1 71.2 40.6 71.1 [spambase]{} 0.310 0.307 85.1 100.0 85.1 100.0 51.3 51.0 51.8 48.4 [spectf]{} -53.8 -36.8 0.293 0.182 100.0 74.2 100.0 42.3 71.0 17.8 78.4 8.0 ----------------- -------------------- -------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- With the labeled, unlabeled, and test sets as described above, we determined $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}$, $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{semi}$, and $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{opt}$. In addition, we calculated $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{hoc}$, which are the parameters of the constrained LDA estimated by means of the more ad hoc procedure in [@loog2013semi]. For $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{opt}$, we of course had to use the true labels belonging to the unlabeled data. The parameters in $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{hoc}$ can be estimated in closed form. For details, we refer to the original work in [@loog2013semi]. For every data set the experiments were repeated 1000 times. Using the estimates $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{sup}$, $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{semi}$, and $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{opt}$, we calculated the following twelve criteria based on the log-likelihood for Table \[tab:llres\]: the three average log-likelihoods (denoted $L_\mathrm{sup}$, $L_\mathrm{semi}$, and $L_\mathrm{opt}$) on the independent test data; the same three average log-likelihoods on the labeled plus unlabeled data, i.e., the training data $X_{V^\ast}$; the percentage of times that the log-likelihood of the semi-supervised learner is strictly larger than the log-likelihood of the supervised learner ($\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{semi}{sup}}}$, read: semi-supervised over supervised); the percentage that the log-likelihood of the optimal classifier is strictly larger than the semi-supervised one (this number, denoted $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{opt}{semi}}}$, as well as the previously defined $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{semi}{sup}}}$ are calculated both on the test and the training set); and finally we expressed the relative improvement of the semi-supervised approach over the supervised approach in comparison with the optimal estimates by $\frac{L_\mathrm{semi} - L_\mathrm{sup}}{L_\mathrm{opt} - L_\mathrm{sup}}$. Again this is done both on the test and the training set. The same quantities are also calculated for the corresponding error rates $\varepsilon_\mathrm{{sup}}$, $\varepsilon_\mathrm{{semi}}$, and $\varepsilon_\mathrm{{opt}}$ (see Table \[tab:errres\]), with the only difference that we check numbers to be strictly smaller, instead of larger, to determine $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{semi}{sup}}}$ and $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{opt}{semi}}}$. Finally, Table \[tab:adhoc\] contains averaged log-likelihoods $L_\mathrm{hoc}$ and error rates $\varepsilon_\mathrm{hoc}$, both on training and test sets, for the more ad hoc semi-supervised approach. Similar to those in Tables \[tab:llres\] and \[tab:errres\], in the last four columns, comparisons to the corresponding log-likelihoods and classification errors of the supervised and our novel semi-supervised approach are made. A permutation test on all different paired results [@good2000permutation], both for the four log-likelihoods $L_\mathrm{{sup}}$, $L_\mathrm{{semi}}$, $L_\mathrm{opt}$, and $L_\mathrm{hoc}$ and the four errors $\varepsilon_\mathrm{{sup}}$, $\varepsilon_\mathrm{{semi}}$, $\varepsilon_\mathrm{{opt}}$, and $\varepsilon_\mathrm{{hoc}}$, showed that for almost all cases we cannot retain the hypothesis that their averages are the same (at $p \ll 0.001$). There are a few exceptions though. For the test error rates $\varepsilon_\mathrm{{sup}}$ and $\varepsilon_\mathrm{{semi}}$ on [spectf]{}, we cannot reject the null hypothesis of equality of expectation (at $p = 0.68$). On [optical]{} and [qsar]{} there is no statistically significant difference between $L_\mathrm{semi}$ and $L_\mathrm{opt}$ for the test log-likelihoods (at $p = 0.01$ and $0.50$, respectively). Finally, $L_\mathrm{sup}$ and $L_\mathrm{hoc}$ are, both in training and testing, not significantly different on [shuttle]{} (at $p=0.25$ and $0.25$) and [spambase]{} (at $p=0.76$ and $0.99$), while $\varepsilon_\mathrm{sup}$ and $\varepsilon_\mathrm{hoc}$ are not significantly different on [skin]{} (at $p=0.03$ and $0.03$). For easy reference, the related performance numbers are underlined in the respective result tables. Discussion {#sect:disc} ========== Guarantees on the Training Set ------------------------------ The results in Table \[tab:llres\] show that, on the training set, MCPL-based semi-supervised LDA is in between the regular supervised and the optimal estimate. That this happens to be the case in a strict sense, in all experiments we carried out, can be most readily deduced from the values under $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{semi}{sup}}}$ and $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{opt}{semi}}}$ on the training set. These numbers equal $100.0$ in all cases. This, in turn, indicates that in all of the 16,000 experiments we ran, the strict inequality from Theorem \[thm:1\] was satisfied. Even for the discrete data sets this holds true, which was to be expected, given the number of different discrete vectors these data sets take on. [Spectf]{} has the smallest number, 267, implying that every feature vector in [spectf]{} is unique. With 267 distinct values, chances are indeed very small that the means from Equation (\[eq:meansem\]) and (\[eq:meansup\]) coincide. Likelihood Behavior on the Test Set {#disc:test} ----------------------------------- The aforementioned guarantees are on the training set that includes the unlabeled samples in $U$, but of course we are interested in the performance on independent test data as well. We are unaware of any theoretical results for the log-likelihood that provide a precise connection between performance on the training set and the test set, though we do expect that with more training data the likelihood of the supervised model on the test set becomes better in expectation. We need to consider such improvement in expectation, simply because, for a single instantiation of a classification problem, we might be unlucky in our draw of training or test set. In contrast with the situation in the training phase, we can therefore only get improvements in the average. Comparing the test log-likelihood in Table \[tab:llres\] for the supervised method with the one for the semi-supervised approach, we see the same as on the training data: for every data set, $L_\mathrm{sup}$ is smaller than $L_\mathrm{semi}$. Also if we look at $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{semi}{sup}}}$, we see that there are only two cases out of 16,000 in which the supervised estimate was better: we find a percentage of $99.8$ instead of $100.0$ on [miniboone]{}. The story is different, however, if we compare the semi-supervised and the optimal estimates. First of all, $\mathrm{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{opt}{semi}}}$ indicates that, on the independent test set, the semi-supervised estimate is better than the optimal one in about 5% of the cases. In itself, this does not have to be at odds with what we expect for the likelihood, as it concerns the number of wins or losses and not the average log-likelihood. Our results on [gas]{}, [optical]{}, and [qsar]{}, however, indicate that also when it comes to the expected log-likelihood, $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{semi}$ may outperform $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{opt}$. Only the result on [gas]{} is statistically significant though. Moreover, the differences are anyway relatively small, as also the second-to-last column in Table \[tab:llres\] illustrates, where we find values basically equal to 1 for these sets. Regarding the log-likelihood, we generally note the following. Overall, the relative improvements, as provided in the last two columns of Table \[tab:llres\], are considerable, sometimes enormous even. None of them is lower than 0.9 and many are virtually 1. This shows that the semi-supervised log-likelihood is, relative to the supervised value, very close to the optimal estimate. The immense improvements are probably explained by the fact that the averaged class-conditional covariance matrix $\Sigma$ is much more stably estimated in case of semi-supervision. The supervised estimate relies on $N=2d+K$ samples, while the semi-supervised estimate, as can be readily seen from Equation (\[eq:wcov\]), is based on all $N+M$ in the training set. In our experiments $N+M$ is considerably larger than $N$. The latter is only slightly larger than twice the dimensionality, resulting in unstable covariance estimates. Clearly, the extreme difference in behavior for the various estimates will disappear with increasing numbers of labeled data. Error Rates ----------- Unlike the log-likelihood, the 0-1 loss is bounded and the differences and relative improvements stated in Table \[tab:errres\] are not that large. In almost all cases, $\varepsilon_\mathrm{semi}$ is smaller than $\varepsilon_\mathrm{sup}$ and $\varepsilon_\mathrm{opt}$ is smaller than $\varepsilon_\mathrm{semi}$ in turn. On the test set, the maximum relative improvement reported is 0.426 on [optical]{}, with a good second of 0.415 on [shuttle]{}. There are three settings, however, in which no improvements of semi-supervised over supervised learning are attained: the first one is on the training set for [low]{} and the two others are in the training and test phase for [spectf]{}. In all cases, $L_\mathrm{semi}$ is better than $L_\mathrm{sup}$. So we have the, possibly, somewhat counterintuitive behavior that the estimates improve in terms of the expected log-likelihood, but that the expected error rate still deteriorates. Similar phenomena for other classifiers have been described in [@ben2012minimizing; @loog12dip], where simple artificial examples are provided of how such behavior can be realized. It is a glimpse of the earlier mentioned difficult interrelationship two different performance criteria can display [@bartlett2006convexity; @reid2010composite; @reid2011information; @zhang2004statistical], which we alluded to earlier on in Section \[sect:exp\]. We checked the learning curves for [low]{} and [spectf]{} and they just showed the regular behavior: with increasing labeled sample sizes, the expected error rate of the supervised classifier decreases. Finally, we remark that the increase in error rate going from the training to the test set is less for the semi-supervised classifier than for the supervised one. This shows that the semi-supervised classifier is less overtrained on the training set than supervised LDA. Comparison to Constrained LDA ----------------------------- Looking at Table \[tab:adhoc\], we see that also the ad hoc approach can work well. Especially when looking at the likelihood and comparing it to the supervised estimates, we see that, both on the training and the test set, the estimated likelihood is often better than the one obtained by the regular supervised parameters. The reason for the constrained approach to often be so much better than the supervised approach is probably similar to the one given in Subsection \[disc:test\] to explain why the new approach comes so close to the optimal log-likelihoods. The large improvements are probably due to the fact that the averaged class-conditional covariance matrix $\Sigma$ is much more stably estimated in case of semi-supervision. The estimated covariance matrix might still not be very good, but at least it is substantially better than the volatile and not so well conditioned supervised estimate. Nonetheless, the novel approach clearly outperforms the more ad hoc technique in most of the cases where the likelihood is concerned. In fact, compared to the constrained approach, MCPL provides the best average test log-likelihood on all data sets. The only expected log-likelihood that is worse during training is the one for [spectf]{}. Looking at the error rate, we see that the ad hoc procedure does very bad on [optical]{} and [shuttle]{} (the reason for this remains as yet unclear). Still, $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{hoc}$ leads to the best error rate on the test set on seven data sets. On the other nine data sets $\hat{\theta}_\mathrm{semi}$ turns out to be preferred. MCPL for Other Classifiers -------------------------- MCPL is proposed as a general estimation principle, which delivers semi-supervised estimates that are at least as good as the regular supervised parameter estimates for any log-likelihood based classifier. To come to results such as Theorems \[thm:1\] and \[thm:expect\], additional knowledge about the class-conditional distributions is needed. Because they are very similar to LDA and the same kind of mean constraints hold, classifiers for which it is almost immediate that strict or expected improvements can be obtained through semi-supervision, are the NMC (nearest mean classifier), quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA), and all kinds of kernelized or flexibilized versions of NMC, LDA, and QDA [@hastie01]. We speculate that also many classifiers constructed on the basis of exponential families [@brown1986fundamentals; @bickel01] allow for theorems making equivalent statements. These include, for instance, the Bernoulli, multinomial, and exponential density. Another interesting group of classifiers to study in the context of MCPL is that for which every class may consist of a mixture model. As the analysis of mixture models is in itself already rather difficult [@lehmann98]—for one, the likelihood function is not concave, such classifiers may be outside the reach of any helpful theoretical analysis. We do, however, expect to benefit, if only from the regularizing effect our semi-supervised approach has, similar to the situation mentioned at the end of Subsection \[disc:test\]. What does seem a problem still, is to find an appropriate solution to the optimization that needs to be carried out in order to find an MCPL estimate. It seem worthwhile, though, to try to get to the nearest saddle point that can be found by means of a combined gradient ascent (in $\theta$) and descent (in $q$). [Finally, we could try to extend our work to classifiers that do not rely on likelihood models. One possible path may be through [@grunwald2004game], which presents a decision-theoretic interpretation of maximum entropy and considers generalized concepts of entropy that relate to a much broader class of loss function than merely the (negative) log-likelihood. Though the link with this work is certainly not one-to-one, it may be possible to interpret our contrastive loss as a form of relative entropy and to make use of the results in [@grunwald2004game].]{} Conclusion {#sect:conc} ========== We presented a well-founded approach to likelihood-based semi-supervised learning. Our principle of maximum contrastive pessimistic likelihood (MCPL) estimation is generally applicable to supervised classifiers whose parameters are estimated by means of a maximization of the likelihood. Moreover, under certain concavity assumptions, improvements of the semi-supervised estimates can be expected and, in particular cases, even be guaranteed. A worked-out illustration based on classical LDA demonstrates the significant improvements that can be obtained by our novel approach. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== Marleen de Bruijne (Erasmus MC and KU) is wholeheartedly acknowledged for scrutinizing an initial version of this article beginning to end. Jesse H. Krijthe (LUMC and TU Delft) and David M. J. Tax (TU Delft) are kindly thanked for their proofreading of parts of the text. Joris Mooij (UvA) is acknowledged for inviting me to give a talk that, eventually, triggered insights into a simplification and generalization of the theory. Are C. Jensen (UiO) is warmly thanked for all the semi-supervised inspiration he provided me with. Thanks also to Mads Nielsen (KU) who gave me some great opportunities throughout the past decade. [Finally, I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their critical appraisal. This work has benefitted from all the input received.]{} [^1]: As is also common in many mathematical statistics and analysis textbooks, plain italic lowercase letters may indicate vectors and not only scalars.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - \| <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Wende Liu$^{1,2}$</span>[^1] <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">and</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Liming Tang$^{1,2}$</span>[^2]\ $^{1}$Department of Mathematics, Harbin Institute of Technology\ Harbin 150006, China\ $^{2}$School of Mathematical Sciences, Harbin Normal University\ Harbin 150025, China date: --- > Abstract: It is shown that any finite dimensional simple Lie superalgebra over an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0 is generated by 2 elements. > > [Keywords]{}: Classical Lie superalgebra; Cartan Lie superalgebra; generator > > Mathematics Subject Classification 2000: 17B05, 17B20, 17B70 Introduction ============ Our principal aim is to determine the minimal number of generators for a finite-dimensional simple Lie superalgebra over an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0. The present work is dependent on the classification theorem due to Kac [@Kac], which states that a simple Lie superalgebra (excluding simple Lie algebras) is isomorphic to either a classical Lie superalgebra or a Cartan Lie superalgebra (see also [@MS]). In 2009, Bois [@MBJ] proved that a simple Lie algebra in arbitrary characteristic $p\neq 2,3$ is generated by 2 elements. In 1976, Ionescu [@GIT] proved that a simple Lie algebra $L$ over the field of complex numbers is generated by $1.5$ elements, that is, given any nonzero $x,$ there exists $y\in L$ such that the pair $(x,y)$ generates $L.$ In 1951, Kuranashi [@GKM] proved that a semi-simple Lie algebra in characteristic 0 is generated by 2 elements. As mentioned above, all the simple Lie superalgebras split into two series: Classical Lie superalgebras and Cartan Lie superalgebras. The Lie algebra (even part) of a classical Lie superalgebra is reductive and meanwhile there exists a similarity in the structure side between the Cartan Lie superalgebras in characteristic 0 and the simple graded Lie algebra of Cartan type in characteristic $p$. Thus, motivated by Bois’s paper [@MBJ] and in view of the observation above, we began this work in 2009. In the process we benefit in addition much from the literatures above, especially from [@MBJ], which contains a considerable amount of information in characteristic 0 and characteristic $p$. We also use certain information about classical Lie superalgebras from [@Z]. Throughout we work over an algebraically closed field $\mathbb{F}$ of characteristic 0 and all the vector spaces and algebras are finite dimensional. The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">main result</span> is that any simple Lie superalgebra is generated by 2 elements. Classical Lie superalgebras =========================== Basics ------ A classical Lie superalgebra by definition is a simple Lie superalgebra for which the representation of its Lie algebra (its even part) on the odd part is completely reducible [@Kac; @MS]. Throughout this section, we always write $L=L_{\bar{0}}\oplus L_{\bar{1}}$ for a classical Lie superalgebra. Our aim is to determine the minimal number of generators for a classical Lie superalgebra $L$. The strategy is as follows. First, using the results in Lie algebras [@MBJ; @GIT], we show that the Lie algebra $L_{\bar{0}}$ is generated by 2 elements. Then, from the structure of semi-simple Lie algebras and their simple modules, we prove that each classical Lie superalgebra is generated by 2 elements. A classical Lie superalgebra is determined by its Lie algebra in a sense. [@MS p.101, Theorem 1]\[pro-even-part-reductive\] A simple Lie superalgebra is classical if and only if its Lie algebra is reductive. The following facts including Table 1.1 may be found in [@Kac; @MS]. The odd part $L_{\bar{1}}$ as $L_{\bar{0}}$-module is completely reducible and $L_{\bar{1}}$ decomposes into at most two irreducible components. By Proposition \[pro-even-part-reductive\], $L_{\bar{0}}=C(L_{\bar{0}})\oplus [L_{\bar{0}},L_{\bar{0}}].$ If the center $C(L_{\bar{0}})$ is nonzero, then $\dim C(L_{\bar{0}})=1 $ and $L_{\bar{1}}=L_{\bar{1}}^{1}\oplus L_{\bar{1}}^{2} $ is a direct sum of two irreducible $L_{\bar{0}}$-submodules. For further information the reader is refereed to [@MS; @Kac].\ [\|l\|l\|l\|]{} \ &&\ ${\rm{A}}(m,n),\; m,n\geq 0, n\neq m$& ${\rm{A}}_{m}\oplus {\rm{A}}_{n}\oplus \mathbb{F}$&$~~\mathfrak{sl}_{m+1}\otimes\mathfrak{sl}_{n+1}\otimes \mathbb{F}\oplus (\mbox{its dual})$\ ${\rm{A}}(n,n),\;n> 0$& ${\rm{A}}_{n}\oplus {\rm{A}}_{n}$&$~~\mathfrak{sl}_{n+1}\otimes\mathfrak{sl}_{n+1}\oplus (\mbox{its dual})$\ ${\rm{B}}(m,n),\;m\geq 0,n>0$&${\rm{B}}_{m}\oplus {\rm{C}}_{n}$&$~~\mathfrak{so}_{2m+1}\otimes \mathfrak{sp}_{2n}$\ ${\rm{D}}(m,n),\;m\geq 2,n>0$&${\rm{D}}_{m}\oplus {\rm{C}}_{n}$& $\mathfrak{so}_{2m}\otimes \mathfrak{sp}_{2n}$\ ${\rm{C}}(n),\;n\geq 2$&${\rm{C}}_{n-1}\oplus \mathbb{F}$&$~~\mathfrak{csp}_{2n-2}\oplus (\mbox{its dual})$\ ${\rm{P}}(n),\;n\geq 2$&${\rm{A}}_{n}$& $~~\Lambda^{2}\mathfrak{sl}^{}_{n+1}\oplus{\rm{S}}^{2}\mathfrak{sl}_{n+1}$\ ${\rm{Q}}(n),\;n\geq 2$& ${\rm{A}}_{n}$& $~~{\rm{ad}}\mathfrak{sl}_{n+1}$\ ${\rm{D}}(2,1;\alpha),\;\alpha\in \mathbb{F}\setminus \{-1,0\}$& ${\rm{A}}_{1}\oplus {\rm{A}}_{1}\oplus {\rm{A}}_{1}$& $~~\mathfrak{sl}_{2}\otimes\mathfrak{sl}_{2}\otimes\mathfrak{sl}_{2}$\ ${\rm{G}}(3)$& $\mathfrak{G}_{2}\oplus {\rm{A}}_{1}$& $\mathfrak{G}_{2}\otimes \mathfrak{sl}_{2}$\ ${\rm{F}}(4)$& ${\rm{B}}_{3}\oplus {\rm{A}}_{1}$& $\mathfrak{spin}_{7}\otimes \mathfrak{sl}_{2}$\ Even parts ---------- Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a semi-simple Lie algebra. Consider the root decomposition relative to a Cartan subalgebra $\mathfrak{h}$: $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{h}\oplus\bigoplus_{\alpha\in \Phi}\mathfrak{g}^{\alpha}.$ For $x\in \mathfrak{g}$ we write $ x=x_{\mathfrak{h}}+\sum_{\alpha\in\Phi} x^{\alpha}$ for the corresponding root space decomposition. It is well-known that [@H] $$\begin{aligned} &&{\rm{dim}}\mathfrak{g}^{\alpha}=1 \quad \mbox{for all}\; \alpha\in \Phi,\label{eq1739f}\\ &&\mathfrak{h}=\sum_{\alpha\in \Phi}[\mathfrak{g}^{\alpha},\mathfrak{g}^{-\alpha}],\label{eq17394}\\ && [\mathfrak{g}^{\alpha},\mathfrak{g}^{\beta}]=\mathfrak{g}^{\alpha+\beta} \quad\mbox{whenever}\; \alpha,\beta, \alpha+\beta\in \Phi.\label{eq0943}\end{aligned}$$ Let $V$ be a vector space and $\mathfrak{F}:=\{f_{1},\ldots,f_{n}\}$ a finite set of non-zero linear functions on $V$. Write $$\Omega_{\mathfrak{F}}:=\{v\in V\mid \Pi_{1\leq i\neq j\leq n}(f_{i}-f_{j})(v)\neq 0\}.$$ \[lemma-zarisk\] Suppose $\mathfrak{F}$ is a finite set of non-zero functions in $V^{}$. Then $\Omega_{\mathfrak{F}}\neq\emptyset.$ If $\mathfrak{G}\subset \mathfrak{F}$ then $\Omega_{\mathfrak{F}}\subset\Omega_{\mathfrak{G}}.$ The first statement is from [@MBJ Lemma 2.2.1] and the second is straightforward. This lemma will be usually used in the special situation when $V$ is a Cartan subalgebra of a simple Lie superalgebra. An element $x$ in a semi-simple Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ is called balanced if it has no zero components with respect to the standard decomposition of simple Lie algebras. If $\mathfrak{h}$ is a Cartan subalgebra of $\mathfrak{g}$, $x\in\mathfrak{g}$ is called $\mathfrak{h}$-balanced provided that $x^{\alpha}\neq0$ for all $\alpha\in \Phi.$ [@MBJ]\[lem1142lt\] An element of a semi-simple Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ is balanced if and only if it is $\mathfrak{h}$-balanced for some Cartan subalgebra $\mathfrak{h}$. One direction is obvious. Suppose $x\in\mathfrak{g}$ is balanced and let $\mathfrak{h}'$ is a Cartan subalgebra of $\mathfrak{g}$. From the proof of [@MBJ Theorem 2.2.3], there exists $\varphi\in \mathfrak{g}$ such that $\varphi(x)$ is $\mathfrak{h}'$-balanced. Letting $\mathfrak{h}=\varphi^{-1}(\mathfrak{h}')$, one sees that $\mathfrak{h}$ is a Cartan subalgebra and $x$ is $\mathfrak{h}$-balanced. For an algebra $\mathfrak{A}$ and $x, y\in \mathfrak{A}$, we write $\langle x,y\rangle$ for the subalgebra generated by $x$ and $y$. We should notice that for a Lie superalgebra $\langle x,y\rangle$ is not necessarily a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-graded subalgebra (hence not necessarily a sub-Lie superalgebra). The following technical lemma will be frequently used. \[lemmeigenvector\] Let $\mathfrak{A}$ be an algebra. For $a\in \mathfrak{A}$ write $L_a$ for the left-multiplication operator given by $a$. Suppose $x=x_{1}+x_{2}+\cdots+x_{n}$ is a sum of eigenvectors of $L_a$ associated with mutually distinct eigenvalues. Then all $x_{i}$’s lie in the subalgebra generated $\langle a,x\rangle$. Let $\lambda_i$ be the eigenvalues of $L_a$ corresponding to $x_i$. Suppose for a moment that all the $\lambda_i$’s are nonzero. Then $$(L_a)^{k}(x)=\lambda_{1}^{k}x_{1}+\lambda_{2}^{k}x_{2}+\cdots+\lambda_{n}^{k}x_{n}\quad \mbox{for}\; k\geq 1.$$ Our conclusion in this case follows from the fact that the Vandermonde determinate given by $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_n$ is nonzero and thereby the general situation is clear. We write down a lemma from [@MBJ Theorem B and Corollory 2.2.5] and the references therein, which is also a consequence of Lemmas \[lemma-zarisk\], \[lem1142lt\] and \[lemmeigenvector\]. \[lem-semi-simple14\] Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a semi-simple Lie algebra. If $x\in\mathfrak{g}$ is balanced then for a suitable Cartan subalgebra $\mathfrak{h}$ and the corresponding root system $\Phi$ we have $\mathfrak{g}=\langle x, h\rangle$ for all $h\in \Omega_{\Phi}$. Denote by $\Pi:=\{\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{n}\}$ the system of simple roots of a semi-simple Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ relative to a Cartan subalgebra $\mathfrak{h}$. As above, $x\in\mathfrak{g}$ is refereed to as $\Pi$-balanced if $x$ is a sum of all the simple-root vectors, that is, $x=\sum_{\alpha\in\Pi}x^{\alpha},$ where $x^{\alpha}$ is a root vector of $\alpha$. Recall that $\Omega_{\Pi}\neq\emptyset $ by Lemma \[lemma-zarisk\]. \[lem-simple roots\] A semi-simple Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ is generated by a $\Pi$-balanced element and an element in $\Omega_{\Pi}$. This is a consequence of Lemma \[lemmeigenvector\] and the facts (\[eq1739f\]), (\[eq17394\]) and (\[eq0943\]). \[pro-even-part-generators\] The Lie algebra of a classical Lie superalgebra is generated by 2 elements. Let $L=L_{\bar{0}}\oplus L_{\bar{1}}$ be a classical Lie superalgebra. By Proposition \[pro-even-part-reductive\], $L_{\bar{0}}$ is reductive, that is, $[L_{\bar{0}},L_{\bar{0}}]$ is semi-simple and $$\label{eq1853} L_{\bar{0}}=C(L_{\bar{0}})\oplus[L_{\bar{0}},L_{\bar{0}}].$$ If $C(L_{\bar{0}})=0$, the conclusion follows immediately from Lemma \[lem-semi-simple14\]. If $C(L_{\bar{0}})$ is nonzero, then $C(L_{\bar{0}})=\mathbb{F}z$ is 1-dimensional. Choose a balanced element $x\in [L_{\bar{0}},L_{\bar{0}}]$. By Lemma \[lem-semi-simple14\], there exists $h\in [L_{\bar{0}},L_{\bar{0}}]$ such that $[L_{\bar{0}},L_{\bar{0}}]=\langle x,h\rangle.$ Claim that $$L_{\bar{0}}=\langle x,h+z\rangle.$$ Indeed, considering the projection of $L_{\bar{0}}$ onto $[L_{\bar{0}},L_{\bar{0}}] $ with respect to the decomposition (\[eq1853\]), denoted by $\pi$, which is a homomorphism of Lie algebras, we have $$\pi(\langle x,h+z\rangle)=\langle \pi(x),\pi(h+z)\rangle=\langle x,h\rangle=[L_{\bar{0}},L_{\bar{0}}].$$ Hence only two possibilities might occur: $\langle x,h+z\rangle=L_{\bar{0}}$ or ${\rm{dim}}\langle x,h+z\rangle={\rm{dim}}[L_{\bar{0}},L_{\bar{0}}].$ The first case is the desired. Let us show that the second does not occur. Assume the contrary. Then $\pi$ restricting to $\langle x,h+z\rangle$ is an isomorphism and thereby $\langle x,h+z\rangle$ is semi-simple. Thus $$\langle x,h+z\rangle=[\langle x,h+z\rangle,\langle x,h+z\rangle]= [\langle x,h\rangle,\langle x,h\rangle]=\langle x,h\rangle.$$ Hence $h\in \langle x,h+z\rangle$. It follows that $$z\in \langle x,h+z\rangle=\langle x,h\rangle=[L_{\bar{0}},L_{\bar{0}}],$$ contradicting (\[eq1853\]). \[remarkgln\] By Corollary \[lem-simple roots\], $\mathfrak{sl}(n)$ is generated by a $\Pi$-balanced element $x$ and an element $y$ in $\Omega_{\Pi}$. As in the proof of Proposition \[pro-even-part-generators\], one may prove that $\mathfrak{gl}(n)$ is generated by $h$ and $x+z$, where $z$ is a nonzero central element in $\mathfrak{gl}(n)$. Classical Lie superalgebras --------------------------- Suppose $L$ is a classical Lie superalgebra with the standard Cartan subalgebra $H $. The corresponding weight (root) space decompositions are $$\begin{aligned} && L_{\bar{0}}=H\oplus \bigoplus_{\alpha\in \Delta_{\bar{0}}}L_{\bar{0}}^{\alpha},\qquad L_{\bar{1}}=\bigoplus_{\beta\in \Delta_{\bar{1}}}L_{\bar{1}}^{\beta};\nonumber\\ && L=H\oplus \bigoplus_{\alpha\in \Delta_{\bar{0}}}L_{\bar{0}}^{\alpha}\oplus\bigoplus_{\beta\in \Delta_{\bar{1}}}L_{\bar{1}}^{\beta}.\label{eq-root-space-decompose}\end{aligned}$$ Every $x\in L$ has a unique decomposition with respect to (\[eq-root-space-decompose\]): $$\label{eq-elememt-decompose} x=x_{H}+\sum_{\alpha\in \Delta_{\bar{0}}}x_{\bar{0}}^{\alpha}+\sum_{\beta\in \Delta_{\bar{1}}}x_{\bar{1}}^{\beta},$$ where $x_{H}\in H,$ $x_{\bar{0}}^{\alpha}\in L_{\bar{0}}^{\alpha}$, $x_{\bar{1}}^{\beta}\in L_{\bar{1}}^{\beta}$. Write $$\Delta:=\Delta_{\bar{0}}\cup \Delta_{\bar{1}}\quad\mbox{and}\quad L^{\gamma}:=L_{\bar{0}}^{\gamma}\oplus L_{\bar{1}}^{\gamma}\quad\mbox{for}\quad\gamma\in \Delta.$$ Note that the standard Cartan subalgebra of a classical Lie superalgebra is diagonal: $$\label{eq-classical-root-vector} \mathrm{ad}h(x)=\gamma(h)x \quad \mbox{for all}\;\; h\in H,\; x\in L^{\gamma}, \;\gamma\in \Delta.$$ For $x\in L$, write $$\mathbf{supp}(x):=\{\gamma\in\Delta \mid x_{\gamma}\neq 0\}.\label{eq-component}$$ For $x=x_{\bar{0}}+x_{\bar{1}}\in L,$ $$\mathbf{supp}(x)=\mathbf{supp}(x_{\bar{0}})\cup\mathbf{supp}(x_{\bar{1}}).$$ \[lem-weight-information\] - If $L\neq {\rm{Q}}(n)$ then $0\notin \Delta_{\bar{1}}$ and $\Delta_{\bar{0}}\cap\Delta_{\bar{1}}=\emptyset.$ - If $L= {\rm{Q}}(n)$ then $\Delta_{\bar{1}}=\{0\}\cup\Delta_{\bar{0}}.$ - If $L\neq\mathrm{A}(1,1)$, $\mathrm{Q}(n)$ or $\mathrm{P}(3)$ then $\mathrm{dim}L^{\gamma}=1$ for every $\gamma\in \Delta.$ - Suppose $L={\rm{A}}(m,n) $, ${\rm{A}}(n,n), {\rm{C}}(n)$ or ${\rm{P}}(n),$ where $m\neq n$. - $L_{\bar{1}}=L_{\bar{1}}^{1}\oplus L_{\bar{1}}^{2}$ is a direct sum of two irreducible $L_{\bar{0}}$-submodules. - Let $\Delta_{\bar{1}}^{i}$ be the weight set of $L_{\bar{1}}^{i}$ relative to $H,$ $i=1,2$. Then there exist $\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{i}\in \Delta_{\bar{1}}^{i}$ such that $\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{1}\neq\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{2}.$ (1), (2) and (3) follow from [@MS Proposition 1, p.137]. (4)(a) follows from Table 1.1. Let us consider (4)(b). For $L={\rm{A}}(m,n), {\rm{A}}(n,n)$ or ${\rm{C}}(n),$ it follows from the fact that $L_{0}$-modules $L_{-1}$ and $L_{1}$ are contragradient. For $L= {\rm{P}}(n),$ a direct computation shows that $-\varepsilon_{1}-\varepsilon_{2}\in \Delta_{\bar{1}}^{1}$ and $2\varepsilon_{1}\in \Delta_{\bar{1}}^{2}.$ \[th-classical\] A classical Lie superalgebra is generated by 2 elements. Let $L=L_{\bar{0}}\oplus L_{\bar{1}}$ be a classical Lie superalgebra.\ Case 1. Suppose ${\rm{dim}}C(L_{\bar{0}})=1.$ In this case $L= {\rm{C}}(n) $ or ${\rm{A}}(m,n)$ with $m\neq n$ (see Table 1.1). Then $L_{\bar{1}}=L_{\bar{1}}^{1}\oplus L_{\bar{1}}^{2}$ is a direct sum of two irreducible $L_{\bar{0}}$-submodules and $[L_{\bar{0}},L_{\bar{0}}]$ is simple or a direct sum of two simple Lie algebras. Let $x_{\bar{0}}$ be a balanced element in $[L_{\bar{0}},L_{\bar{0}}].$ From Lemma \[lem1142lt\], there exists a Cartan subalgebra $\mathfrak{h}$ of $[L_{\bar{0}},L_{\bar{0}}]$ such that ${\bf{supp}}(x_{\bar{0}})=\Delta_{\bar{0}},$ the latter is viewed as the root system relative to $\mathfrak{h}.$ By Lemma \[lem-semi-simple14\], we have $[L_{\bar{0}},L_{\bar{0}}]= \langle x_{\bar{0}},h\rangle$ for all $h\in \Omega_{\Delta_{\bar{0}}}$. Furthermore, from the proof of Proposition \[pro-even-part-generators\] it follows that $L_{\bar{0}}=\langle x_{\bar{0}},h+z\rangle $ for $0\neq z\in C(L_{\bar{0}}).$ By Lemma \[lem-weight-information\](1) and (4), there exist $\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{1}\in \Delta_{\bar{1}}^{1}$ and $ \alpha_{\bar{1}}^{2}\in \Delta_{\bar{1}}^{2}$ such that $\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{1}\neq \alpha_{\bar{1}}^{2}$ and $\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{1}, \alpha_{\bar{1}}^{2}\notin\Delta_{\bar{0}}.$ Set $x:=x_{\bar{0}}+x_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{1}}+x_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{2}}+z $ for some weight vectors $ x_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{i}}\in L_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{i}},\; i=1,2.$ Then $$x=(x_{\mathfrak{h}}+z)+\sum_{\alpha\in \Delta_{\bar{0}}}x_{\bar{0}}^{\alpha}+x_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{1}}+x_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{2}}.$$ Write $\Phi:=\Delta_{\bar{0}}\cup \{\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{1}\}\cup\{\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{2}\} $ and choose an element $h'\in \Omega_{\Phi}.$ Assert $\langle x,h'\rangle=L.$ To show that, write $ L':=\langle x,h'\rangle.$ Lemma \[lemmeigenvector\] implies all components $ x_{\bar{0}}^{\alpha},$ $x_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{1}}$, $x_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{2}}$ and $x_{H}+z$ belong to $L'$. Since $x_{\bar{0}}^{\alpha}\in L'$ for all $\alpha\in \Delta_{\bar{0}},$ from (\[eq17394\]) we have $x_{H}\in L' $ and then $z\in L'.$ As $h'\in \Omega_{\Phi}\subset \Omega_{\Delta_{\bar{0}}},$ we obtain $\langle x_{\bar{0}},h'+z\rangle=L_{\bar{0}}\subset L'.$ Since $x_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{i}}\in L'$ and $L_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{i}}$ is an irreducible $L_{\bar{0}}$-module, we have $L_{\bar{1}}^{i}\subset L',$ where $i=1,2.$ Therefore, $L=L'.$\ Case 2. Suppose $C(L_{\bar{0}})=0.$ Then $L_{\bar{0}}$ is a semi-simple Lie algebra and $L_{\bar{1}}$ decomposes into at most two irreducible components (see Table 1.1).\ Subcase 2.1. Suppose $L_{\bar{1}}$ is an irreducible $L_{\bar{0}}$-module. Note that in this subcase, $L$ is of type $\mathrm{B}(m,n)$, $\mathrm{D}(m,n)$, ${\rm{D}}(2,1;\alpha),$ $\mathrm{Q}(n),$ $\mathrm{G}(3)$ or $\mathrm{F}(4).$ We choose a weight vector $ x_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}}\in L_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}} $ ($\alpha_{\bar{1}}\neq 0$) and any balanced element $x_{\bar{0}}$ in $L_{\bar{0}}.$ By Lemma \[lem1142lt\], we may assume that ${\bf{supp}}(x_{\bar{0}})=\Delta_{\bar{0}}.$ If $L\neq {\rm{Q}}(n),$ according to Lemma \[lem-weight-information\](1), $ \alpha_{\bar{1}}\notin\Delta_{\bar{0}}.$ Let $x=x_{\bar{0}}+x_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}}.$ Then $$x=x_{H}+\sum_{\alpha\in{\Delta_{\bar{0}}}}x_{\bar{0}}^{\alpha}+x_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}}$$ is the root-vector decomposition. Let $\Phi=\Delta_{\bar{0}}\cup\{\alpha_{\bar{1}}\}$. By Lemmas \[lemma-zarisk\] and \[lemmeigenvector\], all components $x_{H}$, $x_{\bar{0}}^{\alpha}$ and $x_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}}$ belong to $\langle x, h\rangle$ for $h\in \Omega_{\Phi}\subset H$. By (\[eq1739f\]) and (\[eq17394\]), this yields $L_{\bar{0}}=\langle x_{\bar{0}}, h\rangle\subset\langle x, h\rangle.$ Since $x_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}}\in \langle x, h\rangle$ and $L_{\bar{1}}$ is irreducible as $L_{\bar{0}}$-module, we have $L=\langle x, h\rangle.$ Suppose $L={\rm{Q}}(n).$ Denote by $\Pi:=\{\delta_{1},\delta_{2},\ldots,\delta_{n}\}$ the set of simple roots of $L_{\bar{0}}$ relative to the Cartan subalgebra $H.$ According to Lemma \[lem-weight-information\](2), without loss of generality we may assume that $ \alpha_{\bar{1}}:=\delta_{1}+\delta_{2}.$ Let $x=x_{\bar{0}}+x_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}}.$ Then $$x=x_{H}+\sum_{\alpha\in{\Delta_{\bar{0}}}\setminus\{\alpha_{\bar{1}}\}} x_{\bar{0}}^{\alpha}+(x_{\bar{0}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}}+x_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}}).$$ By Lemma \[lemmeigenvector\], all components $x_{H}$, $x_{\bar{0}}^{\alpha}$ ($\alpha\in \Delta_{\bar{0}}\setminus \{\alpha_{\bar{1}}\}$), and $x_{\bar{0}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}}+x_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}}$ belong to $\langle x,h\rangle$, where $h\in \Omega_{\Delta_{\bar{0}}}\subset H.$ From (\[eq0943\]) and (\[eq1739f\]) we conclude that $x_{\bar{0}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}}\in\mathbb{F} [x_{\bar{0}}^{\delta_{1}},x_{\bar{0}}^{\delta_{2}}]\subset\langle x,h\rangle $ and then $x_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}}\in\langle x,h\rangle.$ As above, the irreducibility of $L_{{\bar{1}}}$ yields $L=\langle x,h\rangle.$\ Subcase 2.2. Suppose $L_{\bar{1}}=L_{\bar{1}}^{1}\oplus L_{\bar{1}}^{2}$ is a direct sum of two irreducible $L_{\bar{0}}$-submodules. In this case, $L={\rm{A}}(n,n)$ or $ {\rm{P}}(n).$ Choose any balanced element $x_{\bar{0}}\in L_{\bar{0}}$ and weight vectors $x_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{i}}\in L_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{i}},$ where ${\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{1}}$ and ${\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{2}}$ are different nonzero weights and $\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{i}\notin \Delta_{\bar{0}}$ (Lemma \[lem-weight-information\](1) and (4)). Lemma \[lem1142lt\] allows us to assume that ${\bf{supp}}(x_{\bar{0}})=\Delta_{\bar{0}}.$ Let $x:= x_{\bar{0}}+x_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{1}}+x_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{2}}$ and $\Phi:=\Delta_{\bar{0}}\cup \{\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{1}\}\cup \{\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{2}\}.$ As before, we are able to deduce that $L_{\bar{0}}\subset \langle x,h\rangle$ and $x_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{1}},x_{\bar{1}}^{\alpha_{\bar{1}}^{2}}\in \langle x,h\rangle$ for $h\in\Omega_{\Phi}\subset \Omega_{\Delta_{\bar{0}}}\subset H.$ Thanks to the irreducibility of $L_{\bar{1}}^{1}$ and $L_{\bar{1}}^{2}$, we have $L=\langle x,h\rangle $. The proof is complete. In view of the proof of Theorem \[th-classical\], starting from any balanced element in the semi-simple part of the Lie algebra of a classical Lie superalgebra $L$ we are able to find two elements generating $L.$ By Theorem \[th-classical\], as in the proof of Proposition \[pro-even-part-generators\], one is able to prove the following The general linear Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{gl}(m,n)$ is generated by 2 elements. As a subsidiary result, let us show that a classical Lie superalgebra, except for $\mathrm{A}(1,1)$, $\mathrm{Q}(n)$ or $\mathrm{P}(3)$, is generated by 2 homogeneous elements. By Lemma \[lem-weight-information\](3), for such a classical Lie superalgebra, all the odd-weight subspaces are 1-dimensional. Here we give a more general description in Remark \[homogeneous generators\]. As before, an element $x\in L$ is called $\Delta_{\bar{1}}$-balanced if $x$ is a sum of all the odd-weight vectors, namely, $x=\sum_{\gamma\in\Delta_{\bar{1}}}x_{\bar{1}}^{\gamma},$ where $x_{\bar{1}}^{\gamma}$ is a weight vector of $\gamma$. \[homogeneous generators\] A finite dimensional simple Lie superalgeba (not necessarily classical) for which all the odd-weight is $1$-dimensional is generated by 2 homogeneous elements. Let $L$ be such a Lie superalgebra. Choose a $\Delta_{\bar{1}}$-balanced element $x=\sum_{\gamma\in\Delta_{\bar{1}}}x_{\bar{1}}^{\gamma}$ and any $h\in \Omega_{\Delta_{\bar{1}}}\subset H.$ By Lemmas \[lemma-zarisk\] and \[lemmeigenvector\], all components $x_{\bar{1}}^{\gamma}$ belong to $\langle x, h\rangle$ for $h\in \Omega_{\Delta_{\bar{1}}}\subset H$. Since $\mathrm{dim}L^{\gamma}=1,$ we conclude that $L^{\gamma}\subset\langle x, h\rangle$ for all $\gamma\in \Delta_{\bar{1}}.$ By [@Kac Proposition 1.2.7(1), p.20], $L_{\overline{0}}=[L_{\overline{0}},L_{\overline{0}}]$ and then $\langle x, h\rangle=L$. Finally we give an example to explain how to find the pairs of generators in Theorem \[th-classical\] and Remark \[homogeneous generators\]. Let $\mathrm{A}={\rm{A}}(1;0)$. Find the generators of $\mathrm{A}$ as in Theorem \[th-classical\] and Remark \[homogeneous generators\]. Recall that $ {\rm{A}} =\{x\in \mathfrak{gl}(2;1)\mid {\rm{str}}(x)=0\}$. Its Lie algebra is a direct sum of the $1$-dimensional center and the semi-simple part: $${\rm{A}} _{\bar{0}}=\mathbb{F}(e_{11}+e_{22}+2e_{33})\oplus [{\rm{A}} _{\bar{0}},{\rm{A}} _{\bar{0}}],$$ where $[{\rm{A}} _{\bar{0}},{\rm{A}} _{\bar{0}}]=\mathrm{span}_{\mathbb{F}}\{e_{11}-e_{22}, e_{12}, e_{21}\}.$ The odd part is a direct sum of two irreducible $\mathrm{A} _{\bar{0}}$-submodules: $$\begin{aligned} {\rm{A}} _{\bar{1}}={\rm{A}} _{\bar{1}}^{1}\oplus {\rm{A}} _{\bar{1}}^{2}=\mathrm{span}_{\mathbb{F}}\{e_{13},e_{23}\}\oplus \mathrm{span}_{\mathbb{F}}\{ e_{31},e_{32}\}.\end{aligned}$$ The standard Cartan subalgebra is $H=\mathrm{span}_\mathbb{F}\{e_{11}-e_{22},e_{11}+e_{22}+2e_{33}\}.$ Table 1.2 gives all the roots and the corresponding root vectors.\ [\|l\|l\|l\|l\|l\|l\|l\|]{}\ & $\varepsilon_{1}-\varepsilon_{2}$&$\varepsilon_{2}-\varepsilon_{1}$&$\varepsilon_{1}-2\varepsilon_{3}$&$\varepsilon_{2}-2\varepsilon_{3}$&$-\varepsilon_{1}+2\varepsilon_{3}$&$-\varepsilon_{2}+2\varepsilon_{3}$\ &$\hfill e_{12}\hfill$&$\hfill e_{21}\hfill$&$\hfill e_{13}\hfill$&$\hfill e_{23}\hfill$&$\hfill e_{31}\hfill$&$\hfill e_{32}\hfill$\ \ - Theorem \[th-classical\]-Version. Put $x:=(e_{12}+e_{21})+e_{13}+e_{31}+(e_{11}+e_{22}+2e_{33})$ and $h:=3e_{11}+e_{22}+4e_{33}.$ From Table 1.2, the weight values corresponding to $e_{12},e_{21},e_{13},e_{31}$ are $2, -2, -5, 5,$ respectively. As in the proof of Theorem \[th-classical\], we have $$e_{12},e_{21},e_{13},e_{31},e_{11}+e_{22}+2e_{33}\in \langle x,h\rangle.$$ Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned} &&\langle e_{12}+e_{21}, h+(e_{11}+e_{22}+2e_{33})\rangle= {\rm{A}}_{\bar{0}}\subset \langle x,h\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Since ${\rm{A}}_{\bar{1}}^{i}$ is an irreducible ${\rm{A}}_{\bar{0}}$-module, ${\rm{A}}_{\bar{1}}^{i}\subset\langle x,h\rangle$, $i=1,2.$ Hence $\mathrm{A}=\langle x,h\rangle$. - Remark \[homogeneous generators\]-Version. Consider the $\Delta_{\overline{1}}$-balanced element $x:=e_{13}+e_{31}+e_{23}+e_{32}$ and write $h:=e_{11}+e_{33}.$ By Table 1.2, the weight values corresponding to $e_{13},e_{31},e_{23},e_{32}$ are $-1, 1, -2, 2,$ respectively. As in the proof of Remark \[homogeneous generators\], we have $e_{13},e_{31},e_{23},e_{32}\in \langle x,h\rangle.$ Since $\mathrm{dimA}_{\bar{1}}^{\lambda}=1$ for $\lambda\in \Delta_{\bar{1}}$ and $[ \mathrm{A}_{\bar{1}},\mathrm{A}_{\bar{1}}]=\mathrm{A}_{\overline{0}},$ we obtain $\mathrm{A}=\langle x,h\rangle.$ Cartan Lie superalgebras ======================== All the Cartan Lie superalgebras are listed below [@Kac; @MS]: - $W(n)$ ($n\geq 3$), $S(n)$ ($n\geq 4$), $\widetilde{S}(2m)$ ($m\geq 2$), $H(n)$ ($n\geq 5$). Let $\Lambda(n)$ be the Grassmann superalgebra with $n$ generators $\xi_{1},\ldots,\xi_{n}$. For a $k$-shuffle $u:=(i_{1},i_{2},\ldots,i_{k})$, that is, a strictly increasing sequence between $1$ and $n$, we write $\|u\|:=k$ and $x^{u}:=\xi_{i_{1}}\xi_{i_{2}} \cdots \xi_{i_{k}}.$ Letting ${\rm{deg}}\xi_{i}=1,\; i=1,\ldots,n,$ we obtain the so-called standard $\mathbb{Z}$-grading of $\Lambda(n).$ Let us briefly describe the Cartan Lie superalgebras. - $W(n)={\rm{der}}\Lambda(n)$ is $\mathbb{Z}$-graded, $W(n)=\oplus_{k=-1}^{n-1}W(n)_{k},$ $$W(n)_{k}={\rm{span}}_{\mathbb{F}}\{ x^{u}\partial/\partial\xi_{i}\mid \|u\|=k+1,\; 1\leq i\leq n\}.$$ <!-- --> - $S(n)=\oplus_{k=-1}^{n-2}S(n)_{k}$ is a $\mathbb{Z}$-graded subalgebra of $W(n)$, $$S(n)_{k}={\rm{span}}_{\mathbb{F}}\{\mathrm{D}_{ij}(x^{u})\mid \|u\|=k+2,\,\ 1\leq i,j\leq n\}.$$ Hereafter, ${{\mathrm{D}_{ij}}}(f):=\partial(f)/ \partial\xi_{i}\partial/\partial\xi_{j}+\partial(f)/\partial\xi_{j}\partial/\partial\xi_{i}$ for $f\in \Lambda(n).$ <!-- --> - $\widetilde{S}(2m)$ ($m\geq 2$) is a subalgebra of $W(2m)$ and as a $\mathbb{Z}$-graded subspace, $$\widetilde{S}(2m)=\oplus_{k=-1}^{2m-2}\widetilde{S}(2m)_{k},$$ where $$\begin{aligned} &&\widetilde{S}(2m)_{-1}={\rm{span}}_{\mathbb{F}}\{(1+\xi_{1}\cdots\xi_{2m})\partial/\partial\xi_{j}\mid 1\leq j\leq 2m\},\\&&\widetilde{S}(2m)_{k}=S(2m)_{k},\; 0\leq k\leq 2m-2.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $\widetilde{S}(2m)$ is not a $\mathbb{Z}$-graded subalgebra of $W(2m)$. <!-- --> - $H(n)=\oplus_{k=-1}^{n-3}H(n)_{k}$ is a $\mathbb{Z}$-graded subalgebra of $W(n)$, where $$H(n)_{k}={\rm{span}}_{\mathbb{F}}\{{\rm{D_{H}}}(x^{u})\mid\|u\|=k+2\}.$$ To explain the linear mapping ${\rm{D_{H}}}: \Lambda(n)\longrightarrow W(n)$, write $n=2m$ $(m\geq 3)$ or $2m+1$ $(m\geq 2).$ By definition, ${\rm{D_{H}}}(x^{u}):=(-1)^{\|u\|}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\partial(x^{u})/\partial\xi_{i}\partial/\partial\xi_{i'} $ for any shuffle $u,$ where $'$ is the involution of the index set $\{1,\ldots,n\}$ satisfying that $i'=i+m$ for $i\leq m$. For simplicity we usually write $W, S, \widetilde{S}, H$ for $W(n), S(n), \widetilde{S}(2m), H(n),$ respectively. Throughout this section $L$ denotes one of Cartan Lie superalgebras. Consider its decomposition of subspaces mentioned above: $$\label{eqcartangraded} L=L_{-1}\oplus \cdots \oplus L_{s}.$$ For $W, S, \widetilde{S}$ and $H$, the height $s$ is $n-1,$ $n-2,$ $2m-2$ or $n-3,$ respectively. Note that $S $ and $H$ are $\mathbb{Z}$-graded subalgebras of $W$ with respect to (\[eqcartangraded\]), but $\widetilde{S}$ is not. The null $L_{0}$ is isomorphic to $\mathfrak{gl}(n), \mathfrak{sl}(n),\mathfrak{sl}(2m),\mathfrak{so}(n)$ for $L=W, S, \widetilde{S}, H,$ respectively. \[lem-Cartan-component\] - $L_{-1}$ and $L_{s}$ are irreducible as $L_{0}$-modules. - $L_{1}$ is an irreducible $L_{0}$-module for $L=S,\widetilde{S}$ or $H,$ except for $H(6).$ For $L=H(6),$ $L_1$ is a direct sum of two irreducible $L_0$-submodules. - $L$ is generated by the local part $L_{-1}\oplus L_{0}\oplus L_{1}.$ - $L$ is generated by $L_{-1}$ and $L_{s}$ for $L=W$, $S $ or $H$. All the statements are standards (see [@Kac; @MS] for example), except for that $\widetilde{S}_{-1}$ is irreducible as $\widetilde{S}_{0}$-module. Indeed, a direct verification shows that $\widetilde{S}_{-1}$ is an $\widetilde{S}_{0}$-module and the irreducibility follows from the canonical isomorphism of $S_{0}$-modules $\varphi: S_{-1} \longrightarrow \widetilde{S}_{-1}$ assigning $ \partial/\partial\xi_{i}$ to $(1+\xi_{1}\cdots\xi_{2m})\partial/\partial\xi_{i} $ for $1\leq i\leq 2m.$ The following is a list of bases of the standard Cartan subalgebras $\mathfrak{h}_{L_0} $ of $L_{0}.$\ [\|l\|l\|]{}\ &\ $W(n)$& $\xi_{i}\partial/\partial\xi_{i},$ $1\leq i\leq n$\ $S(n)$& $ \xi_{1}\partial/\partial\xi_{1}-\xi_{j}\partial/\partial\xi_{j},$ $2\leq j\leq n$\ $\widetilde{S}(2m)$& $ \xi_{1}\partial/\partial\xi_{1}-\xi_{j}\partial/\partial\xi_{j},$ $2\leq j\leq 2m$\ $H(2m)$& $\xi_{i}\partial/\partial\xi_{i}-\xi_{m+i}\partial/\partial\xi_{m+i},$ $1\leq i\leq m$\ $H(2m+1)$& $\xi_{i+1}\partial/\partial\xi_{i+1}-\xi_{m+i}\partial/\partial\xi_{m+i},$ $1\leq i\leq m$\ \ The weight space decomposition of the component $L_k$ relative to $\mathfrak{h}_{L_0}$ is: $$L_{k}=\delta_{k,0}\mathfrak{h}_{L_0}\oplus_{\alpha\in \Delta_{k}}L_{k}^{\alpha},\,\ \mbox{where}\,\ -1\leq k\leq s.$$ By Lemma \[lem-Cartan-component\](2), $H(6)_{1}$ is a direct sum of two irreducible $H(6)_{0}$-modules $$H(6)_{1}=H(6)_{1}^{1}\oplus H(6)_{1}^{2}.$$ Let $\Delta_{1}^{i}$ be the weight set of $H(6)_{1}^{i},$ $i=1,2.$ Write $\Pi$ for the set of simple roots of $L_0$ relative to the Cartan subalgebra $\mathfrak{h}_{L_0}$. We have \[lem-cartan-weight-information\] - If $L=W$ or $S$ then $\Pi\cap\Delta_{-1}=\Pi\cap\Delta_{s}=\Delta_{-1}\cap \Delta_{s}=\emptyset.$ - If $L=\widetilde{S}$ then $\Pi\cap\Delta_{-1}=\Pi\cap\Delta_{1}=\Delta_{-1}\cap \Delta_{1}=\emptyset.$ - If $L=H(2m)$ then $\Pi\cap\Delta_{-1}=\Pi\cap\Delta_{1}=\emptyset$ and $\Delta_{-1}\neq \Delta_{1}$. - If $L=H(2m+1) $ then $0\in \Delta_{-1},$ $\Pi\neq \Delta_{1}$ and $\Delta_{-1}\neq\Delta_{1}.$ - There exist nonzero weights $\alpha_{1}^{i}\in \Delta_{1}^{i} $ such that $\alpha_{1}^{1}\neq \alpha_{1}^{2}.$ We first compute the weight sets of the desired components and the system of simple roots of $L_0.$ For $W(n)$, $$\begin{aligned} &&\Delta_{-1}=\{-\varepsilon_{j}\mid 1\leq j\leq n\},\qquad~~~~~~~~\Delta_{0}=\{\varepsilon_{i}-\varepsilon_{j}\mid 1\leq i\neq j\leq n\},\\ &&\Pi=\{\varepsilon_{i}-\varepsilon_{i+1}\mid 1\leq i\leq n-1\},\qquad\Delta_{s}=\bigg\{\sum_{k=1}^{n}\varepsilon_{k}-\varepsilon_{j}\mid 1\leq j\leq n\bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$ For $S(n)$ and $\widetilde{S}(n),$ $$\begin{aligned} &&\Delta_{-1}=\{-\varepsilon_{j}\mid 1\leq j\leq n\},\qquad ~~~~~~~~\Delta_{0}=\{\varepsilon_{i}-\varepsilon_{j}\mid 1\leq i\neq j\leq n\},\\ &&\Pi=\{\varepsilon_{i}-\varepsilon_{i+1}\mid 1\leq i\leq n-1\},\qquad \Delta_{1}=\big\{\varepsilon_{k}+\varepsilon_{l}-\varepsilon_{j}\mid 1\leq k, l,j\leq n\big\},\\ &&\Delta_{s}=\bigg\{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varepsilon_{i}-\varepsilon_{j}-\varepsilon_{k}\mid 1\leq j,k\leq n\bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$ For $H(2m)$, $$\begin{aligned} &&\Delta_{-1}=\{\ \pm\varepsilon_{j}\mid 1\leq j\leq m\},\qquad\Delta_{0}=\{\pm(\varepsilon_{i}+\varepsilon_{j}),\pm(\varepsilon_{i}-\varepsilon_{j}) \mid 1\leq i<j\leq m\},\nonumber\\ &&\Pi=\{\varepsilon_{i}-\varepsilon_{i+1}, \varepsilon_{m-1}+\varepsilon_{m}\mid 1\leq i< m\},\nonumber\\ &&\Delta_{1}=\{\pm(\varepsilon_{i}+\varepsilon_{j})\pm\varepsilon_{k}, \pm(\varepsilon_{i}-\varepsilon_{j})\pm\varepsilon_{k}\mid 1\leq i< j< k\leq m\}\nonumber\\&&~~~~~~~~\cup\{\pm\varepsilon_{l}\mid 1\leq l\leq m\}.\label{eqheven23}\end{aligned}$$ For $H(2m+1)$, write $\varepsilon_{i}'=\varepsilon_{i+1}$ for $1\leq i\leq m.$ We have $$\begin{aligned} &&\Delta_{-1}=\{0\}\cup \{\pm\varepsilon_{i}'\mid 1\leq i\leq m\},\\ &&\Delta_{0}=\{\pm\varepsilon_{k}',\pm(\varepsilon_{i}'+\varepsilon_{j}'),\pm(\varepsilon_{i}'-\varepsilon_{j}')\mid 1\leq k\leq m, 1\leq i< j\leq m\},\\ &&\Pi=\{\varepsilon_{i}'-\varepsilon_{i+1}',\varepsilon_{m}'\mid 1\leq i< m\},\\ &&\Delta_{1}=\{0\}\cup\{\pm\varepsilon_{l}',\pm(\varepsilon_{i}'+\varepsilon_{j}'),\pm(\varepsilon_{i}'-\varepsilon_{j}')\mid 1\leq l\leq m, 1\leq i< j\leq m\}\\ &&~~~~~~~~\cup\{\pm(\varepsilon_{i}'+\varepsilon_{j}')\pm\varepsilon_{k}, \pm(\varepsilon_{i}'-\varepsilon_{j}')\pm\varepsilon_{k}')\mid 1\leq i< j< k\leq m\}.\end{aligned}$$ All the statements follow directly, except (5) for $L=H(6).$ In this special case, from (\[eqheven23\]) one sees that $0\notin \Delta_{1} $ and $\|\Delta_{1}\|>1$. Consequently, (5) holds. Recall that an element $x\in\mathfrak{g}$ is refereed to as $\Pi$-balanced if $x$ is a sum of all the simple-root vectors. \[th-main-cartan\] A Cartan Lie superalgebra is generated by 2 elements. Recall the null $L_{0}$ is isomorphic to $\mathfrak{gl}(n), \mathfrak{sl}(n), \mathfrak{sl}(2m)$ or $ \mathfrak{so}(n)$. From Remark \[remarkgln\] and Corollary \[lem-simple roots\], for a $\Pi$-balanced element $x_{0}\in L_{0}$ and $h_{0}\in\Omega_{\Pi}\subset \mathfrak{h}_{L_0}$ we have $L_{0}=\langle x_{0}+\delta_{L,W}z,h_{0}\rangle,$ where $z $ is a central element in $\mathfrak{gl}(n).$ For simplicity, write $t:=s$ for $L=W$ or $S$ and $t:=1$ for $L=\widetilde{S}$ or $H$. Suppose $L\neq H(6)\;\mbox{and}\;H(2m+1).$ According to Lemma \[lem-cartan-weight-information\], we are able to choose nonzero weights $\alpha_{-1}\in \Delta_{-1}$ and $\alpha_{t}\in \Delta_{t} $ such that $\alpha_{-1}\neq\alpha_{t} $, $\alpha_{-1}\notin{\Pi},$ and $\alpha_{t}\notin{\Pi}.$ Put $x:=x_{-1}+x_{0}+\delta_{L,W}z+x_{t} $ for some weight vectors $x_{-1}\in L_{-1}^{\alpha_{-1}}$ and $x_{t}\in L_{t}^{\alpha_{t}}.$ Now set $\Phi:=\Pi\cup\{\alpha_{-1}\}\cup\{\alpha_{t} \}\subset \mathfrak{h}_{L_0}^{}$ and choose an element $h_{0}\in \Omega_{\Phi}.$ Assert $\langle x,h_{0}\rangle=L.$ Lemma \[lemmeigenvector\] implies all components $ x_{-1}$ $x_{0}$, $\delta_{L,W}z$ and $x_{t}$ belong to $\langle x,h_{0}\rangle.$ As $h_{0}\in \Omega_{\Phi}\subset \Omega_{\Pi},$ we obtain $L_{0}=\langle x_{0}+\delta_{L,W}z,h_{0}\rangle \subset \langle x,h_{0}\rangle.$ By Lemma \[lem-Cartan-component\](1) and (2), since $L_{-1}$ and $L_{t}$ are irreducible $L_0$-modules, we have $L_{-1}+L_{t}\subset \langle x,h_{0}\rangle.$ From Lemma \[lem-Cartan-component\](3) and (4) it follows that $L=\langle x,h_{0}\rangle.$ If $L=H(6),$ by Lemma \[lem-cartan-weight-information\](3), we are able to choose $\alpha_{-1}\in \Delta_{-1},$ $\alpha_{1}^{1}\in \Delta_{1}^{1}$ and $\alpha_{1}^{2}\in \Delta_{1}^{2}$ such that $\alpha_{-1},\alpha_{1}^{1},\alpha_{1}^{2}$ are pairwise distinct and $\alpha_{-1}\notin \Pi,$ $\alpha_{1}^{1}\notin \Pi$ and $\alpha_{1}^{2}\notin \Pi$. Put $x:=x_{-1}+x_{0}+x_{1}^{1}+x_{1}^{2}$ for some weight vectors $ x_{-1}\in L_{-1}^{\alpha_{-1}} $ and $ x_{1}^{i}\in L_{1}^{\alpha_{1}^{i}},$ $i=1,2.$ Write $\Phi:=\Pi\cup\{\alpha_{-1}\}\cup\{\alpha_{1}^{1}\}\cup\{\alpha_{1}^{2} \}.$ For $h_{0}\in \Omega_{\Phi}\subset \Omega_{\Pi}$, as in the above, one may show that $L=\langle x,h_{0}\rangle$. If $L=H(2m+1),$ by Lemma \[lem-cartan-weight-information\](4), choose $\alpha_{-1}\in \Delta_{-1},$ $\alpha_{1}\in \Delta_{1}$ such that $\alpha_{-1}=0,$ $\alpha_{1}\notin \Pi.$ Set $x:=x_{-1}+x_{0}+x_{1}$ for some weight vectors $ x_{-1}\in L_{-1}^{\alpha_{-1}}$ and $x_{1}\in L_{t}^{\alpha_{1}}.$ Now put $\Phi:=\Pi\cup\{\alpha_{-1}\}\cup\{\alpha_{1} \}\subset \mathfrak{h}_{L_0}^{}.$ Let $h_{0}\in \Omega_{\Phi}\subset \Omega_{\Pi} $ and claim that $L=\langle x,h_{0}\rangle.$ By Lemma \[lemmeigenvector\], $x_{0},$ $x_{-1}$ and $x_{1}\in \langle x,h_{0}\rangle.$ Consequently, $L_{0}\subset L $. The irreducibility of $L_{-1}$ and $L_{1}$ ensures $L_{-1}+L_{1}\subset \langle x,h_{0}\rangle.$ By Lemma \[lem-Cartan-component\](3), the claim holds. The proof is complete. Theorems \[th-classical\] and \[th-main-cartan\] combine to the main result of this paper: Any simple Lie superalgebra is generated by 2 elements. [99]{} J.-M. Bois. Generators of simple Lie algebras in arbitrary characteristics. Math. Z. 262 (2009): 715-741. J. E. Humphreys. Introduction to Lie Algebras and Representations Theory. Springer Verlay. New York, 1972. T. Ionescu. On the generators of semi-simple Lie algebras. Linear Algebra Appl. 15 (3), (1976): 271-292. V.G. Kac. Lie superalgebras. Adv. Math. 26 (1977): 8-96. M. Kuranish. On everywhere dense imbedding of free groups in Lie groups. Nagoya Math. J. 2 (1951): 63-71. M. Scheunert. Theory of Lie superalgebras. Lecture Notes Math. 716 (1979), Springer-Verlag. R. B. Zhang. Serre presentstions of Lie superalgebras. arXiv: 1101. 3114vl math. RT, 2011. [^1]: Supported by the NSF for Distinguished Young Scholars, HLJ Province (JC201004) and the NSF of China (10871057) [^2]: Correspondence: `[email protected]` (W. Liu), `[email protected]` (L. Tang)	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'In [@volumes_chen], Huayi Chen introduces the notion of an approximable graded algebra, and asks if any such algebra is a sub-algebra of the graded section ring of a big line bundle on an algebraic variety. We give a counter-example showing that this is not the case.' author: - \| Catriona Maclean\ Institut Fourier\ Université Grenoble Alpes. title: 'Approximable algebras and a question of H. Chen.' --- Introduction ============ The Fujita approximation theorem, [@fuj], is an important result in algebraic geometry. It states that whilst the section ring associated to a big line bundle $L$ on an algebraic variety $X$ $$R(L)\stackrel{\rm def}{=} \oplus_n H^0(nL, X)$$ is typically not a finitely generated algebra, it can be approximated arbitrarily well by finitely generated algebras. More precisely, we have that Let $X$ be an algebraic variety and let $L$ be a big line bundle on $X$. For any $\epsilon>0$ there exists a birational modification $$\pi: \hat{X}\rightarrow X$$ and a decomposition of $\mathbb{Q}$ divisors, $\pi^* (L)= A+E$ such that - $A$ is ample and $E$ is effective, - ${\rm vol}(A)\geq (1-\epsilon){\rm vol}(L)$. In [@LM], Lazarsfeld and Mustata used the Newton-Okounkov body associated to $A$ to give a simple proof of Fujita approximation. The Newton-Okounkov body, constructed in [@KK] and [@LM], building on previous work of Okounkov [@Okounkov], is a convex body $\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(L,X)$ in $\mathbb{R}^d$ associated to the data of - a $d$-dimensional variety $X$ - an admissible flag $Y_\bullet$ on $X$ - a big line bundle $L$ on $X$. This convex body encodes information on the asymptotic behaviour of the spaces of global sections $H^0(nL)$ for large values of $L$.\ \ Lazarsfeld and Mustata’s simple proof of Fujita approximation is based on the equality of volumes of Newton-Okounkov bodies $$\label{volumes} {\rm vol}(L)= d! {\rm vol} (\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(L,X))$$ where we recall that the volume of a big line bundle on a $d$-dimesional variety is defined by $${\rm vol}(L)= \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{ d! h^0(nL)}{n^d}.$$ One advantage of their approach to the Fujita theorem is that Newton-Okounkov bodies are not only defined for section algebras $R(L)$, but also for any graded sub-algebra of section algebras. Lazarsfeld and Mustata give combinatorical conditions (conditions 2.3-2.5 of [@LM]) under which equation \[volumes\] holds for a graded sub-algebra $\oplus_n B_n\subset R(L)$ and show that these conditions hold if the subalgebra $\oplus_n B_n$ [contains an ample series]{}.[^1]\ \ Di Biagio and Pacenzia in [@dBP] subsequently used Newton-Okounkov bodies associated to restricted algebras to prove a Fujita approximation theorem for restricted linear series, ie. subalgebras of $\oplus_n H^0(nL\|_V,V)$ obtained as the restriction of the complete algebra $\oplus_n H^0(nL,X)$, where $V\subset X$ is a subvariety.\ \ In [@volumes_chen], Huayi Chen uses Lazarsfeld and Mustata’s work on Fujita approximation to prove a Fujita-type approximation theorem in the arithmetic setting. In the course of this work he defines the notion of approximable graded algebras, which are exactly those algebras for which a Fujita-type approximation theorem hold. An integral graded algebra $B=\oplus_n B_n$ is approximable if and only if the following conditions are satisfied. 1. all the graded pieces $B_n$ are finite dimensional. 2. for all sufficiently large $n$ the space $B_n$ is non-empty 3. for any $\epsilon$ there exists an $p_0$ such that for all $p\geq p_0$ we have that $$\liminf_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{ {\rm dim}({\rm Im}(S^nB_p\rightarrow B_{np}))}{{\rm dim}(B_{np})}> (1-\epsilon).$$ In his paper [@volumes_chen] Chen asks the following question. Let $B=\oplus_n B_n$ be an approximable graded algebra. Does there always exist a variety $X$ and a big line bundle $L$ such that $B$ can be included as a subalgebra of $R(L)$ ? We will say that an approximable algebra for which the answer is “no” is [non-sectional]{}.\ \ The aim of this note is to prove the following theorem \[maintheorem\] There exists an approximable graded algebra $B=\oplus_n B_n$ which is non-sectional. The basic criterion used will be the following : if $B$ is an approximable graded algebra, we can consider the associated field of homogeneous quotients $K^{\rm gr}(B)$, into which, after choice of a base element $b\in B_1$, the algebra $B$ can be included.\ \ If $B$ is a graded sub-algebra of $\oplus_n H^0(nL)$ for some big line bundle $L$ then the number of valuations of $K^{\rm gr}(B)$ which take negative values on certains elements of $B$ is finite.\ \ In section 2) below we will state and prove our criterion for non-sectionality, whereas in section 3) we construct the non-sectional approximable algebra.\ \ Note finally that while our counter example is not associated to a line bundle, it is of the form $$\oplus_n H^0(\lfloor nD \rfloor)$$ for a certain infinite divisor $D=\sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i D_i$ with the property that $\lfloor nD \rfloor$ is finite for any choice of $n$. This poses the following natural question. Let $B=\oplus_n B_n$ be a graded approximable algebra. Does there necessarily exist a variety $X$ and a countable formal sum $$D=\oplus_i a_i D_i$$ of divisors on $X$ such that for all $n$ the integral divisor $\lfloor nD\rfloor$ is finite and $B$ is isomorphic to the graded algebra $\oplus_n \mathcal{O}\left(\lfloor nD\rfloor\right)$ ? A criterion for not-sectionality. ================================= In this section, we will give a criterion for non-sectionality of a approximable graded algebra in terms of valuations on the associated field of homogeneous degree-zero rational functions. Let $B=\oplus_n B_n$ be an integral graded algebra. We define its graded field of functions by $$K^{\rm gr}(B)=\left\{ \frac{f}{g}\| \exists n\mbox{ s.t. } f,g\in B_n\right\} \big{/}\sim$$ where $ \frac{f_1}{g_1}\sim \frac{f_2}{g_2} \mbox{ iff } f_1g_2=f_2g_1$. We now state our criterion. \[criterion\] Let $\oplus_n B_n$ be an approximable graded algebra with $B_0=\mathbb{C}$. Suppose that the graded field of functions $K^{\rm gr}(B)$ is a finitely generated field extension of $\mathbb{C}$ with transcendence degree one and there is a choice of element $b_1\in B_1$ such that the set $$\nu_{B, b_1}=\left\{ \nu\mbox{ valuation } on K^{\rm gr}(B)\| \exists n\in \mathbb{N}, b'\in B_n \mbox{ such that } \nu_B\left(\frac{b'}{b_1^n}\right)<0\right\}$$ is infinite. Then there does not exist a big line bundle $L$ on a variety $X$ such that $\oplus_n B_n$ is isomorphic as a graded algebra to a graded sub-algebra of $\oplus_n H^0(nL,X)$. Suppose that on the contrary we have a big line bundle $L$ on a complex variety $X$ and a graded inclusion $i: B\rightarrow R(L)$. This gives rise to a field inclusion $$i^{\rm gr} : K^{\rm gr}(B)\rightarrow K^{\rm gr}(L)= K(X).$$ After blowing up, we obtain a birational morphism $\pi^{\rm sm}: X^{\rm sm}\rightarrow X$ from a [smooth]{} variety $X^{\rm sm}$. Consider the pull-back $\pi^{\rm sm }(L)$: there is an injective pull-back morphism $\pi^{\rm sm } : R(L)\rightarrow R(\pi^(L))$. Replacing $X$ with $X^{\rm sm}$ and $i^{\rm gr}$ with $\pi^\circ i^{\rm gr}$, we may assume that the variety $X$ is smooth.\ \ We have a distinguished element $b_1\in B_1$, and an associated element $\sigma_1= i^{\rm gr}(b_1)\in H^0(L)$, so there are induced injective morphisms $$\phi_B: B\hookrightarrow K^{\rm gr}(B)$$ $$\phi_L: R(L)\hookrightarrow K^{\rm gr}(L)=K(X)$$ given by $\phi_B(b_n)= \frac{b_n}{b_1^n}$ for all $b_n\in B_n$ and $\phi_L(\sigma_n)=\frac{\sigma_n}{(\sigma_1)^n}$ for all $\sigma_n\in H^0 (nL)$. There is also an induced inclusion $$i^{\rm gr}: K^{\rm gr}(B)\rightarrow K^{\rm gr}(X)$$ given by $i^{\rm gr}\left(\frac{f}{g}\right)=\frac{i(f)}{i(g)}$. By assumption, $K^{\rm gr}(B)$ is finitely generated as a field extension of $\mathbb{C}$ and is of transcendence degree $1$ so there is a unique smooth complex curve $C$ such that $K^{\rm gr}(B)\sim K(C)$. After fixing an isomorphism $I: K(C)\rightarrow K^{\rm gr}(B)$ we have an inclusion $$K(C)\stackrel{ i^{\rm gr}\circ I}{\hookrightarrow} K(X)$$ and an induced rational morphism with dense image $$\pi_X: X---> C$$ such that $i^{\rm gr}\circ I= \pi_X^$. After birational modification, we may assume that the map $\pi_X$ is in fact a surjective morphism.\ \ Valuations of $K(C)$ correspond to points of the curve $C$. Consider the set of valuations in $\nu_{B, b_1}$, which by hypothesis is infinite $$\nu_{B,b_1}= \{\nu_1,\nu_2,\ldots, \nu_m,\ldots\}$$ and consider the set of associated points in $C$, $$\{p_1,p_2,\ldots, p_m,\ldots,\}$$ having the property that $\nu_j\circ I= \nu_{p_j}$. For any $j$ we know that there exists a positive integer $n(j)$ and an element $b_j\in B_{n(j)}$ for some $n$ such that $$\nu_j\left(\frac{b_j}{b_1^{n(j)}}\right)<0.$$ There exists a meromorphic function on $C$, $f$, such that $\frac{b_j}{b^{n(j)}}=I(f)$. Consider $i^{\rm gr}(\frac{b_n}{b^n})\in K(X)$ : we have that $$i^{\rm gr}\left(\frac{b_n}{b^n}\right) = i^{\rm gr}(I(f))= \pi_X^{}(f)$$ and hence $$\pi_X^(f)= \frac{i^{gr}(b_j)}{i^{gr}(b_1)^{n(j)}}.$$ We know that $\nu_{p_j}(f)= (\nu_j\circ I(f))<0$ or in other words $f$ has a pole at the point $p_j$.\ \ It follows that $$i^{\rm gr} \left(\frac{(b_j)}{(b_1)^{n(j)}}\right)= \frac{i(b_j)}{\sigma_1^{n(j)}}$$ has a pole along $\pi_X^{-1}(p_j)$ which is only possible if $\sigma_1$ has a zero along the divisor $\pi_X^{-1}(p_j)$. But this can only be the case for a finite number of points $p_j$.\ \ This completes the proof of the Proposition \[criterion\]. Construction of the example. ============================ We will now construct our example of an approximable algebra $B=\oplus_n B_n$ such which satisfies the condition in Lemma \[criterion\].\ \ We will start by associating to any number $n$ an element of $\mathbb{N}^\mathbb{N}$. Let $n$ be a natural number. We denote by $I(n)$ the sequence $$I(n)= \left( n, \lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor, \lfloor \frac{n}{4} \rfloor, \lfloor \frac{n}{8} \rfloor, \ldots \right).$$ We further denote by $J(n)$ the sum of the elements of $I(n)$, ie. $$J(n)= n+ \lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor+ \lfloor \frac{n}{4} \rfloor, \lfloor \frac{n}{8} \rfloor + \ldots$$ We will require the following superadditivity property of $I(n)$. For all integers $n$ and $m$ we have that $$I(n)+I(m)\leq I(n+m)$$ where we consider that $v\leq w$ if $v_i\leq w_i$ for every integer î Immediate from the elementary fact that $\lfloor r+s\rfloor \geq \lfloor r \rfloor + \lfloor s \rfloor$ for any real numbers $r$ and $s$. Note that in particular $J(n)+J(m)\leq J(n+m)$ for all integers $n$ and $m$.\ \ We now choose an infinite sequence of distinct points in $\mathbb{C}$ which we denote by $z_0,\ldots, z_m\ldots$. Let $x$ be a variable and consider the vector $${\bf a}= \left((x-z_0), (x-z_1),\ldots \right).$$ We associate to any integer $n$ the polynomial in $x$ $$P_n(x)= {\bf a}^{I(n)}= \prod_{i=0}^\infty (x-z_i)^{\lfloor \frac{n}{2^i}\rfloor}$$ and we are now in a position to define our algebra. We define $B_n$ by $B_n\subset \mathbb{C}(x)$, $$B_n= \left\{ \frac{Q(x)}{P_n(x)}\| Q(x)\mbox{ polynomial of degree $J(n)$ }.\right\}.$$ The algebra $B$ is then the graded algebra $B=\oplus_nB_n$ We note that $\oplus_n B_n$ is an algebra because for all $n$ and $m$ we have that $I(n)+I(m)\leq I(n+m)$ so that $P_n\times P_m \| P_{n+m}$. Note that while each of the subsets $B_n$ is defined as a subset of $\mathbb{C}(x)$, the global algebra $\oplus_n B_n$ is not, since the subsets $B_n, B_m\subset \mathbb{C}(x)$ are not typically disjoint. We now show that $B$ is approximable. The algebra $B=\oplus_n B_n$ is approximable. The conditions (1) and (2) of approximability are immediate. We turn to the proof of condition (3).\ \ Note that the image in $B_{pn}$ of ${\rm Sym}^n(B_p)$ is given by $$\frac{\mathbb{C}_{nJ(p)}[x]}{P_p(x)^n}$$ which is of dimension $nJ(p)+1$ and that $B_{np}$ is itself $$\frac {\mathbb{C}_{J(pn)}[x]}{P_{pn}}$$ which is of dimension $J(pn)+1$. We consider therefore the ratio $$\frac{nJ(p)+1}{J(np)+1}$$ and we will show that for sufficiently large values of $p$ this ratio can be made arbitrarily close to $1$.[^2]\ \ Note first that by the super-additivity property of $J$ we have that for all $p$ and $n$ $$nJ(p)\leq J(pn).$$ Moreover for all $n$ we have that $J(n)\leq 2n$. Set $m=\lfloor \log_2(p)\rfloor $. We have that $$\begin{aligned} 2p-J(p)& =&\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left( \frac{p}{2^k}-\lfloor \frac{p}{2^k}\rfloor\right)\\ & =& \sum_{k=0}^m \left( \frac{p}{2^k}-\lfloor \frac{p}{2^k}\rfloor\right) + \sum_{k=m+1}^\infty \left( \frac{p}{2^k}-\lfloor \frac{p}{2^k}\rfloor\right)\\ &\leq & \sum_{k=1}^m 1 +\sum_{k=m+1}^\infty \frac{p}{2^{k+1}}\\ & = & m+ \frac{p}{2^m} \\ &\leq & \log_2(p)+2\frac{p}{\log_2(p)}. \end{aligned}$$ In particular, $\lim_{p\rightarrow\infty} \frac{2p-J(p)}{p}=0.$ Suppose that $p_0$ such that for all $p\geq p_0$ we have that $2-\frac{J(p)}{p} \leq \epsilon$ so that for all $n$ and all $p\geq p_0$ $$n(2-\epsilon)p\leq nJ(p)\leq J(pn)\leq 2pn$$ from which it follows that $ (1-\epsilon) \leq \frac{nJ(p)}{J(pn)}\leq 1$ and hence $$(1-\epsilon) \leq \frac{nJ(p)+1}{J(pn)+1}\leq 1$$ This completes the proof of the proposition. We will now identify $K^{\rm gr}(B)$ Let $B$ be the algebra constructed above. Then $\mathbb{C}^{\rm gr}(B)=\mathbb{C}(x)$. By definition, $K^{\rm gr}(B)=\left\{ \frac{f}{g}\| f,g\in B_n\mbox{ for some } n \right\}$. There is a natural morphism of fields $$\phi:K^{\rm gr}(B)\rightarrow \mathbb{C}(x)$$ given by $\frac{ P(x)/ P_n(x)}{Q(x)/P_n(x)}\rightarrow P(x)/Q(x)$. Since $\phi\left( \frac{x/ P_1(x)}{1/P_1(x)}\right)=x$, this map is surjective. As a morphism of fields, it is injective. This completes the proof of the lemma. However, if we set $b_1\in B_1=1$ then the set of valuations $\nu_{B, b_1}$ is infinite, since it contains $\nu_{z_i}$ for any choice of $i$.\ \ But this now completes the proof of Theorem \[maintheorem\], since $B$ is approximable, but since the set $\nu_{B,b_1}$ is infinite, $B$ cannot be a graded sub-algebra of the space of sections of a big line bundle. [12]{} Boucksom, S. [Corps d’Okounkov (d’après Okounkov, Lazarsfeld-Mustata et Kaveh-Khovanskii)]{}. Séminaire Bourbaki no1059, Octobre 2012. Chen, H. [Arithmetic Fujita Approximation.]{} Annales ENS, [43]{}, fasc. 4 (2010) 555-578. di Biagio, L., Pacienza, G., [Restricted volumes of effective divisors]{}, Bull. Soc. Math. Fr. [144]{}, No. 2, 299-337 (2016). Fujita, T.: [Approximating Zariski decomposition of big line bundles]{}. Kodai Math. J. 17(1), 1-3 (1994) Kaveh, K.; Khovanskii, A.; [Newton-Okounkov bodies, semigroups of integral points, graded algebras and intersection theory.]{} Ann. of Math. (2) [176]{} (2012), no. 2, 925-978. R. Lazarsfeld, M. Mustata, [Convex bodies associated to linear series]{}, Ann. Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup. (4) [42]{} (2009) 783-835. A. Okounkov, [Why would multiplicities be log-concave?*]{} in: The Orbit Method in Geometry and Physics, in: Progr. Math., vol. 213, 2003, pp. 329-347. [^1]: Ie. if there exists an ample divisor $A\leq L$ such that $\oplus_n H^0(\lfloor nA \rfloor)\subset B$ [^2]: Which is a slightly stronger condition than than required for approximability.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We give several equivalent characterizations of orthogonal subbundles of the generalized tangent bundle defined, up to B-field transform, by almost product and local product structures. We also introduce a pure spinor formalism for generalized CRF-structure and investigate the resulting decomposition of the de Rham operator. As applications we give a characterization of generalized complex manifolds that are locally the product of generalized complex factors and discuss infinitesimal deformations of generalized CRF-structures.' author: - Marco Aldi and Daniele Grandini title: 'Generalized Almost Product Structures and Generalized CRF-structures' --- Introduction ============ Generalized CRF-structures were introduced in [@vaismanCRF] as Courant involutive, (not necessarily maximal) isotropic subbundles $L$ of the complexified generalized tangent bundle with no non-trivial totally real section. In this paper we continue the work initiated in [@AG2] and focus on generalized CRF-structures $L$ such that $L\oplus \overline L=E\otimes \C$, where $E$ is a [split structure]{} i.e. a subbundle of the generalized tangent bundle with the property that the restriction of the tautological inner product to $E$ is non-degenerate of signature $(k,k)$. If this is the case we say that $L$ is a generalized CRF-structure on the split structure $E$. Since generalized complex structures [@G] and strongly integrable generalized contact structures [@PW] are all examples of generalized CRF-structures on split structures, their study is important in order to develop a unified understanding of geometric structures on the generalized tangent bundle. The goal of this paper is to investigate the geometry of generalized CRF-structures on a particular class of split structures called [generalized almost product structures]{}. By definition a generalized almost product structure is a split structure $E$ whose projection $\pi(E)$ onto the tangent bundle is “minimal” in the sense that its rank is half the rank of $E$. As we show, this notion is equivalent to requiring that $(\pi(E),\pi(E^\perp))$ is a classical almost product structure (as defined in [@gugenheim-spencer]) or, alternatively, to the condition that the cotangent bundle is a direct sum of its intersections with $E$ and $E^\perp$. This last characterization implies that each generalized almost product structure gives rise to a canonical bigrading on the exterior algebra of differential forms which is a refinement of its standard $\Z$-grading. In particular we obtain a decomposition of the de Rham operator $d=d_E+d_{E^\perp}$, with $d_E$ of bidegree $(1,0)+(-1,2)$. Interestingly, restricting the standard Dorfman bracket to $E$ and composing with the orthogonal projection of the generalized tangent bundle onto $E$ gives rise to a binary operation $\llbracket\, ,\,\rrbracket_E$ which coincides with the derived bracket for $d_E$. We show that $\llbracket\,,\,\rrbracket_E$ (together with the restrictions of the tautological inner product and anchor map to $E$) defines a structure of Courant algebroid on an almost product $E$ if and only if $\pi(E)$ is a foliation. Moreover, $\pi(E)$ and $\pi(E^\perp)$ are complementary foliations if and only if $d_E^2=0$. An appealing feature of generalized CRF-structures on generalized almost product structures is that they admit an alternate description in terms of pure spinors, which generalizes the spinorial approach to generalized complex structures and generalized contact structures discussed in [@G], [@hitchin03], [@cavalcanti] and[@AG]. In particular we show that each generalized CRF-structure gives rise to a canonical (up to shift) $\Z$-grading on complex differential forms. With respect to this grading, $d_{E^\perp}$ is of degree $0$ while $d_E$ decomposes into a components of degree $1$ and $-1$ which in the case of generalized complex structures respectively to the $\partial$ and and $\overline\partial$ operators defined in [@G]. We also discuss a weaker integrability condition in which $d_E$ is still required to decompose into components of degree $\pm 1$, but no assumption is made on the degree of $d_{E^\perp}$. These more general structures, which we refer to as [weak generalized CRF-structures]{}, contain interesting examples (e.g. classical contact structures) that dare not generalized CRF-structures. In the particular case of generalized CRF-structures on an almost product structure $E$ such that $\pi(E^\perp)$ is a foliation, $d_E$ restricts to a differential on basic forms for this foliation. The grading induced by the generalized CRF-structure and the resulting decomposition of $d_E$ can be restricted to basic forms. In particular, the spinorial approach to transverse generalized complex structures of [@wade10] and the basic $dd^{\mathcal J}$-lemma discussed in [@razny16] fit naturally into the framework of the present paper. Moreover if $\pi(E)$ is also a foliation, we show that the results of [@cavalcanti] on the $\partial\overline\partial$-lemma and the canonical spectral sequence apply to all forms, not just those that are basic with respect to $\pi(E^\perp)$. In addition to illustrating with examples that our framework effectively unifies previous spinorial approaches to generalized geometry, we offer two applications. The first is a characterization of generalized complex manifolds $(M,J)$ that are locally the product of two generalized complex manifolds in terms of certain integrability conditions satisfied by the restriction of $J$ to an almost product structure. Our second application is a characterization of infinitesimal deformations of (weak) generalized CRF-structures along the lines of the Kodaira-Spencer formalism developed for generalized complex structures in [@G], [@li05] and [@tomasiello]. We prove that that deformations of weak generalized CRF-structures are governed by a single equation which specializes to the well-known Kodaira-Spencer/Maurer-Cartan equation in the case of generalized complex structures. On the other hand a second equation, stating that the operator that represents the deformation commutes with $d_{E^\perp}$ is required to characterized deformations of generalized CRF-structures. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we collect some basic facts about $\R$-linear operators acting on differential forms, the preferred language of this paper. In particular, we view sections of the generalized tangent bundle as operators acting on forms in such a way that (up to scaling by a factor of $2$), the tautological inner product coincides with the obvious graded commutators of operators. We also introduce generalized Lie derivatives as well as derived brackets for operators that are not necessarily the de Rham operator, as this level of generality is useful in the bulk of the paper. In Section 3 we introduce generalized almost product structures. After proving several equivalent characterizations of generalized almost product structures among all split structures, we describe the decomposition of the de Rham operator that they induce and the corresponding derived brackets. We then proceed to investigate the additional structure that emerges if one additionally assumes that $\pi(E)$ and/or $\pi(E^\perp)$ is a foliation. In this context, we also introduce our slight generalization (accounting for a possible B-field transform) of the standard notions of basic differential forms and basic complex attached to a foliation. In Section 4 is devoted to Vaisman’s generalized $F$-structures, which we view as operators acting on forms. In the particular case in which the kernel of the generalized $F$-structure is an almost product structure (or, more generally, is equipped with a decomposition into isotropic subbundles), we construct a canonical $\Z$-grading on complex differential forms. After illustrating these notions with several examples, we show that with respect to this grading $d_{E^\perp}$ decomposes into components of degree $0$ or $\pm 2$. In Section 5 we investigate the integrability conditions which define (weak) generalized CRF-structures among all generalized $F$-structures. Our characterizations of integrability are intended to be reminiscent of those established for generalized complex structures in [@G], [@cavalcanti] and [@tomasiello]. In the last part of this section we specialize to the case in which both $\pi(E)$ and $\pi(E^\perp)$ are foliations. In particular, we discuss the role of the $\partial\overline\partial$-lemma in this framework and prove the characterization of local products of generalized complex manifolds mentioned above. The paper ends with Section 6, which is devoted to the study of infinitesimal deformations of (weak) generalized CRF-structures. While (in the spirit of [@li05] and [@tomasiello]), our results are stated in the language of operators acting on forms, we also remark that in the case in which the image of the generalized $F$-structure is a foliation our finding are in agreement with the standard theory of deformations of Lie bialgebroids developed in [@LWX]. Acknowledgments: Parts of this paper were written while visiting Swarthmore College, the Simons Center for Geometry and Physics and IMPA. We would like to thank these institutions for hospitality and excellent working conditions. We also would like to thank Reimundo Heluani, Ralph Gomez, Janet Talvacchia and Alessandro Tomasiello for inspiring conversations. Operators on forms ================== \[def:1\] Unless otherwise specified, we let $M$ be a connected, finite dimensional smooth manifold. We denote by $\Omega_M=\Gamma(\wedge^\bullet T^M)$ be the graded commutative algebra of $\R$-valued differential forms on $M$. We denote by $\Omega_M^k$, $k=0,\ldots,\dim M$, the graded component with respect to the standard $\Z$-grading and by $\Omega_M^{\bar k}$, $\bar k=\bar 0, \bar 1$ the components of the standard $\Z/2$-grading by parity. We denote by $\EE_M$ the graded algebra of $\R$-linear endomorphisms of $\Omega_M$ and by $\DD_M$ the graded Lie algebra of graded derivations of $\EE_M$. We define the [adjoint map]{} $\ad\in \Hom_\R( \EE_M,\DD_M)$ such that $$\label{eq:1} \ad_\varphi(\psi)=[\varphi,\psi]=\varphi\circ\psi-(-1)^{kl}\psi\circ\varphi$$ for all $\varphi\in \EE_M^k$ and $\psi\in \EE_M^l$. \[rem:2\] Left multiplication defines a canonical embedding of $\Omega_M$ into $\EE_M$. On the other hand, if $\varphi\in \EE_M$ is such that $\Omega_M^1\subseteq \ker (\ad_\varphi)$, then $\varphi=\varphi(1)\in \Omega_M$. Therefore, $\varphi\in \Omega_M$ if and only if $\Omega_M^1\subseteq \ker (\ad_\varphi)$. Similarly, $\varphi\in \EE_M$ is $\Omega_M^0$-linear if and only if $\Omega_M^0\subseteq \ker (\ad_\varphi)$. \[rem:3\] The canonical embedding of $\Omega_M^1$ in $\EE_M^1$ can be extended to a canonical embedding of sections of the [generalized tangent bundle]{} $\T M=TM\oplus T^M$ of $M$ into $\EE_M^1\oplus \EE_M^{-1}$ by identifying each $X\in \Gamma(TM)$ with the interior product $\iota_X$, i.e. the unique $\Omega_M^0$-linear operator such that $[X,\alpha]=\alpha(X)$ for all $\alpha\in \Omega_M^1$. By Remark \[rem:2\], $\Gamma(\T M)\subseteq \ker(\ad_\varphi)$ if and only if $\varphi$ is a form on $M$ such that $\Gamma(TM)\subseteq \ker (\ad_\varphi)$, i.e. if and only if $\varphi\in \Omega_M^0$. \[rem:4\] Let $d\in \EE_M^1$ be the de Rham operator on $M$. Since $T^M$ is maximal isotropic in $\T M$ (with respect to the $\Omega_M^0$-valued pairing $\langle\,,\,\rangle$ defined as twice the graded commutator) and $\Omega_M^1$ is generated over $\Omega_M^0$ by $d(\Omega_M^0)$, we conclude that $$\label{eq:2} \Omega_M^1=\{x\in \Gamma(\T M)\,\|\,d(\Omega_M^0)\subseteq \ker (\ad_x)\}\,.$$ \[def:5\] We define the [generalized Lie derivative associated with $\delta\in \EE_M$]{} to be $\L^{\!\!^\delta}=\ad\circ \ad_\delta\in \Hom_\R(\EE_M,\DD_M)$ which assigns to each $\varphi\in \EE_M$ the operator $\L_\varphi^{\!\!^\delta}=\ad_{[\varphi,\delta]}$. The [derived bracket associated with $\delta$]{} is $\llbracket\,,\,\rrbracket_\delta:\EE_M\otimes_\R\EE_M\to \EE_M$ defined by $\llbracket \varphi_1,\varphi_2\rrbracket_\delta = \L^{\!\!^\delta}_{\varphi_1} (\varphi_2)$. In the important case of the de Rham operator, we use the shorthand notation $\L=\L^{\!\!^d}$ and $\llbracket \, , \, \rrbracket= \llbracket \, , \, \rrbracket_d$. \[rem:6\] Let $\deg\in\EE_M^0$ be the diagonal operator on $\Omega_M$ with $k$-eigenspace equal to $\Omega^k_M$ for each $k$. Then $\ad_{\deg}$ is diagonal on $\EE_M$ with $l$-eigenspace equal to $\EE_M^l$ for each $l$. Therefore, each derivation $\delta\in \EE_M$ of degree $l\neq 0$ can be recovered from the corresponding generalized Lie derivative as $\delta=\frac{1}{l}\L^{\!\!^\delta}_{\deg}$. In particular, $d=\L_{\deg}$. \[rem:7\] Using the Jacobi identity for $(\EE_M, [\,,\,])$, conveniently written as $$\label{eq:3} [\ad_\varphi,\ad_\psi]=\ad_{[\varphi,\psi]}$$ for all all $\varphi,\psi\in \EE_M$, it is straightforward to check that the identities $$\begin{aligned} \ad_{{\llbracket \varphi,\psi \rrbracket}_\delta} &= [\L^{\!\!^\delta}_\varphi, \ad_\psi] \label{eq:4}\\ (-1)^{kj}[[\varphi,\psi],\delta] & = \llbracket \varphi,\psi\rrbracket_\delta - (-1)^{k(i+j)+ij} \llbracket \psi,\varphi\rrbracket_\delta \label{eq:5}\end{aligned}$$ hold for all $\varphi\in \EE_M^i$, $\psi\in \EE_M^j$ and $\delta\in \EE_M^k$. \[rem:8\] If $\alpha\in \Omega_M^k$, then $\L_\alpha(f)=(-1)^{k}[f,d\alpha]=0=\ad_\alpha(f)$ for all $f\in \Omega_M^0$. Conversely, if $$\label{eq:6} \Omega_M^0 \subseteq \ker (\ad_\varphi)\cap \ker (\L_\varphi)$$ then by Remark \[rem:2\], $\varphi$ is $\Omega_M^0$-linear and, by , $$\label{eq:7} \ad_\varphi(df)=\ad_\varphi (\ad_d(f))=0$$ for all $f\in \Omega_M^0$. Using Remark \[rem:2\] again we conclude that $\varphi \in \Omega_M$ if and only if holds. \[rem:9\] If $X\in \Gamma(TM)$, then $\L_X$ acts on $\Omega_M$ as the usual Lie derivative. In particular, $\Omega_M^0$ is closed under the action of $\L_\varphi$ for each $\varphi \in \Gamma(TM)\oplus \Omega_M$. Conversely, suppose that $\varphi\in \EE_M$ is $\Omega_M^0$-linear and $\L_\varphi(\Omega_M^0)\subseteq \Omega_M^0$. Then $\L_\varphi$ is a derivation of $\Omega_M^0$ and therefore there exists $X\in \Gamma(TM)$ such that $\Omega_M^0\subseteq \ker(\L_{\varphi-X})$. By Remark \[rem:8\] we conclude that $\varphi-X\in \Omega_M$ and thus $\varphi\in \Gamma(TM)\oplus \Omega_M$. \[def:10\] If $\varphi\in \EE_M$ is nilpotent, [the adjoint automorphism associated with $\varphi$]{} is $\Ad_\varphi\in {\rm Aut}_{\R}(\EE_M)$ such that $\Ad_\varphi(\psi)=e^\varphi\circ\psi\circ e^{-\varphi}$ for all $\psi\in \EE_M$. \[rem:11\] Since $M$ is finite dimensional, every $\varphi\in \EE_M$ of positive or negative degree is automatically nilpotent. \[rem:12\] Let $\varphi\in \EE_M^{\bar 0}$ be nilpotent. Then $\ad_\varphi$ is also nilpotent and $\Ad_\varphi=e^{\ad_\varphi}$. Furthermore, since $$\label{eq:8} \Ad_\varphi \circ \ad_\psi \circ \Ad_{-\varphi} = \ad_{\Ad_\varphi(\psi)}$$ for all $\psi\in \EE_M$, we obtain $$\label{eq:9} \Ad_\varphi(\llbracket \psi_1,\psi_2\rrbracket_\delta)=\llbracket \Ad_\varphi(\psi_1),\Ad_\varphi(\psi_2)\rrbracket_{\Ad_\varphi(\delta)}$$ for all $\psi_1,\psi_2,\delta\in \EE_M$. \[def:13\] The ${\it Leibnizator}$ of $\delta\in \EE_M$ is the function ${\rm \mathcal L}_\delta:\EE_M\times \EE_M\to \EE_M$ defined by ${\rm \mathcal L}_\delta(\varphi,\psi)=[\L_\varphi^{\!\!^\delta},\L_\psi^{\!\!^\delta}]-\L_{{\llbracket \varphi,\psi\rrbracket}_\delta}^{\!\!^\delta}$ for each $\varphi,\psi\in \EE_M$. \[lem:14\] If $\delta\in \EE_M^{\bar 1}$, then $2{\mathcal L}_\delta(\varphi,\psi)=-(-1)^k\ad_{\llbracket \varphi,\psi\rrbracket_{\delta^2}}$ for all $\varphi\in \EE_M$ and $\psi\in\EE_M^k$. Proof:* Using repeatedly, we obtain $$\label{eq:10} 2\mathcal L_\delta(\varphi,\psi)=2\ad_{[[\varphi,\delta],[\psi,\delta]]-[[[\varphi,\delta],\psi],\delta]}=-(-2)^k\ad_{[[[\varphi,\delta],\delta],\psi]}=-(-1)^k\ad_{\llbracket \varphi,\psi\rrbracket_{\delta^2}}\,.$$ \[ex:15\] In particular, $d^2=0$ implies that the Leibnizator of the de Rham operator vanishes identically. Unraveling the definition we obtain $$\label{eq:11} \llbracket\varphi_1,\llbracket \varphi_2,\varphi_3 \rrbracket \rrbracket = \llbracket\llbracket \varphi_1,\varphi_2 \rrbracket , \varphi_3\rrbracket+(-1)^{k_1+k_2+k_1k_2}\llbracket \varphi_2,\llbracket \varphi_1,\varphi_3\rrbracket\rrbracket$$ for all $\varphi_i\in \EE_M^{k_i}$, $i=1,2,3$. In particular, if $\phi_1,\phi_2,\phi_3\in \Gamma(\T M)$ we recover the familiar Jacobi identity for the Dorfman bracket. Generalized Almost Product Structures ===================================== \[def:16\] A [split structure of rank $2k$ on $M$]{} is a subbundle $E\subseteq \T M$ on which the restriction $\langle\,,\,\rangle_E$ of the tautological bilinear form $\langle\, ,\,\rangle$ to $E$ is non-degenerate and of signature $(k,k)$. We denote by $\pr_E$ the orthogonal projection of $\T M$ onto $E$. \[rem:17\] If $B\in \Omega_M^2$, then $\Ad_B$ restricts to an automorphism of $\T M$, which by is orthogonal with respect to $\langle\,,\,\rangle$. In particular, $E\subseteq \T M$ is a split structure if and only if $\Ad_B(E)$ is. \[rem:18\] $E$ is a split structure of rank $2k$ on $M$ if and only if $E^\perp$ is a split structure of rank $2(\dim(M)-k)$. \[rem:19\] If $E$ is a non-zero split structure on $M$, non-degeneracy implies that $\pi(E)$ has nowhere vanishing fibers. Using partitions of unity and the local existence theorem for ODEs, it follows that every function in $\Omega_M^0$ can be written locally as $\L_{\pi(x)}(f)$ for some $x\in \Gamma(E)$ and for some $f\in \Omega_M^0$. On the other hand, implies $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:12} (\ad_\varphi\circ\L_{\pi(x)})(f) & =\ad_\varphi([x,df])=\ad_\varphi([x,\pr_E(df)])\nonumber\\ &= -(-1)^k(\llbracket x,\pr_E(df)\rrbracket_\varphi+\llbracket \pr_E(df),x\rrbracket_\varphi)\end{aligned}$$ for $x\in \Gamma(E)$, $f\in \Omega_M^0$ and for any $\varphi\in \EE_M^k$. Setting $\varphi=d$, we conclude that $E$ is closed under the Dorfman bracket if and only if $T^M\subseteq E$ if and only if $E=\T M$. \[lem:20\] Let $\varphi\in \EE_M$ and assume there exists a split structure $E$ on $M$ such that $\llbracket x,y\rrbracket_\varphi\in \ker (\ad)$ for all $x,y\in \Gamma(E)$. Then $\varphi$ is $\Omega_M^0$-linear. Proof:* By assumption, $\llbracket x,y\rrbracket_\varphi$ commutes with $\Gamma(E)$ and with $d$ and thus must be a constant multiple of the identity of all $x,y\in \Gamma(E)$. By , we conclude that $\ad_\varphi$ is a derivation of $\Omega_M^0$ whose image consists of constant functions. This concludes the proof since the only such derivation is the zero derivation. \[lem:21\] Let $\delta\in \EE_M^{\bar 1}$ be such that $\delta(1)=0$ and $[\delta^2,d]=0$. Then following are equivalent 1) $\delta^2=0$; 2) $\mathcal L_\delta=0$; 3) there exists a non-zero split structure $E$ on $M$ such $\mathcal L_\delta (x,y)=0$ for all $x,y\in \Gamma(E)$. Proof: By Lemma \[lem:14\], 1) implies 2). Since $\T M$ is a split structure, 2) implies 3). If 3) holds, then it follows from Lemma \[lem:14\] and Lemma \[lem:20\] that $\delta^2$ is $\Omega_M^0$-linear. Combining Remark \[rem:8\] with the assumption $[\delta^2,d]=0$, we conclude that $\delta^2=\delta^2(1)=0$ which concludes the proof. \[def:22\] Let $E$ be a split structure of rank $2k$ on $M$. The [type of $E$ at $m\in M$]{} is the rank, denoted by $p_E(m)$, of $\pi_E$ at $m$. \[rem:23\] Let $E$ be a split structure of rank $2k$ on $M$. Since $\ker(\pi_E)=T^M\cap E$ is isotropic, then $p_E(m)\ge k$ for all $m\in M$. \[def:24\] A [generalized almost product structure]{} is a split structure $E$ of rank $2k$ on $M$ such that $p_E=k$. \[ex:25\] Recall that an [almost product structure]{} [@gugenheim-spencer] is a pair $(F,G)$ of subbundles of $TM$ such that $TM=F\oplus G$. Each almost product structure $(F,G)$ defines two canonical generalized almost product structures: $E=F\oplus {\rm Ann}(G)$ and $E^\perp=G\oplus {\rm Ann}(F)$. \[prop:26\] Let $E$ be a split structure on $M$. The following are equivalent 1) $E$ is a generalized almost product structure; 2) $T^M=(T^M\cap E)\oplus (T^M \cap E^\perp)$; 3) $(\pi(E),\pi(E^\perp))$ is an almost product structure; 4) There exists $B_E\in \Omega^2_M$ such that $$\Ad_{B_E}(E)=\pi(E)\oplus {\rm Ann}(\pi(E^\perp))\quad \textrm{ and }\quad \Ad_{B_E}(E^\perp)=\pi(E^\perp)\oplus {\rm Ann}(\pi(E))\,;$$ 5) $[\pr_E(df),\pr_E(dg)]=0$ each $f,g\in \Omega_M^0$. Proof: Since $E$ is a generalized almost product structure on $M$, then $T^M\cap E\subseteq E$ is maximal isotropic. On the other hand, ${\rm Ann}(\pi(E))=T^M\cap E^{\perp}$ and is a subbundle of rank $n-k$. Consequently, 1) implies 2). If 2) holds, then $T^M\cap E\subseteq E$ and $T^M\cap E^\perp \subseteq E^\perp$ are maximal isotropic. Therefore $E$ and $E^\perp$ are generalized almost product structures. Since $TM=\pi(E\oplus E^\perp)=\pi(E)+\pi(E^\perp)$, we conclude that 2) implies 1) and 3). Since $$\label{eq:13} 0=[x,y]=\ad_y(\pi(x))+\ad_x(\pi(y))\,.$$ for any $x\in \Gamma(E)$ and $y\in \Gamma(E^\perp)$, if 3) holds there exists a well defined $B_E\in \Omega_M^2$ such that $(\ad_{\pi(x)}\circ\ad_{\pi(y)}) (B_E) = \ad_y(\pi(x))$ if $x\in \Gamma(E)$ and $y\in \Gamma(E^\perp)$ while $(\ad_{\pi(x)}\circ\ad_{\pi(y)}) (B_E)=0$ if $x,y\in \Gamma(E)$ or $x,y\in \Gamma(E^\perp)$. If $x\in \Gamma(E)$, then $\pi(\Ad_{B_E}(x))=\pi(x)$ and $$\begin{aligned} \ad_{\pi(y)}(\Ad_{B_E}(x)-\pi(x))&=\ad_y(x-\pi(x)-\ad_{\pi(x)}(B_E)) \nonumber \\ &=-\ad_y(\pi(x))-(\ad_{\pi(y)}\circ\ad_{\pi(x)})(B_E)\\ &=0\label{eq:14}\end{aligned}$$ for all $y\in \Gamma(E^\perp)$. Therefore, $\Ad_{B_E}(E)\subseteq \pi(E)\oplus {\rm Ann}(\pi(E^\perp))$. On the other hand $$\label{eq:15} (\ad_y\circ\Ad_{-B_E})(\pi(x))=\ad_y(\pi(x))+(\ad_{\pi(y)}\circ\ad_{\pi(x)})(B_E)=0$$ for all $x\in \Gamma(E)$ and $y\in \Gamma(E^\perp)$. Together with $$\label{eq:16} \Ad_{-B_E}({\rm Ann}(\pi(E^\perp))={\rm Ann}(\pi(E^\perp))\subseteq E$$ this implies $\pi(E)\oplus {\rm Ann}(\pi(E^\perp))\subseteq \Ad_{B_E}(E)$. A similar calculation for $E^\perp$ shows that 3) implies 4). If 4) holds, then $(\Ad_{B_E}(E))^\perp=\Ad_{B_E}(E^\perp)$ implies $$\label{eq:17} T^M=(T^M\cap \Ad_{B_E}(E))\oplus (T^M\cap \Ad_{B_E}(E^\perp))=(T^M\cap E)\oplus (T^M \cap E^\perp)$$ and thus 1). Finally for each fixed $f\in \Omega_M^0$, $[\pr_E(df),dg]=[\pr_E(df),\pr_E(dg)]=0$ for all $g\in \Omega_M^0$ if and only if $\pr_E(df)\in \Gamma(T^M\cap E)$. Therefore, 5) is equivalent to 2). \[cor:27\] A split structure $E$ on $M$ is a generalized almost product structure if and only if $E^\perp$ is. \[def:28\] Let $E$ be an almost product structure on $M$. The [$E$-bigrading]{} is the canonical $(\Z\times \Z)$-grading of $\Omega_M$ induced by the decomposition $T^M=(T^M\cap E)\oplus (T^M\cap E^\perp)$ so that the bigraded components are $\Omega_E^{k,l}=\Gamma(\wedge^k(T^M\cap E)\otimes\wedge^l(T^M\cap E^\perp))$. We denote by $\EE_E^{k,l}$ the components of the induced decomposition of $\EE_M$. The [$E$-biparity]{} is the $(\Z/2\times\Z/2)$-reduction of the $E$-bigrading. The [$E$-parity]{} is the $\Z/2$-grading corresponding to the decomposition $\Omega_M=\Omega_E^{\overline 0,\bullet}\oplus \Omega_E^{\overline 1,\bullet}$. \[rem:29\] The $E$-biparity is a simultaneous $(\Z/2\times\Z/2)$-refinement of both the standard parity and the $E$-parity. \[cor:30\] Generalized almost product structures on $M$ are in canonical bijection with pairs $(\Omega^{\bullet,\bullet},B)$, where $\Omega^{\bullet,\bullet}$ denotes a $(\Z\times \Z)$-refinement of the standard grading on $\Omega_M$ and $B\in \Omega^{1,1}$. \[rem:31\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure on $M$. If $B_E\neq 0$, then sections of $E$ (and of $E^\perp)$ do not in general have definite $E$-bigrading. However, Proposition \[prop:26\] implies that $\Gamma(E)\subseteq \EE_E^{1,0}\oplus \EE_E^{-1,0}\oplus \EE_E^{0,1}$. \[rem:32\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure on $M$. By construction, the $E$-bigrading coincides with the canonical bigrading of the almost product structure $(\pi(E),\pi(E^\perp))$, as defined in [@gugenheim-spencer]. In particular, $d\in \EE_E^{1,0}\oplus \EE_E^{-1,2}\oplus \EE_E^{0,1}\oplus \EE_E^{2,-1}$. \[def:33\] Given a generalized almost product structure $E$ on $M$, we define $d_E$ to be the component of odd $E$-parity of the de Rham operator, so that $d_E\in \EE_E^{1,0}\oplus \EE_E^{-1,2}$. We use the shorthand notations $\L^E=\L^{d_E}$ and $\llbracket\, ,\, \rrbracket_E=\llbracket\, ,\, \rrbracket_{d_E}$. \[ex:34\] Let $M=S^3$, let $\{X_1,X_2,X_3\}$ be a frame of $TM$ with dual frame $\{\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3\}$ such that $d\alpha_1=\alpha_2\alpha_3$, $d\alpha_2=\alpha_3\alpha_1$ and $d\alpha_3=\alpha_1\alpha_2$. Given $f,g\in \Omega_M^0$, consider the split structure $E={\rm span}\{\alpha_2,\alpha_3,x_2,x_3\}$ where $x_2=X_2-f\alpha_1$ and $x_3=X_3-g\alpha_1$. It follows that $E^\perp={\rm span}\{\alpha_1,x_1\}$, where $x_1=X_1+f\alpha_2+g\alpha_3$. Then $E$ is a generalized almost product structure for all $f,g\in \Omega_M^0$. A direct calculation shows that $d_E(h\alpha_i)=d_E(h)\alpha_i$ for $i=1,2,3$. \[rem:35\] If $E$ is a generalized almost product structure on $M$, then $d_Ef=\pr_E(df)$ for every $f\in \Omega_M^0$. Moreover, $d_E=d_{\Ad_B(E)}$ for every $B\in \Omega_M^2$. \[rem:36\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure on $M$. Separating the terms of different $E$-biparity in the identity $d^2=0$ yields $[d_E,d_{E^\perp}]=0$ and $d_E^2+d_{E^\perp}^2=0$. In particular, $d_E^2=0$ if and only if $d_{E^\perp}^2=0$ if and only if $[d,d_E]=0$. On the other hand $$\label{eq:18} [d_E,[d_E,d_E]]=-[d_E,[d_{E^\perp},d_{E^\perp}]]=-2[d_{E^\perp},[d_E,d_{E^\perp}]]=0$$ for any generalized almost product structure $E$. \[rem:37\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure on $M$ and let $x,y\in \Gamma(E)$. Then $\ad_{\llbracket x,y\rrbracket_E}=[[\ad_x,\ad_{d_E}],\ad_y]$ is an operator of $E$-biparity $(\bar 1,\bar 0)$ on $\EE_M$. Similarly, $\ad_{\llbracket x,y\rrbracket_{E^\perp}}$ has $E$-biparity $(\bar 0,\bar 1)$. Matching $E$-biparities yields $\llbracket x,y\rrbracket_E=\pr_E(\llbracket x,y\rrbracket)$ and $\llbracket x,y\rrbracket_{E^\perp}=\pr_{E^\perp}(\llbracket x,y\rrbracket)$. Similarly if $x\in \Gamma(E)$ and $y\in \Gamma(E^\perp)$, then $\llbracket x,y\rrbracket_E=\pr_{E^\perp} (\llbracket x,y\rrbracket)$. \[rem:38\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure on $M$ and let $x,y\in \Gamma(E)$. Since by Lemma \[lem:14\] the components of different $E$-biparity in $\mathcal L_d(x,y)$ must vanish independently, it follows that in particular $\mathcal L_E(x,y)=-\mathcal L_{E^\perp}(x,y)$ for every $x,y\in \Gamma(E)$. \[rem:39\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure on $M$. By projecting onto $E$ the axioms of Courant algebroid (written in terms of the Dorfman bracket as in [@G]), we conclude that $(E,\llbracket\,,\,\rrbracket_{_E},\langle\,,\,\rangle_{_E},\pi_E)$ is a Courant algebroid if and only if $\llbracket\,,\,\rrbracket_{_E}$ satisfies the Jacobi identity i.e. $\Gamma(E)\subseteq \ker (\mathcal L_E(x,y))$ for all $x,y,\in \Gamma(E)$. \[rem:40\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure on $M$. By a result of [@reinhart], $\pi(E)$ is a foliation if and only if $d_{E^\perp}\in \EE_E^{0,1}$. If this is the case, we see that in particular $d_E^2=-d_{E^\perp}^2\in \EE_E^{0,2}$. \[prop:41\] Let $E$ be an almost product structure on $M$. The following are equivalent 1) $\pi(E)$ is a foliation; 2) $\Omega_M^0\subseteq \ker(\mathcal L_E(x,y))$ for all $x,y\in \Gamma(E)$; 3) $\llbracket x,y\rrbracket_{E^\perp}\in \Omega_M^1$ for all $x,y\in \Gamma(E)$; 4) $(E,\llbracket\,,\,\rrbracket_E,\langle\,,\rangle_E,\pi_E)$ is a Courant algebroid. Proof:* By Remark \[rem:37\], 3) is equivalent to $$\label{eq:19} 0=[\llbracket x,y\rrbracket_{E^\perp},df]=[\llbracket x,y\rrbracket_{E^\perp},d_{E^\perp} f]$$ for all $x,y\in \Gamma(E)$ and for all $f\in \Omega_M^0$. Since $\llbracket x,f\rrbracket_{E\perp}=[x,d_{E^\perp}f]=0$ for all $x\in \Gamma(E)$ and $f\in \Omega_M^0$, using Remark \[rem:38\] we obtain $$\label{eq:20} (\mathcal L_E(x,y))(f)=-(\mathcal L_{E^\perp}(x,y))(f)=\L^{\!\!^{E^\perp}}_{\llbracket x,y\rrbracket_{E^\perp}}(f)=[\llbracket x,y\rrbracket_{E^\perp},d_{E^\perp} f]\,.$$ Therefore, 2) is equivalent to 3). On the other hand, Lemma \[lem:14\] implies $$\label{eq:21} 2(\mathcal L_E(x,y))(f)=[\llbracket x,y\rrbracket_{d_E^2},f]=\llbracket x,y\rrbracket_{d_E^2f}$$ for all $x,y\in \Gamma(E)$ and for all $f\in \Omega_M^0$. By Lemma \[lem:14\], 4) is equivalent to $$\label{eq:22} 0=[\llbracket x,y\rrbracket_{d_E^2},z]=\llbracket y,z\rrbracket_{[x,d_E^2]}$$ for all $x,y,z\in \Gamma(E)$. Lemma \[lem:20\] then implies that $[x,d_E^2]$ is $\Omega_M^0$-linear and (since $x$ and $y$ are also $\Omega_M^0$-linear) we obtain that $\llbracket x,y\rrbracket_{d_E^2f}=0$ for all $x,y\in \Gamma(E)$ and for all $f\in \Omega_M^0$. Therefore, 4) implies 2). Since 4) clearly implies that $\pi(E)$ is a foliation, it remains to prove that 1) implies 4). Let $x,y,z$ be arbitrary sections of $E$. On the one hand, $(\mathcal L_E(x,y))(z)$ has only components of bidegree $(\bullet,q)$ with $q\le 1$ by Remark \[rem:31\]. On the other hand by by Remark \[rem:38\] and Remark \[rem:40\], $(\mathcal L_E(x,y))(z)$ has only components of $E$-bigradee $(\bullet,q)$ with $q\ge 2$. Therefore, it must vanish and the proof is completed. \[def:42\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure on $M$ such that $\pi(E^\perp)$ is a foliation. A differential form is [basic with respect to $E$]{} if it is an element of $\mathcal B_E = \Omega^{\bullet,0}_E\cap \ker(d_{E^\perp})$. Accordingly, an operator $\varphi\in \EE_M$ is [basic with respect to $E$]{} if $\varphi(\mathcal B_E)\subseteq \mathcal B_E$. \[ex:43\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure on $M$ such that $\pi(E^\perp)$ is a foliation, then $d_E$ is basic with respect to $E$. Moreover $d_E^2(\mathcal B_E)=d_{E^\perp}^2(\mathcal B_E)=0$ and thus $(\mathcal B_E,d_E)$ is a complex known as the [basic complex of $E$]{}. \[def:44\] A split structure $E$ is a [generalized local product structure]{} on $M$ if $(\pi(E),\pi(E^\perp))$ is a local product structure in the sense of [@reinhart] i.e. $TM=\pi(E)\oplus \pi(E^\perp)$ is a decomposition into constant-rank foliations. \[prop:45\] A split structure $E$ on $M$ is a generalized local product structure if and only if it is a generalized almost product structure and $d_E^2=0$. Proof: By Proposition \[prop:26\], every generalized local product structure is also a generalized almost product structure. By Remark \[rem:40\], if $(\pi(E),\pi(E^\perp))$ is a local product structure, then $d_E^2\in \EE_E^{0,2}\cap \EE_{E^\perp}^{0,2}=\EE_E^{0,2}\cap \EE_E^{2,0}=\{0\}$. Conversely, if $d^2_E=0$ then by , $\pi(E)$ is a foliation. By Remark \[rem:40\], $\pi(E^\perp)$ is also a foliation and the Proposition is proved. \[cor:46\] The collection of all split structures on $M$ such that $d^2_E=0$ is in canonical bijection with the collection of pairs $(\Omega^{\bullet,\bullet},B)$ consisting of a $(\Z\times \Z)$-refinement of the standard grading on $\Omega_M$ such that $d(\Omega^{i,j})\subseteq \Omega^{i+1,j}\oplus \Omega^{i,j+1}$ for all $i,j\ge 0$ and $B\in \Omega^{1,1}$. Generalized $F$-structures ========================== \[def:47\] Let $E$ be a split structure on $M$. A [generalized $F$-structure on $E$]{} is an element $\Phi\in \EE_M$ such that i) $\Omega_M^0\oplus \Gamma(E^\perp)\subseteq \ker(\ad_\Phi)$; ii) $\ad_\Phi(\Gamma(\T M))\subseteq \Gamma(\T M)$; iii) $\Gamma(E)\subseteq \ker(\ad_\Phi^2+{\rm Id})$. We denote by $J_\Phi$ the restriction of $\ad_\Phi$ to $\Gamma(\T M)$ and by $L_\Phi$ the $\sqrt{-1}$-eigenbundle of $J_\Phi$. \[rem:48\] If $\Phi$ is a generalized $F$-structure on a split structure $E$, $J_\Phi$ is an orthogonal bundle endomorphism of $\T M$ such that $J_\Phi^3+J_\Phi=0$ i.e. a generalized $F$-structure in the sense of [@vaismanCRF]. Conversely, given any bundle endomorphism $J\in {\mathfrak o} (\T M)$, there is an element $\Phi\in \EE_M$ such that $J(x)=\ad_\Phi(x)$ for all $x\in \T M$. For instance, let $\omega$ be the unique $2$-form on $M$ such that $\omega(X,Y)=[X,J(Y)]$ for all $X,Y\in \Gamma(TM)$ and consider $\Phi\in \EE_M$ such that $\Phi(f)=f\omega$ for any $f\in \Omega_M^0$ and $$\label{eq:23} \Phi(\alpha_1\cdots\alpha_p)=\alpha_1\cdots\alpha_k\omega+\sum_{i=1}^p \alpha_1\cdots J(\alpha_i)\cdots \alpha_k$$ for any $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_p\in \Omega^1_M$. Then $\Phi$ is $\Omega_M^0$-linear and the restriction of $\ad_\Phi$ to $\T M$ coincides with $J$. Furthermore, suppose that $\Phi'\in \EE_M$ is another $\Omega_M^0$-linear element such that $J(x)=\ad_{\Phi'}(x)$, then Remark \[rem:3\] implies $\Phi-\Phi'\in\Omega_M^0$. Therefore, modulo addition of functions, generalized $F$-structures on split structures are in canonical correspondence with the split generalized $F$-structures defined in [@AG2]. \[ex:49\] Every generalized almost complex structure is of the form $J_\Phi$ for some generalized $F$-structures $\Phi$ on $M$. \[ex:50\] In the language of [@AG], every generalized almost contact triple is of the form $(J_\Phi,e_1,e_2)$ for some generalized $F$-structure $\Phi$ on a split structure $E$ such that $E^\perp$ is globally trivialized by isotropic sections $e_1,e_2\in \Gamma(E^\perp)$. If one further imposes the condition $e_1\in \Gamma(TM),e_2\in \Gamma(T^M)$ one obtains the generalized almost contact triples of [@PW]. \[rem:51\] Since $J_\Phi^3+J_\Phi=0$, then $L_\Phi$ is empty if and only if $\Phi$ is $\Omega_M^0$-linear. Moreover, $L_\Phi\subseteq E\otimes \mathbb C$ is maximal isotropic with respect to the tautological inner product and $E\otimes \C=L_\Phi\oplus\overline L_\Phi$. \[ex:52\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure on $M$, let $\omega\in \Omega_E^{2,0}$ and let $\Lambda\in \EE_E^{-2,0}$ be such that $\Phi=\omega+\Lambda$ is a generalized $F$-structure on $E$. Then $$\label{eq:24} \Gamma(L_\Phi)=({\rm Id}-\sqrt{-1}\ad_\Lambda)(\Omega^{1,0}_E)\,.$$ \[lem:53\] Let $E$ be a split structure on $M$ and let $\Phi$ be a generalized $F$-structure on $E$. The following are equivalent: 1) $J_\Phi(E)\subseteq E$; 2) $L_\Phi = (L_\Phi\cap (E\otimes \C))\oplus (L_\Phi\cap (E^\perp\otimes \C))$; 3) there exists a generalized $F$-structure $\Phi_E$ on $E$ such that $\Phi-\Phi_E$ is a generalized $F$-structure on $E^\perp$. Proof:* The implications $3)\Rightarrow 1)\Rightarrow 2)$ are straightforward. To see why 2) implies 3), let $\{l_1,\ldots,l_n\}$ be a local frame of $L_\Phi$ such that $l_1,\ldots,l_k\in E\otimes \C$ and $l_{k+1},\ldots,l_n\in E^\perp\otimes \C$. If $\{\overline l^1,\ldots,\overline l^n\}\subseteq \Gamma(\overline L_\Phi)$ is the dual local frame, then $\sqrt{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n (l_i\circ \overline l^i)$ is a local expression for $\Phi$ and $\sqrt{-1}\sum_{i=1}^k (l_i\circ \overline l^i)$ is a local expression for $\Phi_E$. \[def:54\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure on $M$ and let $\Phi$ be a generalized $F$-structure on $E$. Let $K'_\Phi\subseteq \wedge^\bullet T^M\otimes \C$ be the pure spinor line bundle of the maximal isotropic subbundle $L_\Phi\oplus \Ad_{-B_E}(\pi(E^\perp))\otimes \C\subseteq \T M\otimes \C$. The [canonical bundle of $\Phi$]{} is $K_\Phi=K'_\Phi\otimes\wedge^\bullet (T^M\cap E^\perp)\subseteq \wedge^\bullet T^\otimes \C$. \[rem:55\] Let $\Phi$ be a generalized $F$-structure on a generalized almost product structure $E$ of rank $2k$ on $M$. Then $K_\Phi$ is a complex bundle of rank $2^{\dim M-k}$. \[rem:56\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure on $M$ and let $\Phi$ be a generalized $F$-structure on $E$. Since $L_\Phi\oplus\Ad_{-B_E}(\pi(E^\perp))\otimes \C ={\rm Ann}(K'_\Phi)$ and $L_\Phi\subseteq (T^M\cap E^\perp)\otimes \C$, then $L_\Phi\subseteq {\rm Ann}(K_\Phi)\subseteq L_\Phi\oplus \Ad_{-B_E}(\pi(E^\perp))\otimes \C$. On the other hand, no section of $\Ad_{-B_E}(\pi(E^\perp))$ annihilates every section of $T^M\cap E^\perp$ and thus $L_\Phi={\rm Ann}(K_\Phi)$. \[ex:57\] If $\Phi$ is a generalized $F$-structure on $\T M$, then $K_\Phi=K'_\Phi$ is the canonical line bundle of the generalized almost complex structure $J_\Phi$, in the sense of [@G]. \[rem:58\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure of rank $2k$ on $M$ and let $\Phi$ be a generalized $F$-structure on $E$. For each integer $i\ge 0$, let $F_\Phi^i\subseteq \wedge^\bullet T^M\otimes \C$ be the subbundle annihilated by $\Gamma(\wedge^{i+1} L_\Phi)$. In particular, $F_\Phi^0=K_\Phi$ and $F_\Phi^i=\wedge ^\bullet T^M\otimes \C$ for all $i\ge 2j$. Since $\Gamma(F^{i+1}_\Phi)\setminus \Gamma(F_\Phi^i)$ contains all images of forms in $\Gamma(K_\Phi)$ under the actions of operators in $\Gamma(\wedge^{i+1} \overline L_\Phi)$, then $F^{i+1}_\Phi/F^i_\Phi$ is a bundle of rank at least $\binom{2k}{i}$ which yields a canonical isomorphism $$\label{eq:25} F^i_\Phi\cong \bigoplus_{j=0}^i (\wedge^j \overline L_\Phi)\otimes K_\Phi\,.$$ Since $\overline F_\Phi^i=F^i_{-\Phi}$ one obtains a further canonical isomorphism $$\label{eq:26} F_\Phi^i\cap \overline F_\Phi^{2k-i}\cong \wedge^i \overline L_\Phi \otimes K_\Phi\,.$$ Letting $U^{k-i}_\Phi=\Gamma(F^i_\Phi\cap \overline F^{2k-i}_\Phi)$ we obtain a new $\Z$-grading, called the [$\Phi$-grading]{}, $$\label{eq:27} \Omega_M\otimes \C=U^{-k}_\Phi\oplus\cdots \oplus U^k_\Phi\,.$$ Note that $U_\Phi^k=\Gamma(K_\Phi)$ and $\overline U_\Phi^i=U_\Phi^{-i}$ for all $i$. The component of degree $i$ of the corresponding $\Z$-grading of $\EE_M\otimes \C$ is denoted by $\EE_\Phi^i$. \[ex:59\] Let $\Phi$ be a generalized $F$-structure on $\T M$. Then the $\Phi$-grading defines the standard decomposition of complex differential forms associated to the generalized almost complex structure $J_\Phi$, as defined in [@G]. \[ex:60\] Let $\Phi=\omega+\Lambda$ be as in Example \[eq:52\] and assume that $E$ is of rank $2k$. Then $U_\Phi^k=e^{-\sqrt{-1}\omega}\Omega_{E}^{0,\bullet}$. Moreover for every $\alpha\in \Omega^{1,0}_E$ $$\label{eq:28} \Psi\circ \alpha\circ \Psi^{-1}=\left(\Ad_{\sqrt{-1}\omega}\circ\Ad_{-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\Lambda}\right)(\alpha)=-\frac{1}{2}(\alpha+\sqrt{-1}\ad_\Lambda(\alpha))\,,$$ where $\Psi=e^{\sqrt{-1}\omega}\circ e^{-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\Lambda}$. Therefore, $\Psi$ intertwines the standard action of forms with the action of $\overline L_\Phi$ and thus gives rise to a canonical identification $U^{k-i}_\Phi=\Psi(\Omega_E^{i,\bullet})$ for all $i$. In the particular case in which $\omega$ is non-degenerate and $J_\Phi$ is the corresponding generalized almost complex structure, we obtain Theorem 2.2 in [@cavalcanti]. \[rem:61\] Specializing Example \[ex:60\] to the case in which $\dim M=2k+1$ and $(\omega,\eta)$ is an almost cosymplectic structure i.e. $\eta\in \Omega^1_M$ is such that $\eta\omega^k$ is a volume form, then $U_\Phi^{-k}$ is the $\Omega_M^0$-module generated by $e^{\sqrt{-1}\omega}$ and $\eta e^{\sqrt{-1}\omega}$. In particular we observe that, unlike the special case of generalized almost complex structures, in general the subspaces $U^i_\Phi$ do not have definite standard parity. \[rem:62\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure of rank $2k$ on $M$ and let $\Phi$ be a generalized $F$-structure on $E$. By Remark \[rem:58\], $U^k_\Phi$ is a subspace of $\Omega_E^{\bullet,0}$ generated by pure spinors of definite standard parity. Since the standard parity and the $E$-parity coincide when restricted to $\Omega_E^{\bullet,0}$, we conclude that elements of $U^{k}_\Phi$, and thus of $U^i_\Phi$ for all $i$, have definite $E$-parity. More precisely, the $\Z/2$-reduction of the $\Phi$-grading coincides with the $E$-parity. \[lem:63\]Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure on $M$, let $\Phi$ be a generalized $F$-structure on $E$. and let $\varphi\in \EE_M$. Then $\varphi\in \EE_\Phi^i$ if and only if $\ad_\Phi(\varphi)=\sqrt{-1}i\varphi$. Proof:* Since $\Phi$ preserves $K'_\Phi$ and commutes with the action of $\Gamma(E^\perp)$ on $\Omega_M$, locally, there exists $f\in \Omega_M^0\otimes \C$ such that $\Phi(\rho)=f\rho$ for each locally defined section $\rho$ of $U_\Phi^k$. Taking into account that $\overline L_\Phi$ is the $-\sqrt{-1}$-eigenbundle of $\ad_\Phi$, we conclude that locally $U_\Phi^{k-i}$ is the $f-i\sqrt{-1}$ eigenspace of $\Phi$ from which the Lemma easily follows. \[lem:64\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure on $M$ and let $\Phi$ be a generalized $F$-structure on $E$. Then 1) $d_{E^\perp}\in \EE_\Phi^{-2}\oplus \EE_\Phi^0\oplus \EE_\Phi^2$; 2) $d_{E^\perp} \in \EE_\Phi^0$ if and only if $\llbracket l_1,l_2\rrbracket_{E^\perp}=0$ for all $l_1,l_2\in \Gamma(L_\Phi)$. Proof: Assume $E$ has rank $2k$. Since sections of $E^\perp$ commute with $\Phi$, then $\llbracket l_1,l_2\rrbracket_{E^\perp}(U_\Phi^i)\subseteq U_\Phi^i$ for all $l_1,l_2\in \Gamma(L_\Phi)$ and for any integer $i$. Unraveling the $i=k$ case we obtain $d_{E^\perp}(U_\Phi^k)\subseteq \Gamma(F_\Phi^2)$ which, upon inspection of $E$-biparities, yields $d_{E^\perp}(U_\Phi^k)\subseteq U_\Phi^k\oplus U_\Phi^{k-2}$. Arguing by induction on $k-i$, a similar argument shows that $d_{E^\perp}(U_\Phi^i)\subseteq U_\Phi^{i-2}\oplus U_\Phi^i\oplus U_\Phi^{i+2}$ for all $i$. This implies 1). Let $\partial_\Phi^\perp$ be the projection of $d_{E^\perp}$ onto $\EE_\Phi^2$. Matching $\Phi$-degrees, we obtain $\llbracket l_1,l_2\rrbracket_{E^\perp}=\llbracket l_1,l_2\rrbracket_{\overline\partial_\Phi^\perp}$ for all $l_1,l_2\in \Gamma(L_\Phi)$. An immediate consequence is that $d_{E^\perp}\in \EE_\Phi^0$ implies $\llbracket l_1,l_2\rrbracket_{E^\perp}=0$ for all $l_1,l_2\in \Gamma(L_\Phi)$. Conversely, if the restriction of $\llbracket \, ,\, \rrbracket_{E^\perp}$ to $\Gamma(L_\Phi)$ vanishes, Then in particular $$\label{eq:29} (l_1\circ l_2 \circ \overline\partial_\Phi^\perp)(U^k_\Phi)=\llbracket l_1,l_2\rrbracket_{E^\perp}(U_\Phi^k)=0$$ for all $l_1,l_2\in \Gamma(L_\Phi)$ and thus $\overline\partial_\Phi^\perp(U_\Phi^k)\subseteq U_\Phi^k\oplus U_\Phi^{k-1}$. Since $\overline\partial_\Phi^\perp\in \EE_\Phi^{-2}$, we conclude that $\overline\partial_\Phi^\perp U_\Phi^k=0$. Using induction on $k-i$, a similar argument shows $\overline\partial_\Phi^\perp(U_\Phi^i)=0$ for all $i$ i.e. $\partial_\Phi^\perp=\overline\partial_\Phi^\perp=0$. Since $d_{E^\perp}$ is a real operator, it must then be of $\Phi$-degree $0$. \[rem:65\]Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure $E$ on $M$ such that $\pi(E^\perp)$ is a foliation and let $\Phi$ be a generalized $F$-structure on $E$. Since $d_{E^\perp}\Phi(\mathcal B_E)\subseteq \Omega^{\bullet,1}$, we obtain that $\Phi$ is basic with respect to $E$ if and only if $\llbracket \Gamma(\pi(E^\perp)),\Phi\rrbracket_{E^\perp}(\mathcal B_E)=0$. On the other hand, if $X\in \Gamma(\pi(E^\perp))$ then $[\llbracket X,\Phi\rrbracket_{E^\perp},\alpha]=0$ for every $\alpha\in \Omega_E^{0,1}$. Since $\Omega_M$ is generated by $\mathcal B_E\otimes \Omega_E^{0,\bullet}$ we conclude that $\Phi$ is basic with respect to $E$ if and only if $\llbracket \Gamma(\pi(E^\perp)),\Phi\rrbracket_{E^\perp}=0$. Using and the fact that sections of $L_\Phi$ are of the form $x-\sqrt{-1}[\Phi,x]$ for some $x\in \Gamma(E)$, we obtain that $\Phi$ is basic with respect to $E$ if and only if $\llbracket \Gamma(\pi(E^\perp)),\Gamma(L_\Phi)\rrbracket_{E^\perp}\subseteq \Gamma(L_\Phi)$, if and only if $\llbracket \Gamma(\pi(E^\perp)),\Gamma(L_\Phi\oplus \pi(E^\perp))\rrbracket\subseteq \Gamma(L_\Phi\oplus \pi(E^\perp))$. In particular, if $K'_\Phi$ is locally generated by spinors that are basic with respect to $E$, then $\Phi$ is itself basic with respect to $E$. Conversely, if $\Phi$ is basic with respect to $E$, then the $\Phi$-grading restricts to a grading of basic forms $\mathcal B_E=\mathcal B_\Phi^{-k}\oplus \cdots \oplus \mathcal B_\Phi^k$, where $\mathcal B_\Phi^i=\mathcal B_E \cap \mathcal U_\Phi^i$ for all $i$. \[ex:66\] Let $\Phi=\omega+\Lambda$ be a generalized $F$-structure as in Example \[ex:60\]. Assume that $\pi(E^\perp)$ is a foliation and $d_{E^\perp}\omega=0$. Then $K'_\Phi$ is globally trivialized by the form $e^{-\sqrt{-1}\omega}$ which is clearly basic with respect to $E$. Therefore, $\Phi$ is basic with respect to $E$ and thus so is $\Lambda$. It follows from that $[d_{E^\perp},\Psi]=\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}(\Psi\circ \ad_\Lambda)(d_{E^\perp})$ and thus $\mathcal B_\Phi^{k-i}=\Psi (\mathcal B_E^i)$. This generalizes an observation made in [@wade10] for the special case in which $\omega=d\eta$ for some contact form $\eta$. \[rem:67\] While the notion of generalized $F$-structure on a split structure is invariant under T-duality, the notion of generalized almost product structure is not. This suggest to generalize the construction of the canonical bundle to split structures $E$ together with a decomposition $E^\perp=D_1\oplus D_2$ into isotropic subbundles. Then $K'_\Phi$ can be taken to be the spinor line annihilated by $\Gamma(L_\Phi\oplus D_1)$ and $K_\Phi=K'_\Phi\otimes \wedge^\bullet D_2$ so that $L_\Phi={\rm Ann}(K_\Phi)$. The construction of the $\Phi$-grading given in Remark \[rem:58\] can be extended verbatim to this more general setup. \[rem:68\] Let $(J_\Phi,e_1,e_2)$ be a generalized almost contact triple as in Example \[ex:50\] and let $D_i$ be the trivial line bundle generated by $e_i$ for $i=1,2$. Then $K'_\Phi$ is locally generated by a spinor $\rho_1$, which together with $\rho_2=e_2\rho_1$ locally generates $K_\Phi$. In the language of [@AG], $(\rho_1,\rho_2)$ is a local mixed pair. (Weak) generalized CRF-structures ================================= \[def:69\] A [weak generalized CRF-structure]{} on a generalized almost product structure $E$ is a generalized $F$-structure $\Phi$ on $E$ whose $\sqrt{-1}$-eigenbundle is closed under $\llbracket \,,\,\rrbracket_E$ i.e. $\llbracket l_2,l_2\rrbracket_E\in \Gamma(L_\Phi)$ for each $l_1,l_2\in \Gamma(L_\Phi)$. \[ex:70\] Let $\Phi$ be a generalized $F$-structure such that $J_\Phi$ is a generalized almost complex structure on $M$. Then $\Phi$ is a weak generalized CRF-structure if and only if $J_\Phi$ is a generalized complex structure. In particular, complex and symplectic structures are particular cases of weak generalized CRF-structures. \[ex:71\] Let $E$ be a split structure of rank $2$ globally trivialized by isotropic sections $e_1,e_2\in \Gamma(E)$. Let $\Phi$ be a generalized $F$-structure on $E^\perp$ such that $(J_\Phi,e_1,e_2)$ is a generalized almost contact triple in the sense of [@AG]. For $i=1,2$, let $\mathbb C e_i\subseteq \T M$ be complex line bundle generated by $e_i$. By definition [@AG], the triple $(J_\Phi,e_1,e_2)$ is [integrable]{} if there exist $i\in\{1,2\}$ such that $L_\Phi\oplus \C e_i$ is closed under the Dorfman bracket. Assume that $E$ is an almost product structure i.e. either $e_1$ or $e_2$ is a $1$-form. Projecting the Dorfman bracket onto $E^\perp$, it is easy to see that the the integrability of $(J_\Phi,e_1,e_2)$ implies that $\Phi$ is a weak generalized CRF structure. In particular, contact, cosymplectic and normal almost contact structures are examples of weak generalized CRF-structures. \[ex:72\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure such that $\pi(E^\perp)$ is a foliation and $B_E=0$. Let $\Phi$ a generalized $F$-structure on $E$ that is basic with respect to $E$. According to [@wade10] $J_\Phi$ is a [transverse generalized complex structure]{} if $\llbracket \Gamma(L_\Phi),\Gamma(L_\Phi)\rrbracket \subseteq \Gamma(L_\Phi\oplus \pi(E^\perp))$. Clearly, this condition implies that $\Phi$ is a weak generalized CRF-structure. Conversely, since $\pi(E^\perp)$ is maximal isotropic in $E^\perp$, the condition $\llbracket \Gamma(L_\Phi),\Gamma(L_\Phi)\rrbracket_{E^\perp}\subseteq\Gamma(\pi(E^\perp))$ is equivalent to $[\llbracket \Gamma(L_\Phi),\Gamma(L_\Phi)\rrbracket_{E^\perp},\Gamma(\pi(E^\perp))]=0$. Using and the maximal isotropy of $L_\Phi$ in $E\otimes \C$ this is in turn equivalent to $\llbracket \Gamma(\pi(E^\perp),\Gamma(L_\Phi)\rrbracket_{E^\perp} \subseteq \Gamma(L_\Phi)$. Therefore, by Remark \[rem:65\] this condition is automatically satisfied since $\Phi$ is basic with respect to $E$. Thus, $J_\Phi$ is a transverse generalized complex structure if and only if $\Phi$ is a weak generalized CRF-structure. \[thm:73\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure of rank $2k$ on $M$ and let $\Phi$ be a generalized $F$-structure on $E$. The following are equivalent: 1) $\Phi$ is a weak generalized CRF-structure on $E$; 2) $d_E(U_\Phi^k)\subseteq U_\Phi^{k-1}$; 3) $d_E\in \EE_\Phi^{-1}\oplus \EE_\Phi^{1}$; 4) $\ad_\Phi^2(d_E)=-d_E$; 5) $\llbracket \Phi,\Phi\rrbracket_E=d_E$. Proof: 1) holds if and only if $\llbracket l_1,l_2\rrbracket_E$ preserves $U_\Phi^k$ for each $l_1,l_2\in \Gamma(L_\Phi)$. Unraveling the definition of $\llbracket \,,\,\rrbracket$, 1) is equivalent to $d_E(U_\Phi^k)\subseteq \ker(\wedge^2 L_\Phi) = U^k_\Phi\oplus U_\Phi^{k-1}$. Upon inspection of $E$-biparities we conclude that 1) is equivalent to 2). It is clear that 3) is equivalent to $$\label{eq:30} d_E(U^i_\Phi)\subseteq U^{i-1}_\Phi\oplus U_\Phi^{i+1} \quad\textrm{ for all }\quad i=0,\ldots,k$$ so that 2) is a particular case of 3). For the converse, assume holds for all $i\le j$. From the equivalence of 1) and 2) we deduce that $\llbracket l_1,l_2\rrbracket_{_E}(U^i_\Phi)\subseteq U^{i+1}_\Phi$ and thus $(l_1\circ l_2\circ d_E)(U_\Phi^i)\subseteq \Gamma(F_\Phi^{k-i-1})$ for all $l_1,l_2\in \Gamma(L_\Phi)$. This implies $d_E(U_\Phi^i)\subseteq \Gamma(F_\Phi^{k-i+1})$. Since $d_E$ is real, taking complex conjugates and inspecting $E$-biparities we conclude that holds and thus 2) is equivalent to 3). Assume that 3) holds and let $\partial_\Phi$ be the projection of $d_E$ onto $\EE_\Phi^1$. By Lemma \[lem:63\] $$\label{eq:31} \ad_\Phi^2(d_E)=\sqrt{-1}\ad_\Phi(\partial_\Phi-\overline\partial_\Phi)=-\partial_\Phi-\overline\partial_\Phi=-d_E\,.$$ Conversely, assume that 4) holds and let $$\label{eq:32} \partial_\Phi = \frac{1}{2}(d_E-\sqrt{-1}\ad_\Phi(d_E))\,.$$ From the reality of $d_E$ and $\Phi$ we obtain $d_E=\partial_\Phi+\overline\partial_\Phi$ as well as $\ad_\Phi(\partial_\Phi)=\sqrt{-1}\partial_\Phi$. A further application of Lemma \[lem:63\] shows that 4) implies 3). The equivalence of 4) and 5) is straightforward. \[ex:74\] Let $\Phi$ be a weak generalized CRF-structure on $\T M$. Then $d=d_E=\partial_\Phi+\overline\partial_\Phi$ coincide with the decomposition of the de Rham operator induced by the generalized complex structure $J_\Phi$ given in [@G] and $\ad_\Phi(d)=-d^{J_\Phi}$. Moreover in this case the equivalence of 1) and 5) in Theorem \[thm:73\] is proved in [@guttenberg]. \[ex:75\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure of rank $2$ on $M$ and let $\Phi$ be a generalized $F$-structure on $E$. Then the $\Phi$-grading is concentrated in degrees $\{0,\pm 1\}$ and since $d_E$ has by definition odd $E$-parity, it follows that from Remark \[rem:62\] that condition 3) in Theorem \[thm:73\] is satisfied and thus $\Phi$ is automatically a weak generalized CRF-structure. In particular, every generalized $F$-structure on a 3-manifold is an example of a weak generalized CRF-structure. \[ex:76\] Let $\Phi=\omega+\Lambda$ be as in Example \[ex:60\]. It follows from $U_\Phi^k=e^{-\sqrt{-1}\omega}\Omega_{E}^{0,\bullet}$ and the equivalence of 1) and 2) in Theorem \[thm:73\] that $\Phi$ is a weak generalized CRF-structure if and only if $d_E(e^{-\sqrt{-1}\omega}\Omega^{0,\bullet}_E)\subseteq e^{-\sqrt{-1}\omega}\Omega^{1,\bullet}_E$. Since by definition of $d_E$, $d_E(\Omega_E^{0,\bullet})\subseteq \Omega_E^{1,\bullet}$, it follows that $\Phi$ is a weak generalized CRF-structure if and only if $d_E\omega\in\Omega_E^{1,2}$. In particular, if $E$ has rank greater or equal than $2(\dim M -1)$, this condition reduces to $d_E\omega=0$. \[rem:77\] Let $\Phi$ be a weak generalized CRF-structure on an almost product structure $E$. By Lemma \[lem:64\] and Theorem \[thm:73\], the de Rham operator decomposes as $$\label{eq:33} d=\overline\partial_\Phi^\perp + \overline\partial_\Phi+ \delta_\Phi+\partial_\Phi+\partial_\Phi^\perp$$ where $\delta_\Phi\in \EE_\Phi^0$ is real, $\partial_\Phi\in \EE_\Phi^1$ and $\partial_\Phi^\perp\in \EE_\Phi^2$. Analyzing the $\Phi$ graded components of the identity $[d,d]=0$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned} [\partial_\Phi^\perp,\partial_\Phi^\perp]=[\partial_\Phi^\perp,\partial_\Phi] & = 0\,;\label{eq:34}\\ 2[\partial_\Phi^\perp, \delta_\Phi]+[\partial_\Phi,\partial_\Phi]&=0\,;\label{eq:35}\\ [\partial_\Phi^\perp,\overline \partial_\Phi]+[\partial_\Phi,\delta_\Phi] & =0\,;\label{eq:36}\\ 2[\partial_\Phi^\perp,\overline\partial_\Phi^\perp]+2[\partial_\Phi,\overline \partial_\Phi]+[\delta_\Phi,\delta_\Phi] &=0\,.\label{eq:37}\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $(\Omega_M\otimes \C,\partial_\Phi^\perp)$ is a chain complex on which $\partial_\Phi$ acts by chain maps. \[ex:78\] Let $\Phi=\omega+\Lambda$ be as in Example \[ex:60\] and assume that $d_E\omega=0$. Condition 5) in Theorem \[thm:73\] ensures that $\ad_\Lambda^2(d_E)=0$ and thus $$\label{eq:38} \left(\Ad_{\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\Lambda}\circ\Ad_{-\sqrt{-1}\omega}\right)(d_E)=\Ad_{\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\Lambda}(d_E)=d_E+\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\ad_\Lambda(d_E)$$ or, equivalently, $$\label{eq:39} [d_E,\Psi]=\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}(\Psi\circ\ad_\Lambda)(d_E)\,.$$ Comparing $\Phi$-gradings we further obtain $$\label{eq:40} \overline \partial_\Phi\circ \Psi = \Psi \circ d_E \quad \text{ and } \quad \partial_\Phi\circ \Psi =\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\Psi \circ \ad_\Lambda(d_E)\,.$$ In the case where $\omega$ is symplectic, we recover Theorem 2.3 in [@cavalcanti]. \[def:79\] A generalized $F$-structure $\Phi$ on a split structure $E$ on $M$ is a [generalized CRF-structure]{} if $\llbracket l_1,l_2\rrbracket\in \Gamma(L_\Phi)$ for all $l_1,l_2\in \Gamma(L_\Phi)$. \[ex:80\] Let $E$ be one of the generalized almost product structures on $M=S^3$ defined in Example \[ex:34\] and let $\Phi$ be a generalized $F$-structure on $E$. A direct calculation shows that there exists $\tau\in \Omega_M\otimes\C\setminus\Omega_M\otimes\R$ such that either $$\label{eq:41} L_\Phi={\rm span}\{\alpha_2+\tau\alpha_3,x_3-\tau x_2\}\,$$ in which case $U^1_\Phi={\rm span}\{\alpha_2+\tau\alpha_3,\alpha_1\alpha_2+\tau\alpha_1\alpha_3\}$ has odd $E$-parity, or $$\label{eq:42} L_\Phi={\rm span}\{x_2+\tau \alpha_3,x_3-\tau \alpha_2\}$$ in which case $U^1_\Phi={\rm span}\{1+\tau\alpha_2\alpha_3,\alpha_1+\tau\alpha_1\alpha_2\alpha_3\}$ has even $E$-parity. As pointed out in Example \[ex:75\], in either case $L_\Phi$ is automatically involutive with respect to $\llbracket\,,\,\rrbracket_E$. Therefore, if holds then $\Phi$ is a generalized CRF-structure if and only if $$\label{eq:43} 0=\llbracket x_3-\tau x_2,\alpha_2+\tau\alpha_3\rrbracket_{E^\perp}=2(1+\tau^2-\L_{x_1}(\tau))\alpha_1\,.$$ In particular if $\tau$ is constant, then it must equal to $\pm \sqrt{-1}$. On the other hand, since $[\llbracket x_2,x_3\rrbracket,\alpha_1]=2$, then $\llbracket x_2+\tau \alpha_3,x_3-\tau \alpha_2\rrbracket_{E^\perp}\neq 0$ and thus $\Phi$ is never a generalized CRF-structure if holds. \[thm:81\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure of rank $2k$ on $M$ and let $\Phi$ be a generalized $F$-structure on $E$. The following are equivalent: 1) $\Phi$ is a generalized CRF-structure on $E$; 2) $d(U_\Phi^k)\subseteq U_\Phi^k\oplus U_\Phi^{k-1}$; 3) $d\in \EE_\Phi^{-1}\oplus \EE_\Phi^0\oplus \EE_\Phi^{1}$; 4) $(\ad_\Phi^3+\ad_\Phi)(d)=0$; 5) $\llbracket \Phi,\Phi\rrbracket = d_E$. Proof: Since $\Phi$ is a generalized CRF-structure on $E$ if and only if $\Phi$ is a weak generalized CRF-structure on $E$ such that $\llbracket l_1,l_2\rrbracket_{E^\perp}=0$ for all $l_1,l_2\in \Gamma(L_\Phi)$, it follows from Theorem \[thm:73\] and Lemma \[lem:64\] that the first three statements are equivalent and that any of them implies 4). Conversely, assume that 4) holds and set $$\label{eq:44} \partial_\Phi=\frac{1}{2}({\rm ad}^2_\Phi+\sqrt{-1}{\rm ad}_\Phi)(d)\,.$$ By Lemma \[lem:63\], $\partial_\Phi\in \EE_\Phi^1$ and thus $\overline\partial_\Phi\in \EE_\Phi^{-1}$. A further application of Lemma \[lem:63\] yields $d-\partial_\Phi-\overline\partial_\Phi=d+\ad_\Phi^2(d)\in \EE_\Phi^0$, from which we conclude that 4) implies 3). Inspecting $E$-biparities and using Theorem \[thm:73\] shows that 5) is equivalent to the statement that $\Phi$ is a weak generalized CRF-structure and, using Lemma \[lem:64\], $$\label{eq:45} 8{\rm Re}(\partial^\perp_\Phi)=-\ad_\Phi^2(d_{E^\perp})=\llbracket \Phi,\Phi \rrbracket_{E^\perp}=0\,.$$ Since $d_{E^\perp}-\delta_\Phi=2{\rm Re}(\partial_\Phi^\perp)$, shows that 3) is equivalent to 5) and the Theorem is proved. \[rem:82\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure on $M$ and let $\Phi$ be a generalized CRF-structure on $E$. Then $d_{E^\perp}=\delta_\Phi$ and $d_E=\partial_\Phi +\overline \partial_\Phi = \ad_\Phi^2(d)$. From and we conclude that $(\Omega_M,\partial_\Phi)$ is a complex on which $d_{E^\perp}$ acts by chain maps. \[eq:83\] Let $\Phi=\omega+\Lambda$ be as in Example \[ex:60\]. By Theorem $\Phi$ is a generalized CRF-structure if and only if $d(e^{-\sqrt{-1}\omega}\Omega^{0,\bullet}_E)\subseteq e^{-\sqrt{-1}\omega}\Omega^{1,\bullet}_E$. Using Example \[ex:76\], this is equivalent to the conditions i) $d_E\omega\in \Omega^{1,2}_E$; ii) $d_{E^\perp}\omega=0$; iii) $d_{E^\perp}\Omega_E^{0,\bullet}\subseteq \Omega_E^{0,\bullet}$ i.e. $\pi(E)$ is a foliation. If $\Lambda\in \Gamma(\wedge^2 TM)$, then condition 5) in Theorem \[thm:81\] implies that $\Lambda$ is Poisson. \[rem:84\] Let $\Phi=\omega+\Lambda$ be as in Example \[ex:60\] be such that $\pi(E)$ is a foliation and $d\omega=0$. Arguing as in Example \[ex:78\], $[d,\Psi]=\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\ad_\Lambda(d)$. Matching $\Phi$-grading we obtain, in addition to , $\ad_\Lambda(d_E^\perp)=0$ and thus $[d_{E^\perp},\Psi]=0$. If $\Lambda$ is a bivector, then $(\Omega_M,\ad_{\Lambda(d)})$ is the complex that computes the canonical homology of the Poisson manifold $(M,\Lambda)$ defined in [@brylinski]. Since complex conjugation is an isomorphism, we conclude that the canonical homology of $(M,\Lambda)$ is isomorphic to the cohomology of the complex $(\Omega_M,d_E)$. In the symplectic case, we obtain the isomorphism with de Rham cohomology noticed in [@brylinski]. In the cosymplectic case, this is proved in [@fernandez98]. \[rem:85\] Let $\Phi$ be a generalized $F$-structure on a split structure $E$ and fix $D_1,D_2\subseteq E^\perp$ as in Remark \[rem:67\]. It is easy to adapt the arguments of this section to prove that the equivalence of conditions 1)-4) in Theorem \[thm:81\] holds in this more general setting. Notice that the notion of generalized CRF-structure is invariant under T-duality. \[prop:86\] Let be $E$ be a generalized almost product structure on $M$ and let $\Phi$ be a generalized CRF-structure on $E$. The following are equivalent: 1) $E$ is a generalized local product structure; 2) $[\partial_\Phi,\overline\partial_\Phi]=0$; 3) $[\ad_\Phi(d),\ad_\Phi(d)]=0$. Proof: The equivalence of 1) and 2) follows from Proposition \[prop:45\] and . Since $\Phi$ is generalized CRF, using we obtain $$\label{eq:47} 4[\partial_\Phi,\overline\partial_\Phi]=[\ad_\Phi^2(d),\ad_\Phi^2(d)]+[\ad_\Phi(d),\ad_\Phi(d)]=[d_E,d_E]+[\ad_\Phi(d),\ad_\Phi(d)]\,.$$ Plugging in , we obtain $6[\partial_\Phi,\overline\partial_\Phi]=[\ad_\Phi(d),\ad_\Phi(d)]$ which concludes the proof. \[rem:87\] Let $\Phi$ be a generalized CRF-structure on a generalized local product structure $E$ on $M$. Consider the [periodic bicomplex]{} $(P_\Phi^{\bullet,\bullet},\partial_\Phi,\overline\partial_\Phi)$ whose bigraded components are $P_\Phi^{p,q}=U_\Phi^{p-q}$. Since $P_\Phi^{\bullet,\bullet}$ is bounded in both directions, the corresponding spectral sequence converges to the cohomology of $d_E$. In the case $E=\T M$ we recover the canonical spectral sequence of [@cavalcanti]. In fact it is easy to show that the considerations of Sections 4 and 5 in [@cavalcanti] extend verbatim to this more general setting and so we conclude that the spectral sequence of the periodic bicomplex degenerates at the first page if the [$\partial_\Phi\overline\partial_\Phi$-lemma]{} holds i.e. if $$\label{eq:48} {\rm Im}(\partial_\Phi)\cap\ker(\overline \partial_\Phi)={\rm Im}(\overline\partial_\Phi)\cap\ker(\partial_\Phi)={\rm Im}(\partial_\Phi\overline\partial_\Phi)$$ or equivalently if the inclusion of complexes $(\Omega_M^\bullet\cap \ker(\ad_\Phi(d_E)),d_E)\hookrightarrow(\Omega_M^\bullet, d_E)$ is a quasi-isomorphism. Conversely if the spectral sequence of the periodic bicomplex degenerates at the first page and the $\Phi$-grading induces a splitting of cohomology, then the $\partial_\Phi\overline\partial_\Phi$-lemma holds. \[ex:88\] Let $\Phi=\omega+\Lambda$ be a generalized CRF-structure as in Remark \[rem:84\]. Since $d\omega=0$, then then $E$ is a generalized local product structure. Moreover, by , $(U_\Phi^\bullet,\overline\partial_\Phi)$ is isomorphic to $(\Omega_M, d_E)$. Therefore, the spectral sequence of the periodic bicomplex degenerates at the first page (even though the $\partial_\Phi\overline\partial_\Phi$-lemma does not hold in general). \[rem:89\] Let $\Phi$ be a weak generalized CRF-structure on a generalized almost product structure $E$ such that $\pi(E^\perp)$ is a foliation. If $\Phi$ is basic with respect to $E$, one can repeat the construction of Remark \[rem:87\] and define the [basic periodic bicomplex]{} $(\mathcal BP^{\bullet,\bullet}_\Phi,\partial_\Phi,\overline\partial_\Phi)$, where $\mathcal BP^{p,q}_\Phi=\mathcal B_\Phi^{p-q}$. Then once again the calculations of [@cavalcanti] apply and one concludes that holds for the restrictions of $\partial_\Phi$ and $\overline\partial_\Phi$ to $\mathcal B_E$ if and only if the spectral sequence of the basic periodic bicomplex degenerates at the first page and the $\Phi$-grading induces a cohomological grading on $H(\mathcal B_E,d_E)$. In the case $B_E=0$, this is the main result of [@razny16]. \[rem:90\] Let $p:M\to N$ be a fiber bundle with Ehresmann connection $H\subseteq TM$ and let $E$ be the almost product structure on $M$ generated by $p^\Omega^1_N$ and $\Gamma(H)$. Any generalized almost complex structure $\Psi$ on $N$ defines a generalized $F$-structure $\Phi$ on $E$ by setting $\Phi\circ p^=p^\circ \Psi$ and $\Phi({\rm Ann}(H))=0$. Using $d_E\circ p^=d\circ p^=p^\circ d$, we obtain $$\label{eq:49} \llbracket\Phi,\Phi\rrbracket \circ p^=\llbracket \Phi,\Phi\rrbracket_E \circ p^=p^\circ \llbracket \Psi,\Psi\rrbracket\,.$$ Since $p^:\Omega_N\to\mathcal B_E$ is an isomorphism, we conclude that if $\Phi$ is a weak generalized CRF-structure on $E$, then $\Psi$ is a generalized complex structure on $N$. Conversely, if $\Psi$ is a generalized complex structure on $N$, then shows that $(\llbracket \Phi,\Phi\rrbracket_E-d_E)(\mathcal B_E)=0$. On the other hand, $d_E(\Omega^{0,1})\subseteq \Omega^{1,1}$, then $\ad_\Phi^2(d_E)+d_E$ vanishes on $\Omega^{0,1}$. Since $\Omega_M$ is generated by $\mathcal B_E\otimes \Omega^{0,\bullet}$, we conclude by Theorem \[thm:73\] that $\Psi$ is a generalized complex structure on $N$ if and only if $\Phi$ is a weak generalized CRF-structure on $E$. \[prop:91\] Let $E$ be a generalized local product structure on $M$ such that $dB_E=0$ and let $\Phi$ be a generalized $F$-structure on $E$. The following are equivalent: 1) $\Phi$ is a generalized CRF-structure; 2) $\Phi$ is a weak generalized CRF-structure; 3) $\Ad_{B_E}(\Phi)$ induces a generalized complex structure on the leaves of $\pi(E)$ and acts trivially on the leaves of $\pi(E^\perp)$. Proof: Clearly, 1) implies 2). Furthermore, using , Theorem \[thm:73\] and the assumption $dB_E=0$ we conclude that $\Phi$ is a weak generalized CRF-structure on $E$ if and only if $\Ad_{B_E}(\Phi)$ is a weak generalized CRF-structure on $\Ad_{B_E}(E)$. Therefore we may assume $B_E=0$ so that the equivalence of 2) and 3) is given by Remark \[rem:90\]. On the other hand, if condition 3) holds, then implies $(\llbracket \Phi,\Phi\rrbracket -d_E)(\mathcal B_E)=0$. Moreover, $(\llbracket \Phi,\Phi\rrbracket -d_E)$ is $\Omega_M^0$-linear and vanishes on $\mathcal B_{E^\perp}$. Since $\Omega_M$ is locally generated by $\mathcal B_E\otimes \mathcal B_{E^\perp}$ we conclude by Theorem \[thm:81\] that $\Phi$ is a generalized CRF-structure. \[thm:92\] Let $\Phi$ be a generalized $F$-structure on $\T M$ such that $J_\Phi$ is a generalized complex structure. Then $(M,J_\Phi)$ is (possibly up to a $B$-field transform by a closed $2$-form) locally the product of two generalized complex manifolds if and only if there exists a generalized almost product structure $E$ on $M$ and a generalized CRF-structure $\Phi_E$ on $E$ such that 1) $dB_E=0$; 2) $(J_\Phi-J_{\Phi_E})(E)=0$; 3) $[\partial_{\Phi_E},\overline \partial_{\Phi_E}]$. Proof: Suppose that $J_\Phi$ restricts to generalized complex structures on the leaves of two complementary foliations. We may assume that the foliations are of the form $\pi(E),\pi(E^\perp)$, for some generalized local product structure $E$. the corresponding. By construction, 1) holds. By Lemma \[lem:53\] there exist a generalized $F$-structure $\Phi_E$ on $E$ such that 2) holds. By Proposion \[prop:91\], $\Phi_E$ is a generalized CRF-structure. Finally, 3) holds by Proposition \[prop:86\]. Using , the same conditions hold if a $B$-field transform by a closed $2$-form is applied to $J_\Phi$. Conversely, suppose that $E$ is a generalized almost product structure on $M$ and $\Phi_E$ is a generalized CRF-structure on $E$ such that conditions 1)-3) hold. By Proposition \[prop:86\] it follows that $E$ is a local product structure and by Proposition \[prop:91\] $\Ad_{B_E}(\Phi_E)$ induces generalized complex structures on the leaves of $\pi(E)$ (while acting trivially on the leaves of $\pi(E^\perp)$). By Theorem \[thm:81\], $[\Phi_E,d_{E^\perp}]=0$ and using $[\Phi_E,\Phi-\Phi_E]=0$ (together with ) we obtain $$\label{eq:50} d_{E^\perp}=\llbracket \Phi,\Phi\rrbracket_{E^\perp}=\llbracket \Phi-\Phi_E,\Phi-\Phi_E\rrbracket_{E^\perp}\,.$$ Therefore, $\Phi-\Phi_E$ is a weak generalized CRF-structure on $E^\perp$. By Proposition \[prop:91\], $\Ad_{B_E}(\Phi_E)$ induces a generalized complex structure on the leaves of $\pi(E)$ and acts trivially on the leaves of $\pi(E^\perp)$. Thus the generalized complex structure $J_{\Ad_{B_E}(\Phi)})$ is locally the product of the generalized complex structures $J_{\Ad_{B_E}(\Phi_E)}$ and $J_{\Ad_{B_E}(\Phi-\Phi_E)}$, on the leaves of $\pi(E)$ and $\pi(E^\perp)$, respectively. Deformations ============ \[rem:93\] Let $\Phi_1,\Phi_2$ be a generalized $F$-structures on an almost product structure $E$ on $M$ and For $\Phi_2-\Phi_1$ “small” there exists ${\varepsilon}\in \Gamma(\wedge^2 \overline L_\Phi)$ such that $\Gamma(L_{\Phi_2})=\Ad_{\varepsilon}(\Gamma(L_{\Phi_1}))$. If this is the case, then $U_{\Phi_2}^i=e^{\varepsilon}(U_{\Phi_1}^i)$ for all $i$. \[lem:94\] Let $\Phi$ be a generalized $F$-structure on an almost product structure $E$ on $M$ and let $\alpha,\beta\in \Gamma(\wedge^\bullet\overline L_\Phi)$. Then 1) $\llbracket \alpha,\beta\rrbracket_{E^\perp}=\llbracket \alpha,\beta\rrbracket_{\partial_\Phi^\perp}$; 2) $\Ad_\alpha(d_{E^\perp})=d_{E^\perp}+\ad_\alpha(d_{E^\perp})+\frac{1}{2}\ad_\alpha^2(\partial_\Phi^\perp)$. Proof: Lemma \[lem:64\] implies the decomposition $d_{E^\perp}=\overline \partial_\Phi^\perp+\delta_\Phi+\partial_\Phi^\perp$ in to $\Phi$-graded components. Since $\L^{\!\!^{E^\perp}}_\varphi$ is a derivation for every operator $\varphi$ and holds, it suffices to establish 1) if $\alpha,\beta\in \Gamma(\overline L_\Phi)$. In this case, $\llbracket \alpha,\beta\rrbracket_{E^\perp}\in \Gamma(E^\perp)\otimes \C\subseteq \EE_\Phi^0$ which proves 1). The second statement follows from the first since $$\label{eq:51} \ad_\alpha^2(d_{E^\perp})=-\llbracket\alpha,\alpha\rrbracket_{E^\perp}=\ad_\alpha^2(\partial_\Phi^\perp)$$ is a section of $E^\perp\otimes\C$ and thus commutes with $\alpha$. \[lem:95\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure on $M$, let $\Phi$ be a generalized CRF-structure and let $\alpha,\beta\in \Gamma(\wedge^\bullet \overline L_\Phi)$. Then 1) $\llbracket \alpha,\beta\rrbracket_E = \llbracket \alpha,\beta\rrbracket_{\partial_\Phi}$; 2) $\Ad_\alpha(d_E)=d_E+\ad_\alpha(d_E)+\frac{1}{2}\ad_\alpha^2(\partial_\Phi)$. Proof: By linearity it suffices to consider the case $\alpha\in \Gamma(\wedge^a \overline L_\Phi)$ and $\beta\in \Gamma(\wedge^b\overline L_\Phi)$, with $a$ and $b$ arbitrary non-negative integers. Since $\Phi$ is a weak generalized CRF-structure, then $\llbracket \alpha,\beta\rrbracket_E\in \Gamma(\wedge^{a+b-1}\overline L_\Phi)$. Taking into account the decomposition this proves 1). The second statement follows from the first since $\ad_\alpha^2(d_E)=-\llbracket \alpha,\alpha\rrbracket_E=\ad_\alpha^2(\partial_\Phi)$ is a section of $\wedge^\bullet \overline L_\Phi$. \[prop:96\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure on $M$, let $\Phi$ be a weak generalized CRF-structure and let $\Phi+\Phi_{\varepsilon}$ be a generalized $F$-structure on $E$ such that $\Gamma(L_{\Phi+\Phi_{\varepsilon}})=\Ad_{\varepsilon}(\Gamma(L_\Phi))$ for some ${\varepsilon}\in \Gamma(\wedge^2\overline L_\Phi)$. The following are equivalent: 1) $\Phi+\Phi_{\varepsilon}$ is a weak generalized CRF-structure; 2) $[{\varepsilon},\overline\partial_\Phi]+\frac{1}{2}\llbracket {\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}\rrbracket_E=0$; 3) $[\Phi_{\varepsilon},[\Phi,d_E]]+\frac{1}{2}[[\Phi,\Phi_{\varepsilon}],d_E]+\frac{1}{2}[\Phi_{\varepsilon},[\Phi_{\varepsilon},d_E]]=0$; 4) $\llbracket\Phi,\Phi_{\varepsilon}\rrbracket_E + \llbracket \Phi_{\varepsilon},\Phi\rrbracket_E+\llbracket \Phi_{\varepsilon},\Phi_{\varepsilon}\rrbracket_E =0$. Proof: By Theorem \[thm:73\], $\Phi+\Phi_{\varepsilon}$ is a weak generalized CRF-structure if and only if $d_E (e^{\varepsilon}U^i_\Phi)\subseteq e^{\varepsilon}(U_\Phi^{i+1}\oplus U^{i-1}_\Phi)$ for all $i$ if and only if $\Ad_{-{\varepsilon}}(d_E)\subseteq \EE_\Phi^{-1}\oplus \EE_\Phi^1$. By Lemma \[lem:95\], this is equivalent to the vanishing of the term of $\Phi$-degree $-3$ in $\Ad_{-{\varepsilon}}(d_E)$ i.e. the expression to the LHS of 2). Therefore 1) and 2) are equivalent. Using again Theorem \[thm:73\], 1) is also equivalent to $$\label{eq:52} \llbracket \Phi,\Phi\rrbracket_E+\llbracket\Phi,\Phi_{\varepsilon}\rrbracket_E + \llbracket \Phi_{\varepsilon},\Phi\rrbracket_E+\llbracket \Phi_{\varepsilon},\Phi_{\varepsilon}\rrbracket_E=\llbracket\Phi+\Phi_{\varepsilon},\Phi+\Phi_{\varepsilon}\rrbracket_E=d_E\,.$$ Since the assumption that $\Phi$ is a weak generalized CRF-structure implies $\llbracket \Phi,\Phi\rrbracket_E=d_E$, is equivalent to 4). A straightforward calculation involving , shows that 3) is equivalent to 4) and the Theorem is proved. \[ex:97\] If $\Phi$ be weak generalized CRF-structure on $\T M$. The equivalent conditions of Proposition \[prop:96\] coincide with the various forms of the Kodaira-Spencer equation for the generalized complex structure $J_\Phi$ given in [@tomasiello]. \[rem:98\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure on $M$ such that $\pi(E)$ is a foliation and let $\Phi$ be a weak generalized CRF-structure on $E$. By Proposition \[prop:41\], $E$ is a Courant algebroid with respect to $\llbracket\,,\,\rrbracket_E$. As shown in [@LWX], it follows that $(L_\Phi,\overline L_\Phi)$ is a Lie bialgebroid and infinitesimal deformations are solutions to the Maurer-Cartan equation $$\label{eq:53} d_{L_\Phi}({\varepsilon})+\frac{1}{2}\llbracket {\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}\rrbracket_E=0$$ where $d_{L_\Phi}$ is the Lie algebroid differential on $\wedge^\bullet \overline L_\Phi$ obtained by identifying $\overline L_\Phi$ with $L_\Phi^$. This is compatible with Proposition \[prop:96\] since $$\begin{aligned} [l_3,[l_2,[l_1,[{\varepsilon},\overline \partial_\Phi]]]]&=[l_3,[\llbracket l_1,l_2\rrbracket_E,{\varepsilon}]]-[l_2,[\llbracket l_1,l_3\rrbracket_E,{\varepsilon}]]+[l_1,[\llbracket l_2,l_3\rrbracket_E,{\varepsilon}]]\nonumber\\ & - \llbracket l_1,[l_3,[l_2,{\varepsilon}]]\rrbracket_E +\llbracket l_2,[l_3,[l_1,{\varepsilon}]]\rrbracket_E - \llbracket l_3,[l_2,[l_1,{\varepsilon}]]\rrbracket_E\label{eq:54}\end{aligned}$$ for all $l_1,l_2,l_3\in \Gamma(L_\Phi)$. \[rem:99\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure such that $\pi(E^\perp)$ is a foliation and let $\Phi$ be a weak generalized CRF-structure on $E$ that is basic with respect to $E$. By Proposition \[prop:96\] infinitesimal deformations of transverse generalized complex structures are parametrized by operators ${\varepsilon}\in \Gamma(\wedge^2\overline L_\Phi)$ that are basic with respect to $E$ and satisfy $[{\varepsilon},\overline \partial_\Phi]+\frac{1}{2}\llbracket {\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}\rrbracket_E=0$. \[thm:100\] Let $E$ be a generalized almost product structure on $M$, let $\Phi$ be a generalized CRF-structure on $E$ and let $\Phi+\Phi_{\varepsilon}$ be a generalized $F$-structure on $E$ such that $\Gamma(L_{\Phi+\Phi_{\varepsilon}})=\Ad_{\varepsilon}(\Gamma(L_\Phi))$ for some ${\varepsilon}\in \Gamma(\wedge^2\overline L_\Phi)$. The following are equivalent: 1) $\Phi+\Phi_{\varepsilon}$ is a generalized CRF-structure; 2) $[{\varepsilon},\overline \partial_\Phi]+\frac{1}{2}\llbracket {\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}\rrbracket=0$ and $[{\varepsilon},d_{E^\perp}]=0$; 3) $[\Phi_{\varepsilon},[\Phi,d]]+\frac{1}{2}[[\Phi,\Phi_{\varepsilon}],d]+\frac{1}{2}[\Phi_{\varepsilon},[\Phi_{\varepsilon},d]]=0$; 4) $\llbracket\Phi,\Phi_{\varepsilon}\rrbracket + \llbracket \Phi_{\varepsilon},\Phi\rrbracket+\llbracket \Phi_{\varepsilon},\Phi_{\varepsilon}\rrbracket =0$. Proof:* Since $\Gamma(\overline L_\Phi)$ is closed under the Dorfman bracket, then $\llbracket {\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}\rrbracket_E=\llbracket {\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}\rrbracket$ and thus $\Phi+\Phi_{\varepsilon}$ is a weak generalized CRF-structure if and only if $[{\varepsilon},\overline\partial_\Phi]+\frac{1}{2}\llbracket {\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}\rrbracket=0$ by Proposition \[prop:96\]. Moreover, since $\Phi$ is a generalized CRF-structure, then $d_{E^\perp}\in \EE_{\Phi+\Phi_{\varepsilon}}^0$ if and only if $\Ad_{-{\varepsilon}}(d_{E^\perp})\in \EE_\Phi^0$. By Lemma \[lem:94\], this occurs if and only if $[{\varepsilon},d_{E^\perp}]=0$, which proves the equivalence of 1) and 2). The equivalence of 4) and 1) is straightforward from Theorem \[thm:81\] while the equivalence of 4) and 5) follows from a direct calculation involving .	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: '[Instabilities of a partial cavity developed on an hydrofoil, a converging-diverging step or in an inter-blade channel, have already been investigated in many previous works. The aim of this study is to evaluate a passive control method of the sheet cavity. According to operating conditions, cavitation can be described by two different regimes: an unstable regime with a cloud cavitation shedding and a stable regime with only a pulsating sheet cavity. Avoiding cloud cavitation can limit structure damages since this regime is less agressive. The surface condition of a converging-diverging step is here studied as a solution to control the cavitation regime. This study discusses the effect of longitudinal grooves, on the developed sheet cavity. Analyzes conducted with Laser Doppler Velocimetry, visualisations and pressure measurements show that the grooves geometry, and especially the groove depth, acts on the sheet cavity dynamics and can even suppress the cloud cavitation shedding. ]{}' author: - Amélie Danlos - 'Jean-Elie Méhal\' - 'Florent Ravelet\' - 'Olivier Coutier-Delgosha\' - 'Farid Bakir\' bibliography: - 'mybiblio.bib' title: Study of the cavitating instability on a grooved Venturi profile --- Introduction ============ Cavitation is a crucial phenomenon encountered in fluid mechanics and for instance in turbomachinery domain. The unsteady character of the sheet cavity behavior on suction side of hydrofoils, on converging-diverging obstacles or on blades in turbines and propellers is responsible for many issues like erosion, noise and vibrations. However, in many industrial devices, cavitation inception can not be avoided, so the challenge consists in a better understanding of the two-phase flow dynamics once cavitation has appeared, in order to reduce its negative effects. Simple geometries like 2D foil sections, or converging-diverging steps like Venturi-type sections are used to approach sheet cavitation dynamics [@Barre2009]. A low pressure zone appears in the flow, downstream this type of obstacles. When this pressure becomes lower than the fluid saturation pressure, cavitation is induced and and a two-phase flow is obtained. Sheet cavity dynamics can be described with a well-known cycle [@Knapp1955; @Avellan1991; @Stutz1997; @Callenaere2001; @Dular2004; @Coutier2006]. Sheet cavity grows from the Venturi throat until a re-entrant jet appears in the sheet cavity closure, and flows upstream, near the wall, below the cavity. The re-entrant jet separates then the sheet cavity when it reaches the liquid-gas interface of the flow. A large vapour cloud is shed and convected downstream the flow, while the sheet cavity length is substantially reduced. Then, the cloud of vapor collapses in a higher pressure region and sustains the re-entrant jet due to cloud implosion, which later produces a new shedding of vapor cloud [@DeLange1998; @Callenaere2001; @Bergerat2012]. This cycle is characterized by the shedding frequency $\mathit{f}$. Such oscillatory behaviour of the sheet cavity is a witness of two-dimensional and three-dimensional cavity instabilities. These instabilities induce vibrations which are a disability for many industrial applications, as for inducers [@Bakir2003; @Mejri2006; @Campos2010]. Many studies have analyzed this sheet cavity cycle observed on cavitating hydrofoils or Venturi profiles. They have resulted in the definition of two types of oscillatory behaviors [@Callenaere2001; @Sayyaadi2010]: the first one called cloud cavitation regime appears when the sheet cavity is long enough and generates periodical shedding as it has been described previously. But when the sheet cavity length is shorter because of a higher pressure level [@Callenaere2001] and/or a Reynolds number smaller than a critical value [@Keil2011; @Keil2012], no cloud cavitation shedding occurs. In this regime, the sheet cavity pulses but the cavity closure is always at the same location and no large scale detached cavitation structure is observed. In order to characterize these two regimes, a Strouhal number $\mathit{St_{L}}$ is defined (as it is presented in section \[TwoCavitationRegimes\]). For a sheet cavity regime, $\mathit{St_{L}\simeq}\,0.1$ while a cloud cavitation regime is characterized by $0.2\leq \mathit{St_{L}} \leq 0.4$. The cloud cavitation regime is more aggressive and leads to increased damages of the solid structures.. It is thus interesting to find a way to control the sheet cavity instability in order to limit erosion and/or noise. A passive control method of the sheet cavity regime has therefore to be evaluated by its ability to reduce the sheet cavity length, in order to favorise nearly stable regimes in front of periodical unsteady behaviors. Some studies have already been conducted to delay cavitation inception by modifying the foil surface roughness using local protuberances with different geometries or distributed irregularities [@Arndt1968; @Arndt1981]. This modification acts on the turbulent boundary layer which drives the onset of sheet cavitation. However, in many industrial applications, the effect of developped cavitation on surface drag and/or performance is also of primary importance. Therefore, attention should be paid not only on delaying cavitation inception, but also on moderating fully developped cavitation. Only a few studies exist about the role of the surface condition in a fully developed cavitating flow. Some of these works show that roughness is able to decrease sheet cavity length, to increase oscillation frequency of the cavity or even to change cavitation regime [@Kawanami1997; @Stutz2003b; @Coutier2005]. The roughness distribution and geometry is a major characteristic of this passive method of cavitation control: tranversal or longitudinal grooves, with smooth or straight edges, for different depths or interval lengths [@Yongjian2010]. The present study investigates the effect of different grooved suction side surfaces of a Venturi-type section with convergent and divergent angles respectively $18^{\circ}$ and $8^{\circ}$. Different grooved plates have been studied in order to emphasize the crucial geometric parameter of this organized roughness to obtain a passive control of cavitation. High speed visualizations of the cavitating flow show the effect of flow modifications near the wall on the sheet cavity development, and next, velocity measurements in non-cavitating conditions clarify the effect of the grooved surface on the flow structure. Experimental set-up {#ExperimentalSetup} =================== Experiments were conducted in the closed loop test rig of the DynFluid laboratory water tunnel. This rig is composed of two storage tanks with a capacity of $4\,\mathrm{m}^{3}$ each. The centrifugal pump can reach $1450\,\mathrm{rpm}$. The test-section for experiments is presented in Fig. \[fig:TestSection\]. The study flow volume, which is presented in Fig. \[fig:TestSection\], measures $120\times 100\times 800\,\mathrm{mm}^{3}$. The bottom wall is made of a convergent ($18^{\circ}$ angle) and a divergent ($8^{\circ}$ angle), which results in a minimum height $\mathit{H_{throat}=}\,67\,\mathrm{mm}$ at the Venturi throat. The flow rate is fixed for all measurements at $\mathit{Q=}240\,\mathrm{m}^{3}.\mathrm{h}^{-1}$, which gives a maximun velocity at the Venturi throat $\mathit{v_{throat}}\simeq 8\,\mathrm{m.s}^{-1}$. Considering that the water viscosity in the operating conditions is $\mathit{\nu=}1.007~10^{-6}\,\mathrm{m}^{2}.\mathrm{s}^{-1}$, then the Reynolds number is $Re_{throat}\mathit{=v_{throat}H_{throat}/\nu}\simeq 5.5~10^{5}$, for the water at a temperature $\mathit{T=}\left(19\pm 1\right)^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$. Several honeycombs followed by a circular contraction provide the flow a velocity top hat profile upstream the Venturi with an inlet velocity equal to $\mathit{v_{ref}=}5.56\,\mathrm{m.s}^{-1}$, for all experimental configurations, with less than $3\%$ of turbulence intensity (Fig. \[fig:VitesseAmont\]), measured at a distance $\mathit{y=}300\,\mathrm{mm}$ upstream the Venturi throat (at an undimensional distance $\mathit{y^{}=y/H_{throat}\simeq} -4.5$ from the throat). A vacuum pump can decrease the pressure in the test rig by decreasing pressure at the free surface in each storage tanks in order to acts on the cavitation number $\mathit{\sigma=(p_{ref}-p_{vap})/}(\frac{1}{2}\mathit{\rho v_{ref}}^{2})$, with $\mathit{p_{ref}}$ the pressure measured at $\mathit{y=}250\,\mathrm{mm}$ upstream the Venturi throat (at $\mathit{y^{}=y/H_{throat}\simeq} -3.73$). The test section includes four plexiglas windows to permit three-dimensional visualisations of the flow. The bottom wall of the test section, in the divergent part of the Venturi, is made of interchangeable plates of dimensions $7\,\mathrm{mm}$ thick, $242\,\mathrm{mm}$ long, and $120\,\mathrm{mm}$ wide, to cover the entire Venturi surface downstream the Venturi throat. The junction between the plate and the Venturi basis is done upstream the Venturi throat to minimize its disturbances on the flow. So disturbances are expected to be smoothed before the flow comes on the throat, thanks to the favorable pressure gradient. Seven 2 MI-PAA KELLER absolute pressure sensors even out with the Venturi basis wall and distributed on the Venturi basis surface (Fig.\[fig:Plaques\] and table \[tab:PressureSensors\]). These sensors, which are $4.5\,\mathrm{mm}$ in diameter, acquire pressure measurements during $1\,\mathrm{min}$ at a sampling rate of $1000\,\mathrm{Hz}$. Their sensitivity is $35\,\mathrm{mV.bar^{-1}}$. The plate is screwed on the basis by ensuring the sealing between both components with a vacuum grease. Table \[tab:plates\] presents the different grooved plates used for experiments. Plate $0$ will be considered as the reference case, with a smooth surface on the suction side of the Venturi. The other plates, from $1$ to $8$, have grooved surfaces. These grooves are made with a $1\,\mathrm{mm}$ or $2\,\mathrm{mm}$ diameter bur $\mathit{d}$, with a $\mathit{h}$ depth and the width of the ridge is $\mathit{e}$. The distance between the middle of two adjacent grooves is equal to $\mathit{\lambda=e+}2\sqrt{\mathit{dh-h}^{2}}$ for plates $1$ to $6$ and $\mathit{\lambda=e+d}$ for plates $7$ and $8$. Grooves open to the throat, so roughness effects already from the onset of the sheet cavity. All positions in the test section are expressed with undimensional values $x^{}=x/H_{throat}$, $y^{}=y/H_{throat}$ and $z^{}=z/H_{throat}$, and the origin of the cartesian coordinate system is located in the throat, in the middle of the test section width. --------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -------------------- -------------- -------- Plate $\mathit{d}$ $\mathit{h}$ $\mathit{e}$ $\mathit{\lambda}$ $\mathit{N}$ Symbol \[3pt\] ($\mathrm{mm}$) ($\mathrm{mm}$) ($\mathrm{mm}$) ($\mathrm{mm}$) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.15 0.1 0.81 147 2 1 0.25 0.1 0.97 124 3 1 0.5 0.1 1.1 109 4 1 0.5 1 2 60 5 2 0.5 0.1 1.83 65 6 2 1 0.1 2.1 57 7 2 2 1 3 40 8 2 2 0.1 2.1 57 --------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -------------------- -------------- -------- : Characteristics of the studied plates used on the Venturi suction side ($\mathit{N}$ is the number of grooves) and description os symbols used in following graphics \[tab:plates\] ----------------- ------------------------------- ------------------- --------------------------- ------------------ Pressure sensor $\mathit{y^{'}}(\mathrm{mm})$ $\mathit{y^{'}}$ $\mathit{x}(\mathrm{mm})$ $\mathit{x^{}}$ \[3pt\] C1 16.75 0.25 30 0.4478 C2 33.50 0.5 0 0 C3 50.25 0.75 -30 -0.4478 C4 67 1 0 0 C5 67 1 30 0.4478 C6 83.75 1.25 -30 -0.4478 C7 100.5 1.5 0 0 ----------------- ------------------------------- ------------------- --------------------------- ------------------ : Pressure sensors on the Venturi suction side \[tab:PressureSensors\] The test of these grooved plates and their comparison with the results obtained with the smooth reference plate $0$ allow to evaluate the effects the effect of the surface condition of the Venturi bottom wall on the flow dynamics near the wall, with or without cavitation. Effect of grooved surfaces on cavitating flow {#sec:CavitantFlow} ============================================= Visualisations are conducted for each plate (the smooth and the grooved ones), for different values of cavitation number $\mathit{\sigma}$ defined as $\mathit{\sigma=(p_{ref}-p_{vap})/}(\mathrm{\frac{1}{2}}\mathit{\rho v_{ref}}^{2})$. In this definition, $\mathit{p_{ref}}$ and $\mathit{v_{ref}}$ represent the inlet pressure and velocity of the test section, measured $250\,\mathrm{mm}$ upstream the Venturi throat, while $\mathit{p_{vap}}$ is the vapor pressure at temperature $\mathit{T=}292\,\mathrm{K}$ of the fluid with a density $\mathit{\rho}$. Temperature deviation during measurements is small enough (about $1\,\mathrm{K}$) to neglect temperature effect on results but in order to have precise values of $\mathit{\sigma}$, the flow temperature is measured at each acquisition (with an uncertainty of $0.1\,\mathrm{K}$). Temperature for all measurements is then considered as the ambient temperature and $\mathit{p_{vap}}\simeq 2200\,\mathrm{Pa}$. For each studied configuration, $\mathit{\sigma}$ ranges from $0.9$ to $1.7$ with $1\%$ of uncertainty. Sheet cavity visualisations --------------------------- Visualisations of the sheet cavity developed on the Venturi consist in the acquisition of $4000$ images for each configuration (for a given cavitation number and a given grooved plate geometry), in the $\left(\mathrm{y0z}\right)$ plane. A CamRecord $600$ Optronics camera is used with a Zeiss Makro-planar T\ which has a focal length of $100\,\mathrm{mm}$. This high-speed CMOS camera records images with a $1280 \times 512$ pixels resolution, a rate of $1000\,\mathrm{fps}$ and an exposure time equal to $0.167\,\mathrm{\mu s}$. The pixels size is $12\,\mathrm{\mu m} \times 12\,\mathrm{\mu m}$ for an active area of $15.35\,\mathrm{mm} \times 12.29\,\mathrm{mm}$. The flow is illuminated by a Super Long Life Ultra Bright (SLLUB) White Led Backlight from Phlox on a $200\,\mathrm{mm} \times 200\,\mathrm{mm}$ light output area. Its minimal luminance is $3000\,\mathrm{cd.m}^{-2}$ in continuous mode and its uniformity is $99.54\%$. This light source gives then images integrated on the entire width of the test section, but the focusing is made as far as possible in the middle of the section, in order to prevent side walls effects. Effects of the Venturi surface condition on the sheet cavity size {#SheetCavitySize} ----------------------------------------------------------------- In order to determine the cavity mean length, mean values and standard deviation of the grey levels are calculated with the $4000$ images recorded in each flow configuration, in the $\left(\mathrm{y0z}\right)$ plane (side views of the attached sheet cavity dynamics). The instantaneous images are normalised by a reference image. Normalised images are then binarised with a threshold level equal to 0.4 and the noise is filtered with a median filter as presented in Fig. \[fig:Binarisation\]. The thresehold level is chosen with the Otsu’s method [@Otsu1979] and validated with comparisons with the initial normalised images (Fig. \[fig:Binarisation\](b)). The mean cavity length extends from the Venturi throat to the cloud cavitation separation location. This closure of the sheet cavity is detected by localising the maximum value of the standard deviation of the grey levels according to [@Dular2004] (Fig. \[fig:AverageRMS\]). Figure \[fig:Ladim\_sigma\] shows the evolution of the cavity mean length $L$ according to the cavitation number $\mathit{\sigma}$, for all plates. The uncertainty of $\mathit{L}$ is less than $2\%$ (by evaluating the effect of images processing) and $\mathit{\sigma}$ is calculated with $1\%$ of uncertainty. Plates $1$,$3$, $4$ and $5$ provide a sheet cavity length close to the one obtained with the reference plate $0$. Conversely, plates $2$, $6$, $7$ and $8$ lead to significant differences of the cavity lengths. The results obtained with these three plates are thus detailed hereafter. It can be observed that for the plate $2$, the cavity mean length decreases as it has been encountered in litterature, for random distributed roughness [@Coutier2005]. This plate has a large number of grooves ($\mathit{N=}124$ and $\mathit{\lambda =}0.97\,\mathrm{mm}$) and is characterized by a small depth $\mathit{h=}\,0.25\,\mathrm{mm}$. But other types of grooves have the opposite effect, i.e. an increase of the mean length of the sheet cavity, as we can see for the plate $6$, which has a small number of grooves ($\mathit{N=}57$ and $\mathit{\lambda=}2.1\,\mathrm{mm}$) with a large depth $\mathit{h=}\,1\,\mathrm{mm}$. This difference between the effects of surface condition is larger for small cavitation numbers. When $\mathit{\sigma}$ is greater than $1.2$ i.e. for small sheet cavities, the influence of the surface condition on the mean cavity length seems to be less important. The major difference between plates $2$ and $6$, is the depth parameter $\mathit{h}$, the diameter $\mathit{d}$ and the number of grooves on the bottom wall of the Venturi. In comparison with plates $3$, $4$ and $5$ which do not affect significantly the sheet cavity length with respect to the reference plate $0$, the depth $\mathit{h}$ seems to be the criterion that drives the change of effects on the sheet cavity. Indeed, the plate $2$ is one of the plates which has the smallest depth. Plate $1$ has an even smaller depth, but this plate seems to have no effect on the cavitation dynamics. The depth of plate $1$ has been chosen in order to be of the order of the viscous sublayer thickness $\mathit{\delta_{v}}$ calculated on a flat plate (zone of the boundary layer where the velocity increases linearly from the wall, beyond this zone, the velocity increases logarithmically with the height). In the case of a plane plate[@Schlichting2004], $\mathit{\delta_{v}}$ is defined by: $$\frac{\mathit{\delta_{v}}}{\mathit{y^{}}}=\frac{50}{Re_{\mathit{y^{}}}\sqrt{\frac{\mathit{C_{f}}}{2}}}$$ where $\mathit{Re_{y}}$ is the critical Reynolds number which determines the distance $\mathit{y^{}}$ from the beginning of the plate where the boundary layer becomes turbulent ($Re_{\mathit{y^{}}}=5~10^{5}$ for a plane plate) and $\mathit{C_{f}}$ is the coefficient of friction expressed as: $$\mathit{C_{f}}=2\left(\frac{\mathrm{K}}{\log Re_{\mathit{y^{}}}}\mathrm{G}\left(\log Re_{\mathit{y^{}}}\right)\right)^{2}$$ with $\mathrm{K}=0.41$ the Karman constant and $\mathrm{G}$ a function that gives $\mathrm{G}\left(\log\left(Re_{\mathit{y^{}}}\right)\right)=1.5$ in the studied zone $10^{5}<Re_{\mathit{y^{}}}<10^{6}$ [@Schlichting2004]. If we assume that our experimental set-up used is a fat plate, without pressure gradient, $\mathit{\delta_{v}}$ is inferior to $0.20\,\mathrm{mm}$ ($\mathit{\delta_{v}}/\mathit{H_{throat}}\simeq 0.003$) at the end of the plate (at $\mathit{y^{}}\simeq 3.4$). This calculation allows us to obtain an order of magnitude of the viscous sublayer thickness of our experimental set-up, even if we have to consider the adverse pressure gradient and the effects of grooves on the boundary layer development to have a more accurate value of the viscous sublayer thickness.\ Indeed, results obtained with plate $1$ (with a grooves depth inferior to the viscous sublayer thickness of a plane plate without pressure gradient $\mathit{\delta_v}$) are identical to the one measured with plate $0$. Conversely, if the depth of the grooves is too large, then the sheet cavity length increases. However, if the depth is increased up to $\mathit{h}=2\,\mathrm{mm}$, results are different: for plates $7$ and $8$, we can see a decrease of the sheet cavity length, like for the plate $2$ which presents a small depth. These two plates $7$ and $8$ are special because the geometry of the grooves is different. Grooves for plates $1$ to $6$ are arcuate hollows while grooves are cylindrical gutters for plates $7$ and $8$ ($\mathit{h}>\frac{\mathit{d}}{2}$). This geometry leads to a decrease of the sheet cavity length. This phenomenon may be related to the fluid flow inside the grooves, which may be different with plate $6$, compared with plates $7$ and $8$. Indeed, the number of grooves $\mathit{N}$ is the same for these three plates. It can thus be deduced that this parameter is not crucial for the effect of grooves on the sheet cavity length. Only the depth $\mathit{h}$ is different from plate $6$ to plates $7$ and $8$. It implies that a reduction or an increase of the sheet cavity length can both be obtained with appropriate grooves, depending on their depth $\mathit{h}$.\ The former analysis was focused on the effects of the grooves on the sheet cavity length. In addition, the effects on the mean height of the sheet cavity are also investigated hereafter: for that purpose, the maximum height of the sheet cavity is detected. The calculation of the mean value of all these maximum heights (which can variate in position) gives information about the shape of the sheet cavity, according to the grooved surfaces. Figure \[fig:Ladim\_Hadim\] displays the undimensional sheet cavity mean height $\mathit{H^{}=H/H_{throat}}$ (with $2\%$ of uncertainty) according to the undimensional sheet cavity mean length $\mathit{L^{}=L/H_{throat}}$, which depends on the cavitation number, for all different studied plates. It can be observed that results obtained with plate $6$ are significantly different from all other data. As grooved plates introduce a three-dimensional geometry with different grooves wavelengths, these Venturi surfaces induce a changing in the sheet cavity dynamics: the grooves wavelength forces the flow, and especially the inception of the sheet cavity, in the grooves hollow, but also the development of the sheet cavity or the re-entrant jet. This phenomen, with a three-dimensional wavelength imposed to the flow is different from the smooth case, with the plate $0$. The cavity closure line is actually inclined [@DeLange1996] and the cloud cavitation shedding is linked to three-dimensional instabilities [@Laberteaux1998; @Duttweiler1998; @Foeth2008], three-dimensional effects are then to be taken into account to evaluate the efficiency of the passive control. As each plate presents a different spanwise distribution, we can say that depth is a crucial parameter but that the grooves wavelength $\mathit{\lambda}$ is also important. Plates $6$, $7$ and $8$ have largest wavelength ($\mathit{\lambda}>2\,\mathrm{mm}$ and $\mathit{N}<60$). For small sheet cavities characterised by $0< \mathit{L^{}} \leq 1$, which corresponds to $1.2\leq \mathit{\sigma} \leq 1.9$, all curves are nearly superimposed, which suggests that grooves play a less crucial role. Figure \[fig:AspectRatio\] which presents the aspect ratio $\mathit{H/L}$ according to the cavitation number for all grooved plates, shows that most of grooved plates present large variations of the aspect ratio values with different cavitation numbers while the reference plate case $0$ leads to a nearly constant aspect ratio. The grooved plates $3$, $4$ and $5$ for which the sheet cavity length is almost equal to the reference case, for all cavitation numbers, are characterized by an aspect ratio $0.1\leq \frac{\mathit{H}}{\mathit{L}} \leq 0.2$. These values are still close to the reference case. On the other hand, the plate $1$, with a grooves depth $h$ too small to modify the sheet cavity length, has an aspect ratio very different from the smooth plate $0$. This result shows that the grooves have effects not only on the sheet cavity length but also on its shape. Plates $7$ and $8$ present an evolution of the aspect ratio $\mathit{H/L}$ similar to the plate $1$. The most obvious observation is that the evolution is inversed for plate $6$. Indeed, for plate $6$, the ratio $\mathit{H/L}$ is high for $1\leq \mathit{\sigma} \leq 1.4$ and small for $1.4\leq \mathit{\sigma} \leq 1.9$ ($0.2\leq \frac{\mathit{H}}{\mathit{L}} \leq 0.4$ for the first range of $\mathit{\sigma}$ and $0.1\leq \frac{\mathit{H}}{\mathit{L}} \leq 0.2$ for the second), while, for plates $7$ and $8$, $\mathit{H/L}$ is first in the range of $0.1\leq \frac{\mathit{H}}{\mathit{L}} \leq 0.2$ when $1\leq \mathit{\sigma} \leq 1.4$ and then $0.2\leq \frac{\mathit{H}}{\mathit{L}} \leq 0.4$ when $1.4\leq \mathit{\sigma} \leq 1.9$. Cavitation dynamics is thus completely different for plates $6$ and other plates, which have a smaller grooves wavelength $\mathit{\lambda}$, excluding plates $7$ and $8$ for which the grooves geometry is quite different. It confirms that the crucial parameter in the action of the grooves is $\mathit{i)}$ the depth, which may modify the re-entrant jet progression, $\mathit{ii)}$ the wavelength, which can force the cavitation dynamics in the spanwise component. As it was reminded in the introduction, the cavity regime depends on the mean size of the sheet cavity [@Callenaere2001]. An analysis of the Strouhal number based on the characteristic frequency of the sheet cavity is conducted to determine the effects of grooved surfaces on the unsteady behavior of the cavity. Pressure measurements --------------------- In order to analyze the different cavitation dynamics detected with the grooved surfaces, pressure measurements have been acquired at the bottom wall of the Venturi. Relative pressure measurements have been first conducted with no velocity and no use of the vacuum pump to define the zero setting state for each sensor. The analysis of the pressure fluctuations obtained with plates $0$, $2$, $6$, $7$ and $8$, on the Fig. \[fig:RMSPressureCavitant\_sigma\], indicates that the maximum amplitude of fluctuations of each pressure sensor corresponds to the sheet cavity closure [@Callenaere2001]. For example, for $\mathit{\sigma=}1.5$, the undimensional sheet cavity length is $\mathit{L^{}}<0.5$ on the plate $0$ (Fig. \[fig:Ladim\_sigma\]). The sensor $C1$ is the only sensor located in the sheet cavity. Fluctuations of pressure measurements is thus an indicator of sheet cavity length. This figure confirms the results obtained with the image processing: if we look at the sensor $C1$, the maximum of pressure fluctuations is at $\mathit{\sigma=}1.5$ for the smooth plate $0$, $\mathit{\sigma}<1.5$ for the plate $2$ and $\mathit{\sigma}>1.5$ for the plate $6$, with larger grooves. This result shows that the length of sheet cavities is smaller on plate $2$ than on plate $0$ and a longer sheet cavity is obtained on plate $6$ than on the others. As it was observed for the plate $8$ previously, pressure fluctuations are a witness of the cavity regime changing. Indeed, in the Fig. \[fig:RMSPressureCavitant\_sigma\](e), which represents results for the plate $8$, no clear maximum of $\frac{\mathrm{RMS}}{<\mathit{P}>}$ can be identified, so we are not able to detect the sheet cavity length by analyzing pressure measurements. This is an other indicator of the sheet cavity regime. The difference between a sheet cavity regime and a cloud cavitation regime can thus be demonstrated also by the analysis of the pressure measurements. Two cavitation regimes {#TwoCavitationRegimes} ---------------------- The fluctuations of the two-phase area in the sheet cavity regime or the shedding of the cloud of vapor in the cloud cavitation regime are both periodical. The frequency of these phenomena is determined by studying the evolution of the grey levels at the sheet cavity closure position (by selecting the vertical line of pixels situated in the mean position of the sheet cavity closure determined previously). The power spectral density of this sheet cavity length evolution allows to determine the characteristic frequency of the sheet cavity according to the mean cavity length for each studied case of Venturi profile grooved surface (Fig.\[fig:fL\_L\]), with $0.2\%$ of uncertainty. Here, the frequency difference between the smooth Venturi surface and the other grooved plates is greater when the mean cavity length is large (it means for small cavitation numbers). It can be observed in the range $0<\mathit{L^{}}<1$, which corresponds to $1.3<\mathit{\sigma}<1.9$, two peaks on the frequency spectrum, with similar amplitudes, at $43.95\,\mathrm{Hz}$ and $8.79\,\mathrm{Hz}$. These two frequencies are harmonics and are both present in this studied range, as it is shown in Fig. \[fig:SpectresLisse\] for the plate $0$. This frequency of $43.95\,\mathrm{Hz}$ is the blade passing frequency of the centrifugal pump used to impose the flow rate: as the pump with $5$ blades operates at $528\,\mathrm{rpm}$, the blade passing frequency is $44\,\mathrm{Hz}$. It means that smallest cavities oscillate then at the blade passing frequency. For largest sheet cavities, so for a cavitation number $\mathit{\sigma}$ in the range $1<\mathit{\sigma}<1.3$, there is only one peak on the frequencies spectrum (Fig.\[fig:SpectresLisse\] (a) presents results for $\mathit{\sigma=}1.17$). This peak corresponds to the shedding frequency of the cloud cavitation and it decreases when the sheet cavity length increases. Plates $7$ and $8$ lead to a different feature for the frequency derived from the grey level analysis in the closure of the sheet cavity. The cavitation number $\mathit{\sigma}$ has no effect on the frequency peak of spectra, which is always $\mathit{f_{L}=}43.95\,\mathrm{Hz}$. This result shows again that the cavitation dynamics is particular for these two plates $7$ and $8$. Figure \[fig:Spectresrug7et8\] shows frequency spectra obtained for plate $7$ (Fig. \[fig:Spectresrug7et8\](a)) and plate $8$ (Fig. \[fig:Spectresrug7et8\](b)) for $\mathit{\sigma=}1.17$. The characteristic frequency of the sheet cavity is also represented on the Fig. \[fig:St\_sigma\] with the undimensional Strouhal number $\mathit{St_{L}=Lf_{L}/v_{throat}}$, with $6\%$ of uncertainty. If we look at all plates excluding plates $7$ and $8$, we can observe that for $1\leq \mathit{\sigma} \leq 1.3$, the Strouhal number is around $0.3$, as it has been reported in previous experiments in [@Coutier2006]. This range of cavitation numbers leads to a cloud cavitation regime, characterized by large fluctuations of the cavity closure position and large cloud cavitation shedding. On the other hand, for $1.3\leq \mathit{\sigma} \leq 1.9$, the Strouhal number decreases until reaching a value smaller than $0.15$. This range corresponds to a sheet cavity regime, for which there is no convected cloud cavitation, the cavity closure position is almost at a constant distance from the Venturi throat. In the sheet cavity regime, the sheet cavity pulses. These two types of variation of the Strouhal number exist for grooved plates but also for the smooth one (plate $0$), and have been brought out by other authors [@Farhat1994; @Dular2012]. It can be also observed in Fig. \[fig:St\_sigma\] that the grooved plates surfaces can modify the Strouhal number. Indeed, smooth surface plate $0$ presents Strouhal numbers larger than grooved plates, essentially for small cavitation numbers. Plates $7$ and $8$ have a quite constant Strouhal number $0.05\leq \mathit{St_{L}} \leq 0.15$, which is characteristic of the sheet cavity regime, with a pulsating sheet cavity and no cloud cavitation shedding. Figure \[fig:Comp\_plate8\_lisse\] compares the sheet cavity evolutions at a same $\mathit{\sigma =}1.17$, for the reference smooth plate $0$ and the grooved plate $8$. It can be seen that in the case of the plate $8$ the sheet cavity pulses (Fig. \[fig:Comp\_plate8\_lisse\](a)) without any shedding contrary to a smooth surface of the Venturi profile (Fig.\[fig:Comp\_plate8\_lisse\](b)). Then, the grooves depth $\mathit{h}$ controls the cavitation regime and can suppress the cloud cavitation for a large range of $\mathit{\sigma}$. Plates $7$ and $8$ are thus able to stabilize the sheet cavity and to reduce its length.It is thus possible to obtain a passive control by using specific geometrical parameters of grooves. With the study of the sheet cavity height evolution (section \[SheetCavitySize\]), we can also determine the frequency $\mathit{f_{H}}$ of the sheet cavity height. This frequency $\mathit{f_{H}}$ and the frequency $\mathit{f_{L}}$ of the sheet cavity length evolution have been compared for plates $0$ to $6$. Results for plates $7$ and $8$ are not compared because for all the studied range of $\mathit{\sigma}$, there is no cloud cavitation shedding. For all grooved plates and for the smooth plate $0$, the curve $\mathit{f_{H}}=g\left(\mathit{f_{L}}\right)$ is linear so the frequency of the height evolution is linked to the length evolution frequency. Grooved surfaces effect on a non cavitating flow {#sec:NonCavitantFlow} ================================================ To discuss the reasons for the modifications of cavitating flows with the grooved surfaces, the velocity profiles are measured in the non cavitating flow, and more especially in the boundary layer, as it is the cavitation inception zone. Therefore, velocity measurements with Laser Doppler Velocimetry have been conducted. Laser Doppler Velocimetry measurements (LDV) {#LDV} -------------------------------------------- A one dimensional FlowExplorer Mini LDA system of Dantec Dynamics has been used to measure the longitudinal componant $\mathit{v_{y}}$ of the flow. This system consists in a factory-aligned and calibrated optical probe, with a focal lens of $300\,\mathrm{mm}$, and a signal processor. The optical head provides two laser beams with $25\,\mathrm{mW}$ power and a wave length $660\,\mathrm{nm}$. The measurement volume dimensions are $0.1\,\mathrm{mm}$ in diameter and $1\,\mathrm{mm}$ in length. The measurable velocity fluctuation is $0.002\%$ of the velocity range. This sytem has a high accuracy, as the calibration coefficient uncertainty is lower than $0.1\%$. In each measurement position, $10000$ samples are acquired, with a limiting time of acquisition fixed of $60~s$. The data rate is near $300\,\mathrm{Hz}$, while the validation rate is upper than $60\%$. For measurements downstream the Venturi throat, the optical head is inclined at $8^{\circ}$ in order to align the laser beams with the Venturi slope. In this way, measurements can be acquired very near the wall so velocity measurements can be used to analyze the effect of surface condition on the boundary layer of the flow. Then, the acquired velocity component is not the longitudinal velocity of the test section but the velocity component parrallel to the slope of the Venturi bottom wall. In the discussion of LDV results, this component is then called $\mathit{v'_{y}}$ in order to clarify explanations. On the other hand, velocity measurements presented on Fig.\[fig:VitesseAmont\] were made with a horizontal optical head, so the component is really the longitudinal velocity $\mathit{v_{y}}$ in this case. Effects of the grooves on the velocity profile of the non cavitating flow {#NonCavitantFlow} ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Figure \[fig:ProfilsNonCavitantTousy\] shows undimensional velocity profiles $\mathit{v_{y}^{'}=v'_{y}/v'_{\infty}}$, where $\mathit{v'_{y}}$ is the flow velocity component parallel to the bottom wall Venturi slope and $\mathit{v'_{\infty}}$ is the same velocity component measured far from the plate wall, at $\mathit{z^{'}=z'/H_{throat}=}0.9$ (this zone is not shown on the figure). Velocity profiles are represented here at different distances from the throat, in $\mathit{y^{}=}0.5$, $\mathit{y^{}=}1$ and $\mathit{y^{}=}2$. We can see on this Fig.\[fig:ProfilsNonCavitantTousy\] that grooves modify the flow, near the wall, up to $\mathit{z^{'}=}0.07$ for plates $2$, $6$ and $7$ and until $\mathit{z^{'}=}0.3$ for plate $8$. This modification depends on the geometry of the grooves. For all values of $\mathit{y^{}}$, excluding the plate $8$ for which the velocity profile is totally different, the velocity is always lower for the plate $6$, which is the plate with larger grooves and minimum number $\mathit{N}$ of grooves. On the other hand, for smaller grooves, with the plate $2$ for example ($\mathit{d}=1\,\mathrm{mm}$, $\mathit{h}=0.25\,\mathrm{mm}$ and $\mathit{e}=0.1\,\mathrm{mm}$) which has a large grooves number $\mathit{N=}124$, in $\mathit{y^{}=}0.5$, the velocity profile is similar to the velocity profile of the reference plate $0$, without grooves. At station $\mathit{y^{}}=1$ or $\mathit{y^{}}=2$ the velocity for the plate $2$ becomes lower than for the reference plate $0$. The effect of plate $2$ on the grooves overlaps even the curve obtained with plate $6$. Then the effect of the grooves geometry disapears from $\mathit{y^{}}=2$, but grooves still play the role of a brake for the flow. Very close to the wall, from $\mathit{z^{'}}=0$ until $\mathit{z^{'}}=0.02$, the velocity profile $\mathit{v_{y}^{'}}$ for the plate $7$ is superimposed on the velocity profile of the plate $0$, when $0\leq \mathit{y^{'}} \leq 2$. This feature explains why plate $7$ reduces sheet cavity length like plate $2$. If $\mathit{z^{'}}>0.02$, then $\mathit{v_{y}^{'}}$ is lower than other plates $2$ and $6$. On the other hand, the velocity profile obtained for the plate $8$ is totally different. $\mathit{v_{y}^{'}}$ is very low from $\mathit{z^{'}}=0.3$ for $0.5\leq \mathit{y^{}} \leq 2$. This analysis permits to bring out the effect of structured roughness surface on the flow but also the importance of the geometric parameters of the grooves. The grooves wavelength is thus a crucial parameter to influence the sheet cavity dynamics, since plates $7$ and $8$ have the same grooves geometry but present different grooves wavelength. In order to investigate in more details the effects of each groove on the velocity profile, two specific velocity profiles have been acquired for each plate: the first one is located in the middle of the test section wide, at $\mathit{x^{}}=0$, above the recess of the groove, while the second one is measured at $\mathit{x^{*}}=\lambda/2$, above the edge of the groove. It can be observed (Fig. \[fig:ProfilNonCavitant\]) that the relative difference between the two curves is always lower than $3\%$. The effect of the grooves is thus not local but global, by the way it changes the flow instabilities. This non-cavitating flow analysis provides a basis for analysis of measurements performed in cavitating conditions. As it was reported previously, the use of plate $6$ results in a decrease of the velocity flow near the wall. The fluid encountered a larger surface to flow with larger grooves, so the velocity is considerably decreased. But with the analysis of the mean sheet cavity length, we can say that larger grooves decreases the cavity length. Moreover, with larger grooves, the re-entrant jet can travel further upstream before reaching the interface and cutting the sheet cavity, in order to extract a cloud cavitation. The immediate consequence is that the mean sheet cavity length should be smaller with large grooves. An hypothesis that can be proposed is that some grooves provide small recirculation zones that prevent the re-entrant jet to flow upstream, underneath the sheet cavity, as it is discussed in [@Coustols2001], for the study of a non-cavitant flow boundary layer. Then the re-entrant jet is stopped by these recirculation zones. Not only re-entrant jet is crucial for the cavitation shedding but also side-entrant jets [@Koop2010]. The three-dimensional distribution of grooves and their geometry have of course effects on the side-entrant jets dynamics.\ Conclusions =========== Effects of the surface condition of a Venturi profile have been investigated using visualisation, Laser Doppler Velocimetry, and pressure measurements. The aim of this study was to evaluate the importance of grooved surfaces provided by machining. Geometry of these grooved surfaces have been observed in order to identify crucial parameters. Results show that the depth of grooves is a determining factor. It is demonstrated that a grooves depth smaller than the viscous sublayer thickness has no effect on the sheet cavity length. Some plates lead to a cavitation instabilities changing: essentially plates $7$ and $8$, for which the sheet cavity length is reduced and the plate $6$ which increases this sheet cavity length. These three plates have a large depth $\mathit{h}\geq 1\,\mathrm{mm}$. If the depth is $\mathit{h}>\frac{\mathit{d}}{2}$, then the grooved plate is able to reduce the sheet cavity length. The study of the shedding frequency of cloud cavitation, by image processing highlighted two cavitation regimes: for small cavitation numbers ($1<\mathit{\sigma}<1.3$), cavitation is in an unstable regime, with large sheet cavity and large shedding of cloud cavitation. This regime is characterized by a Strouhal number $\mathit{St_{L}}=0.3$. The second cavitation regime is a stable regime, with $1.3<\mathit{\sigma}<1.9$, which presents sheet cavities with only oscillations in the downstream part (this oscillation being related to the blade passing frequency of the circulation pump used in the test rig). A large grooves depth $\mathit{h}$, can modify the sheet cavity regime. Plates $7$ and $8$, with $\mathit{h}=2\,\mathrm{mm}$, are examples of roughness surfaces that can suppress the cloud cavitation shedding in a large range of cavitation number $\mathit{\sigma}$. This study has thus demonstrated the feasability of a passive control of cavitation on a Venturi profile by modifying the surface condition of the bottom wall using distributed organized roughness.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The influence of long-range dipole interactions on two dimensional magnetism has been studied extensively in the spin-reorientation transition of ferromagnetic ultrathin films. Although there is a great deal of experimental information on the perpendicular domain phase that is stabilized by dipole interactions, the transitions to or from the domain phase are subtle and difficult to characterize experimentally. Magnetic susceptibility measurements show no divergence in the vicinity of the spin-reorientation transition as a function of thickness – a null result that is difficult to interpret with confidence. This article reports separate dynamical and equilibrium versions of the reorientation transition in Fe/2ML Ni/W(110) films, using measurements of the magnetic susceptibility as the films are grown. The dynamical version occurs when increasing the film thickness causes the domain walls to depin, and the system moves from a configuration that minimizes local energetics to one that minimizes global energetics. The dynamical transition is marked by a divergent magnetic susceptibility measured with a field applied along the in-plane W\[001\] direction. A comparative study of the two versions of the same spin-reorientation transition aids in the experimental characterization of the effects of dipole interactions on the phase transitions. This comparison confirms the original null result found in magnetic susceptibility measurements of the equilibrium transition; despite its name, the spin-reorientation transition in ferromagnetic ultrathin films has no critical phase transition in either the magnetization or its orientation.' author: - 'G. He' - 'R. Belanger' - 'P. H. Nguyen' - 'D. Venus' bibliography: - 're-reorientation.bib' title: \| Comparison of dynamical and equilibrium surface spin-reorientations:\ Inferences on the nature of the phase transitions in the presence of dipole interactions --- Introduction ============ Ferromagnetism in two dimensions (2D) is very sensitive to small, perturbing effects. In fact, because an isotropic 2D system of exchange-coupled spins cannot form a ferromagnetic state at finite temperature[@Mermin], one can say that the existence of ferromagnetism in 2D relies on perturbating effects. It is therefore not surprising that weak, long-range magnetic dipole interactions have a profound effect on the magnetic states and magnetic phase transitions in 2D. The study of perpendicularly-magnetized ultrathin films has contributed greatly to understanding the role of dipole interactions in 2D magnetism . This area of research is often termed the “spin-reorientation transition", because, in simplest terms, the effect of dipole interactions for an infinite planar film can be represented by a constant demagnetization, or shape, anisotropy[@Heinrich]. If a film has perpendicular surface crystalline anisotropy, this is balanced against the shape anisotropy due to short-range dipole interactions to determine the orientation of the magnetization – perpendicular or in-plane. As the surface anisotropy varies due to film thickness[@Pierce1], temperature renormalization[@Berger1], or other factors[@Dabrowski1], the balance of anisotropies may change sign and produce a reorientation of the magnetization between perpendicular and in-plane alignments[@Millev1]. In this picture, most reorientations are second-order phase transitions[@[A; @counter-example; @of; @a; @first-order; @transition; @is; @in:; @]Oepen1] and should be marked by a divergence in the magnetic susceptibility. Long-range dipole interactions complicate this picture substantially by introducing a pattern of magnetic domains in the perpendicularly-magnetized state[@Allenspach]. The periodicity of the pattern is determined by a balance between dipole energy and domain wall energy, and varies exponentially as the anisotropy changes with either temperature or film thickness[@Kashuba1; @Abanov1]. Many experimental studies have confirmed the properties of this perpendicular stripe domain state, including systematic investigations of the domain width[@Wu1; @Meier1], the domain wall profile and structure[@Chen1; @Vindigni1], domain pinning and activation[@Venus1; @Metaxas1; @Kuch1], and the role of domain pattern defects and fluctuations in its evolution[@Libdeh1; @Kronseder1; @Rodriguez1]. However, an understanding of the effect of the domain pattern on the phase transitions themselves remains a difficult and subtle question.[@Whitehead; @Pighin1] The presence of perpendicular domains gives a net perpendicular magnetization $M_{\perp}=0$ on a mesoscopic scale, and produces a formally paramagnetic response to a small normal field[@Abanov1]. Whether or not this changes the transitions in a fundamental way in real systems is not obvious. There is a successful history of studying perpendicularly-magnetized ferromagnetic films using hysteresis loops or ferromagnetic resonance[@Bland-Heinrich], that has established a robust perpendicular magnetization on a microscopic scale – there may be a delicate question of relative size involved. Experience with three-dimensional ferromagnets indicates that magnetic domains complicate the analysis of the Curie transition[@Arrot] but do not alter the essential character within the critical region. It is not clear whether or not this will be the case in 2D. The perpendicular domain pattern also introduces an in-plane orientational order (the pattern) that can be expressed as an order parameter[@Whitehead] $O$, given by the relative number of horizontally and vertically displaced nearest-neighbour spins that are aligned. This can further complicate the phase diagram by allowing changes in the pattern symmetry, or “melting" to a disordered configuration. It is difficult to characterize the nature of the transitions from or to the perpendicular domain phase experimentally. Magnetic microscopy experiments have been effective in providing evidence of changes in the order of the domain pattern[@Vaterlaus1; @Portmann1], but temporal limitations of the imaging technique make it difficult to approach the critical region and characterize the transitions. Measurements of the magnetic susceptibility can be made throughout the critical region of the spin-reorientation transition[@Arnold3; @Venus1; @He], but there is no evidence[@He; @He2] of a magnetic phase transition from the perpendicular domain state or to the in-plane magnetized state, as would normally be indicated by a divergence in the appropriate component of the magnetic susceptibility[@[An; @exception; @occurs; @when; @the; @film; @is; @coupled; @to; @an; @substrate; @that; @is; @magnetized; @in-plane; @:; @]Arnold]. A similar problem is encountered at the thermal transition from the perpendicular domain phase directly to the paramagnetic phase, where domain wall fluctuations make imaging difficult[@Won1] and demagnetization effects render magnetic measurements ambiguous or insensitive[@Arnold3; @Saratz]. This lack of a marker of a magnetic transition may provide important information, but it is difficult to interpret a null result with confidence. There are many prosaic reasons that experiments may give a null result, including poor sample preparation, insufficient sensitivity and experimental procedures that are not optimized. In the present article, we report measurements of the magnetic susceptibility at a dynamical realization of a spin-reorientation transition in Fe/2ML Ni/W(110) ultrathin ferromagnetic films. The dynamical reorientation occurs in films as they are being grown. Domain walls are pinned in thinner films and the spin configuration minimizes local energetics. Domain walls move freely in thicker films and the spin configuration minimizes global energetics. The dynamical reorientation occurs at the film thickness where the domain walls depin and the spin configuration moves between the locally and globally determined states. The present experiments show that the magnetic susceptibility does diverge at the dynamical reorientation, in the presence of the domain pattern. This permits a comparative analysis of the dynamical and equilibrium versions of the same reorientation transition, and provides insight into the nature of the phase transitions in the presence of dipole interactions. It turns out that the spin-reorientation magnetic phase transition in ferromagnetic films is not very aptly named, as it does not involve a critical phase transition in either the magnetization or its orientation. Magnetic susceptibility near a spin-reorientation transition ============================================================ Global equilibrium magnetic state --------------------------------- The following brief summary of the spin-reorientation transition concentrates on simple models that exhibit the symmetries of the system, and define the relevant variables. The most straightforward model is that of a uniform, planar film of infinite extent, where the order parameters are the uniform magnetization $\|M\|$, and the angle $\phi$ it makes with the surface normal. The demagnetization factor $D$ is unity for the magnetization component normal to the film. For the 4-5 ML films in this study, the bulk, or volume, anisotropy is not expected to play an important role in the reorientation, and is not included.[@[Due; @to; @this; @approximation; @reorientation; @transitions; @due; @to; @the; @relaxation; @of; @bulk; @strain; @are; @omitted; @from; @consideration; @:; @]Farle4] The following analysis considers varying the thickness of the film at constant temperature $T$. The notation suppresses the temperature, although it is understood that the magnetic “constants" renormalize with temperature. Then the Landau expansion of the free energy volume density for the anisotropy can be written as[@Fritzsche; @Millev1] $$\label{Landau} E_{anis}= K_{eff}(\theta) \sin^2\phi + K_4(\theta) \sin^4\phi.$$ This uses the convention of $E_{anis}>0$ for a perpendicularly-magnetized film. The second and fourth order surface anisotropy constants $K_{eff}(\theta)$ and $K_4(\theta)$ depend upon temperature and the average thickness $d=b\theta$, where $b$ is the lattice parameter of the film perpendicular to the substrate, and $\theta$ is the film deposition in monolayers (ML). In an ultrathin film, the second order effective anisotropy arises from the surface anisotropy energy areal density $K_S$ and the shape anisotropy energy volume density due to short-range dipole interactions, $\Omega=\frac{1}{2}\mu_0DM_{sat}^2$, where $M_{sat}$ is the saturation magnetization. $$\label{KS} K_{eff}(\theta)=\frac{K_S}{b\theta}-\Omega.$$ A standard minimization of the free energy with respect to $\phi$ shows that if $K_4>0$, a second-order reorientation transition from perpendicular magnetization to a canted state ($0<\phi<\pi/2$) occurs when $K_{eff}$ changes from positive to negative as a function of temperature or coverage. Eq.(\[KS\]) gives the deposition when canting begins as$$\label{thetaR} \theta_R(T)=\frac{K_S}{b\Omega},$$ due to the implicit variation of magnetic quantities with temperature. The effective anisotropy can be rewritten as $$\label{Ktheta} K_{eff}(\theta)=\Omega \, \Bigl(\frac{\theta_R(T)}{\theta}-1\Bigr).$$ At $\theta_R(T)$, the magnetic susceptibility measured in an in-plane field aligned with the direction in which the magnetization is reorienting, $\chi_{\parallel}=\frac{dM_{\parallel}}{dH_{\parallel}}$, will diverge[@Venus1] just as the magnetization begins to cant. The condition $K_{eff}<-2K_4$ marks the transition from the canted state to uniform in-plane magnetization. At this point, the magnetic susceptibility measured in a field perpendicular to the film, $\chi_{\perp}=\frac{dM_{\perp}}{dH_{\perp}}$, will diverge. If $K_4<0$, the phase transition is first-order and the canted state is bypassed. Then there are no peaks in the magnetic susceptibility. If, instead of reorienting, the perpendicular magnetization $\|M\|\rightarrow 0$ at a Curie transition, then the transition is not observed in $\chi_{\perp}$ because of the demagnetization field.[@Venus1]. A more complete model includes long-range dipole interactions. Then domains form in the perpendicularly-magnetized state[@Kashuba1; @Abanov1]. In equilibrium, the domains form a stripe pattern with a domain density determined by a balance between the energy per unit area $E_W(\theta)$ added when a domain wall is inserted, against the reduction in the long-range dipole energy when a domain is created. Then the domain density $n^{eq}(\theta)$ is the inverse of the domain width $L$. $$\label{neq} n^{eq}(\theta)=\frac{2}{\pi \ell}\exp[\frac{-E_W(\theta)}{4\Omega b \theta}-1],$$ with $E_W(\theta)=4\sqrt{\Gamma K_{eff}(\theta)}$, and the domain wall width $\ell(\theta)=\pi \sqrt{\Gamma/K_{eff}(\theta)}$. $\Gamma$ is the exchange stiffness. This expression is valid so long as the domain wall width is significantly smaller than the domain width. Using eq.(\[Ktheta\]), this can be expressed as $$\label{ntheta} n^{eq}(\theta)=\frac{2}{\pi \ell}\exp[-\sqrt{\frac{\Gamma}{\Omega b^2}}\frac{\sqrt{\theta_R(T)-\theta}}{\theta^{3/2}}-1].$$ The magnetic susceptibility of the perpendicularly-magnetized domain state is a due to co-ordinated motion of the domain walls, where the domains parallel to a field applied normal to the film grow, and those that are antiparallel shrink. The equilibrium magnetic susceptibility in a small perpendicular field is proportional to the domain width[@Abanov1], $$\label{chi} \chi_\perp^{eq}(\theta)=\frac{2}{\pi^2 b\theta} \, \frac{1}{n^{eq}(\theta)},$$ and falls exponentially with increasing deposition or temperature. The exponentially decreasing region of susceptibility measurements can be analyzed by approximating the pre-exponential in eq.(\[chi\]) as a constant $\chi_0$, and plotting $$\label{chiplot} \theta^3 \, [\ln{\chi_\perp^{eq}}-\ln{\chi_0}-1]^2=\frac{\Gamma}{\Omega b^2}\, (\theta_R(T)-\theta).$$ Then $\theta_R(T)$ can be determined by linear extrapolation from a region where corrections due to the saturation of the domain wall width[@Abanov1], higher order anisotropy[@Stickler] $K_4$, and the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction[@Meier1] are negligible. Local metastable magnetic state ------------------------------- Fig.\[fig1\] show the magnetic susceptibility, measured with a small field normal to the surface, while an Fe film is being grown at 280 K on a 2ML Ni/W(110) substrate. Similar measurements are analyzed quantitatively in ref.(). The two peaks are the magnetic response at the local (near 1 ML) and the global (near 3 ML) realizations of the same reorientation transition. The peak at higher deposition is due to the response of the equilibrium domain state outlined in the previous section, with the exponential decrease (above about $\theta$=2.8 ML in this example) due to the change in equilibrium domain density as given by eq.(\[ntheta\]) and (\[chi\]). On the left hand side of this peak, the domain walls become progressively pinned by structural defects, and respond with a relaxation time $\tau$ given by $$\label{tau} \tau=\tau_0 \exp(\frac{E_a}{kT}),$$ where $E_a$ is an activation energy and $\tau_0$ is a characteristic time between “attempts" to escape the pinning site. In a model by Bruno et al.[@Bruno1], the activation energy $E_a$ is due to pinning at the steps at monolayer changes in thickness. They find that the mean of the distribution of activation energies is given by $$\label{Eadef} E_a(\theta)=\frac{\zeta b \theta}{E_W(\theta)} \Bigl(\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} E_W(\theta) \Delta \theta\Bigr)^2,$$ where $\zeta$ is the mean spacing of pinning sites. Using eq.(\[Ktheta\]) and $\Delta\theta$= 1 ML, this can be rewritten as $$\label{Eatheta} E_a(\theta)=\frac{\zeta b\, \sqrt{\Gamma \Omega}\,\theta_R^2(T)}{\theta^{3/2}(\theta_R(T)-\theta)^{3/2}}.$$ Note that the pinning energy increases as the deposition, or average thickness, decreases. When the relaxation time for pinning increases at lower deposition, it reduces the measured susceptibility, so that a peak is formed near 2.7 ML. It can be seen in fig.(\[fig1\]) that the dissipation, as represented by Im$\chi_\perp$, is largest on the left hand side of the peak, where the domain walls move between the pinning sites. Eq.(\[chi\]), (\[tau\]) and (\[Eatheta\]) provide an excellent quantitative description of the peak in the measured susceptibility at higher deposition[@He]. The peak at lower deposition in fig.(\[fig1\]) is due to a metastable realization of the reorientation transition. For $\theta<$ 2.2 ML in this example, the domain walls are pinned. This means that, as the initial layers of the film are deposited, the domain configuration cannot respond to the global average anisotropy $K_{eff}$, which is determined by the average thickness $d=b\theta$. Since, in this system, a 3 ML Fe film has in-plane effective anisotropy and a 2 ML Fe film has perpendicular effective anisotropy, each 3 ML island reorients locally and independently[@Weber1; @Kubetzka1; @Gabaly1]. On the left hand side of the peak, the 3rd layer islands are small and each is ringed by a partial domain wall. The spins in the partial wall are “soft" to a perpendicular field because the in-plane anisotropy energy opposes the exchange coupling to the perpendicular spins outside the island. The susceptibility increases as the islands grow. Once the islands have a radius greater than the size of a $90^o$ domain wall, the in-plane anisotropy and the exchange coupling with the in-plane spins in the interior of the island are mutually reinforcing. This stiffens the response to a perpendicular field, and the susceptibility peak is cut off. For this reason, the dissipative response in Im$\chi_\perp$ is on the right hand side of this peak in Re$\chi_\perp$. This model is developed in ref.() and shown to give an excellent quantitative description of the first peak in the experimentally measured susceptibility. Dynamical reorientation ----------------------- The existence of a local and global reorientation implies that there must be third transition at an intermediate deposition. At low deposition when domain walls are pinned, the spins in the 3rd layer Fe islands move from perpendicular to in-plane alignment to minimize the local energy. At high deposition, the equilibrium transition requires the free movement of domain walls to access a global minimum in the free energy which produces an ordered perpendicular domain state. At the intermediate coverage where the domain walls depin, there will be a dynamical reorientation transition where the system moves from the local to global energy minimum. In this transition, the spins in the 3rd layer Fe islands must revert to perpendicular alignment. Since depinning is a dynamical response, the measured susceptibility depends upon the time scale of the measurement. The measurements in fig.(\[fig1\]) were made using a small field oscillating at 210 Hz. The films were grown at a very slow rate of about $2\times10^{-3}$ ML/s. Thus, the domain configuration can adapt to depinning in the slowly changing film structure, even when it cannot respond to the oscillating field. A simple relaxation model can be used to estimate the intermediate depinning deposition $\theta_d(T)$ at which the dynamical reorientation is expected to occur. Consider the situation where the equilibrium domain density must change in response to a change in the film thickness. The instantaneous domain density $n(\theta)$ relaxes to the equilibrium domain density $n^{eq}(\theta)$ according to[@Libdeh2] $$\label{relax} \frac{dn(\theta)}{dt}=\frac{-1}{\alpha \tau} [n(\theta)-n^{eq}(\theta)].$$ $\tau$ is the same relaxation time as in eq.(\[tau\]), since the pinning sites are the same. However $\alpha$ is a numerical factor that takes into account the differences in geometry and scale in the response of a mesoscopic domain pattern and the response of a small section of domain wall. A previous experimental study[@Libdeh2] found that $\alpha\approx10^{5.5}$ for the relaxation of the domain density in response to a change in temperature. For an estimate of the depinning deposition, the growth rate $R=\frac{d\theta}{dt}$ is used to convert the time rate of change to the coverage rate of change. If the system is not too far from equilibrium, the functional forms of the instantaneous and equilibrium density will be similar, and a first approximation is to replace $\frac{dn}{d\theta}$ in eq.(\[relax\]) by $\frac{dn^{eq}}{d\theta}$. Using eq.(\[ntheta\]) then yields $$\label{depin} n(\theta)=n^{eq}(\theta)[1-R\alpha \tau g(\theta)],$$ where $g(\theta)$ is the derivative, with respect to $\theta$, of the argument of the exponential in $n^{eq}(\theta)$ in eq.(\[ntheta\]). Since $n(\theta)$ and $n^{eq}(\theta)$ cannot be negative, it is not possible for the domain density to relax toward the equilibrium configuration once the expression in square brackets passes through zero. Therefore, the domain relaxation is pinned when $$\label{thetadepin} R\alpha\tau g(\theta_d)=1.$$ Using eq.(\[tau\]) and (\[Eatheta\]), this can be expressed as $$\label{thetad} \frac{T_0 \, \theta_R^2(T)}{T\theta_d^{3/2}(T)(\theta_R(T)-\theta_d(T))^{3/2}}=1,$$ where $$\label{T0} T_0=\frac{\zeta b \, \sqrt{\Gamma \Omega}}{k\ln[R\alpha \tau_0 g(\theta_d)]^{-1}}.$$ Eq.(\[thetad\]) can be rearranged to a quadratic form for an estimate of the depinning deposition where the dynamical reorientation is expected to occur: $$\label{quad} \frac{\theta_d(T)}{\theta_R(T)} -[\frac{\theta_d(T)}{\theta_R(T)}]^2=[\frac{T_0}{T\theta_R(T)}]^{2/3}.$$ Experimental methods ==================== The experiments were performed in the same manner as those described in ref.(). The following short summary is abstracted from that publication, with emphasis on any changes in procedure. Measurements of the magnetic susceptibility were made in situ as an ultrathin film was grown on a W(110) single crystal substrate in ultrahigh vacuum. The sample holder[@Venus2] was equipped with electron beam heating for flashing to high temperature, radiative heating for temperature control, and a liquid nitrogen reservoir for cooling. The sample could be rotated through polar and azimuthal angles, so that any in-plane crystalline axis could be aligned with an in-plane pair of magnetic field coils, and with the scattering plane of the laser beam used for the magneto-optic measurements. A second coil attached to the holder generated a field normal to the sample surface for measurements of $\chi_\perp$. The substrate cleanliness was confirmed using low energy electron diffraction and Auger electron spectroscopy (AES). The films were formed by evaporation from a pure wire. Electrons thermally emitted from a hot filament inside the evaporator[@Jones1] were accelerated by 1.75 kV and bombarded the tip of the wire. The evaporated atoms were collimated by two apertures and formed a beam directed at the substrate crystal. The evaporator was supported in an adjustable tripod, so that the direction of the atomic beam could be finely adjusted and made to coincide with the region of the film probed by the laser used for magneto-optic Kerr effect (MOKE) measurements. AES was used to iteratively adjust the evaporator direction to ensure a uniform film over a region about 9 mm$^2$ on the substrate. The second collimating aperture in the evaporator was electrically isolated. Because a certain fraction of the evaporate atoms striking it are ionized, an ion current of order nA could be measured using an electrometer. Fine adjustments of the wire position were used to keep the monitor current constant and thus ensure a constant deposition rate. The deposition rate was calibrated by a sequence of accumulating depositions, where the film was annealed to 600K and an W Auger spectrum was measured after each step in deposition. For Fe/W(110) and Ni/W(110), a plot of the W Auger attenuation vs. deposition time shows a clear break in slope at 1 ML that was used to calibrate the monitor current[@[Examples; @can; @be; @seen; @in; @]Fritsch1; @Jones2]. The stability of the evaporator calibration and deposition rate over the 20 to 30 minutes required to measure a susceptibility curve during growth was checked[@He] by growing Fe films directly on W(110) at 450 K, the known Curie temperature of 2ML Fe films magnetized in-plane, while measuring $\chi_{1\overline{1}0}$. The peak in the susceptibility at the transition was then used to calculate the average deposition rate. These tests illustrated that thickness calibrations are accurate to $\pm5$% over the range of growth rates used. The magnetic susceptibility of the film was determined with a MOKE apparatus[@Arnold2; @Arnold4] using a linearly polarized HeNe laser. Details of the optical arrangement, alignment procedures, sensitivity and conversion of the raw data to magnetic susceptibility can be found in ref. () and (). The laser beam entered through a UHV window, scattered at 45$^o$ from the substrate normal, and exited through a second UHV window. Compensation techniques were used to retain linear polarization after the magneto-optical Kerr rotation. The beam then passed through a polarizing crystal to isolate the rotated component of the light, and was detected by a photodiode. An a.c. field of 2.0 Oe and 210 Hz was generated by either the in-plane or normal coils, depending upon the experiment, and lock-in detection was used to isolate the signal at the frequency of the field. The susceptibility is measured directly in units of $\mu$rad/Oe, with the real and imaginary parts obtained simultaneously as the in-phase and out-of-phase components from the lock-in amplifier. Measurements of the reorientation transition were made for Fe deposition on a substrate of 2ML Ni/W(110). The nickel film was annealed to 600 K after the deposition of 1 ML to cause wetting of the substrate. In this system[@Johnston1], the Ni layers create a slightly strained f.c.c. (111) surface template with atomic spacing very close to that of bulk Ni, and an in-plane magnetization. Subsequent pseudomorphic Fe deposition creates a system with perpendicular anisotropy. Thicker Fe films reorient to an in-plane magnetization along the \[001\] in-plane direction of the underlying W(110) crystal. The susceptibility was measured using an a.c. field directed along the normal, or the appropriate in-plane direction for measurements of $\chi_\perp$, $\chi_{001}$, or $\chi_{1\overline{1}0}$. It is important to remember that each susceptibility measurement in this study represents the growth of a new film. Because the film growth is reproducible to a great degree, comparisons of susceptibilities using different field geometries are made for different films grown on the same, or successive, days. However, even though two data traces are often shown on the same plot, the curves cannot be expected to align to greater precision than the accuracy of the thickness calibration. Results and analysis ==================== The Fe layer was grown at constant temperature on a series of films while the magnetic susceptibility was measured. Fig. (\[fig2\]) shows a collection of these measurements of Re$\chi_\perp$ (solid symbols) and Re$\chi_{001}$ (open symbols). Measurements of $\chi_{1\overline{1}0}$ produced no signal above the level of noise and are not shown. The temperature noted on the right hand side of each panel gives the temperature at which $\chi_\perp$ was measured. If there is a temperature noted on the left hand side of the panel, then it refers to a nearby temperature at which $\chi_{001}$ was measured. Recall that in all cases the two curves in the same panel where measured during the growth of different films. The measurements of $\chi_\perp$ are consistent with the previous study of many such films during growth[@He]. When the growth temperature during measurement is below 305 K, the curve is most likely to exhibit a single strong peak with a prominent shoulder on the low-deposition side. When the growth temperature is above 325 K, the curve is most likely to have a single peak. In the intermediate range of growth temperature, the curve is most likely to exhibit two well-separated peaks, as in fig.(\[fig1\]), but a prominent peak with a well-separated shoulder at lower deposition, as in fig.(\[fig2\]c), occurs in about one quarter of the measurements. These systematic changes with temperature are attributed to differences in the growth dynamics of the Fe films as a function of temperature; specifically, to observe two well-separated peaks requires that the Fe adatom mobility is large enough to permit aggregation on existing nucleated 3rd layer islands, but small enough to prohibit hopping into vacancies in the 2nd Fe layer[@He]. The lack of two well-separated peaks at other temperatures does not mean that the local reorientation has not taken place; rather the island distribution is not always optimal for observing the local reorientation with $\chi_\perp$. All measurements of $\chi_\perp$ are consistent with the combined response of the local and global realizations of the spin-reorientation transition. The measurements of $\chi_{001}$ represent, to our knowledge, the first observation of a narrow, divergent susceptibility peak of a perpendicularly-magnetized system within the stripe domain phase. The peak is prominent up to at least 330 K, with a normalized full width at half maximum, $\Delta\theta_{001}/\theta_{001}\approx$0.03. This width is consistent with measurements of the diverging susceptibility in previous measurements of second-order Curie transitions[@Dunlavy1] and percolation transitions[@Dixon] in ultrathin films. At 350-360 K, the peak broadens considerably and is greatly diminished in amplitude. Measurements taken at 380 K show no signal above the noise in either $\chi_\perp$ or $\chi_{001}$. A divergent peak in $\chi_{001}$ can, in principle, represent a number of different magnetic phase transitions. It could indicate a percolation transition, where the isolated islands magnetized in-plane form a connected, coherent in-plane magnetic network once the deposition passes a certain threshold. However, since the peaks occur at about $\theta$=1.5 ML, it is not possible that islands in the 3rd layer have percolated. Alternatively, the peak could indicate a Curie transition between in-plane ferromagnetism along the \[001\] direction and a paramagnetic state. This does not make sense in the present context, since it implies a paramagnetic state across a wide range of coverages where $\chi_\perp$ clearly indicates that perpendicular magnetic domains persist. The only self-consistent explanation is a reorientation transition. There is strong qualitative evidence supporting this conclusion. First, a local reorientation of the moments on 3 layer Fe islands at lower deposition, as in fig.(\[fig1\]), has created a population of in-plane moments that can reorient. Second, the peak is measured in $\chi_{001}$, which is the expected axis of reorientation, because it is the in-plane easy axis for ferromagnetism in this system[@Johnston1]. Third, the asymmetric shape of the peak indicates that, for an applied field along the \[001\] direction, the initial state at lower deposition is in-plane and the final state at higher deposition is perpendicular. This scenario is then consistent with the subsequent evolution of the perpendicular equilibrium domain state seen in $\chi_\perp$ at higher deposition. To test whether or not $\chi_{001}$ marks a dynamical reorientation tied to the depinning of the perpendicular domain structure, the data are analysed according to the quantitative model developed in Section II. The first step is to determine $\theta_R(T)$ experimentally. Fig.(\[fig3\]a) presents the analysis of a second pair of susceptibility measurements made for Fe films grown at 315 K. In part b) of the figure, $\chi_\perp$ between 1.70 and 2.45 ML Fe is plotted according to eq.(\[chiplot\]), for different choices of the parameter $C=1 +\ln\chi_0$. ($C$ depends on the units of the susceptibility.) The excellent linear fits confirm that the susceptibility is the response of the perpendicular domain state. The best linear least-squares fit is obtained for the value $C=-17.75$, with the least-squares residuals rising by 25% for the neighbouring values of $C$ included in the plot. The intercept of the best fit line with the deposition axis gives $\theta_R$(315 K)=2.61 ML for this data set. The fitted susceptibility is given by the solid line through the solid points in fig.(\[fig3\]a), and represents the data very well. The peak of $\chi_{001}$ (open symbols) occurs at $\theta_{001}$(315 K)=1.62 ML. Similar analysis of five such pairs of measurements of $\chi_\perp$ and $\chi_{001}$ for films grown at 315 K give average values of $\theta_R$(315 K)=2.84$\pm0.18$ ML and $\theta_{001}$(315 K)=1.63$\pm0.11$ ML (uncertainties are standard deviations). These uncertainties are indistinguishable from the $\pm5\%$ uncertainty in the thickness calibration. Therefore, all five measurements are internally consistent. Fig.(\[fig4\]a) shows these values on a plot of measurement temperature vs. Fe deposition as solid and open symbols, respectively. Data points derived from similar fits to the rest of the measurements in fig.(\[fig2\]) are also included. The points at these additional temperatures are single measurements with the uncertainty given by the thickness calibration. The solid points in fig.(\[fig4\]b) are the fitting constant $\Gamma/(\Omega b^2)$, which is the slope of fits such as those in fig.(\[fig3\]b), at each temperature. The open points are the inverse of the width $\chi_{001}$ for the data in fig.(\[fig2\]). Fig.(\[fig4\]c) uses the data in parts a) and b) of the figure to calculate the ratio $L/\ell$ at $\theta_{001}$, using eq.(\[ntheta\]). These will be discussed in the next section. The solid line in fig.(\[fig4\]a) is the least-squares linear fit $$\label{thetaRfit} \theta_R(T)=(6.4\pm0.3) - (1.1\pm0.1)\times10^{-2}\,T,$$ where $\theta_R$ is in ML and temperature is in K. This implies a linear renormalization of the surface anisotropy with a constant temperature coefficient $\lambda$, as has been found in previous studies[@Won1]. The fitted values of $K_S(T=0)/b\Omega$=6.4 and $\lambda/b\Omega$=0.011 are consistent within uncertainty with a previous study of the domain phase in this system as a function of temperature[@Libdeh3]. Despite all these indications of a reorientation transition from the equilibrium domain phase at $\theta_R(T)$, no divergent susceptibility associated with this transition is observed[@He; @He2] in $\chi_\perp$ or $\chi_{001}$. With the experimental expression for $\theta_R(T)$ established, it is possible to test if the peak observed in $\chi_{001}$ is correlated to the depinning of the domain walls in the film, as described by eq.(\[quad\]). The dashed line in fig.(\[fig4\]a) is the result of a single parameter least-squares fit to the peak positions that yields the parameter $T_0=114\pm6$K. This value can be compared to that predicted by eq.(\[T0\]). Using $\zeta$=50 nm[@He], $R=2\times10^{-3}$ ML/s, $\tau_0=10^{-9}$ s, $\alpha=10^{5.5}$, $g(\theta)\approx3$ and the bulk Fe values[@Chikazumi] of $\Gamma$ and $\Omega$, results in $T_0\approx 300$. This is significantly higher than the fitted value, but the discrepancy is consistent with the temperature renormalization of the magnetic constants from their bulk values, as in fig(\[fig4\]b). In summary, a single parameter fit gives an excellent representation of the position of the peak in $\chi_{001}$. This is quantitative evidence that the peak occurs when the domain walls depin. Taken together with the qualitative evidence, this is a strong case that there is a dynamical reorientation from a mixed metastable state of locally determined in-plane or perpendicular magnetic alignment to one of perpendicular alignment, and that this occurs when the domains relax to a configuration determined by global energetics. Discussion ========== The measurements of dynamical and equilibrium versions of the same reorientation transition provides an opportunity for a comparative analysis and an experimental characterization of the individual phase transitions. First, the observation of a divergence in $\chi_{001}$ at the dynamical transition indicates that it is a second-order transition. According to eq.(\[Landau\]), this means that $K_4>0$ at $\theta_{001}(T)$. Since it is highly unlikely that the sign of $K_4$ is different at the nearby deposition $\theta_R(T)$, the transitions at the equilibrium reorientation will also be second-order. This proves that even though the measured magnetic susceptibilities do not diverge at the equilibrium transition, is not because it is a first-order transition. Second, the absence of a response to an in-plane field along W(1$\overline{1}$0) at the dynamical transition confirms a strong in-plane anisotropy along W(001) that will be essentially unchanged at the equilibrium transition. This means that the type of domain pattern melting, or transition from a stripe pattern to a tetragonal pattern, that has been observed in systems with four-fold[@Vaterlaus1; @Portmann1] or polycrystalline[@Stickler; @Fromter] in-plane symmetry will be strongly discouraged. The present films are more analogous to those studied by Bergeard et al.[@Bergeard1], where ion bombardment is used to induce two-fold in-plane magnetic anisotropy. Those authors report no orientational melting, but the persistence of a linear domain state until fluctuations at higher temperature cause it to disappear due to the limits of time resolution in the experiment. This suggests that, for Fe/2ML Ni/W(110), the phase transitions from the striped domain phase to either the canted phase or to the paramagnetic phase are expected to occur directly, with no intervening phase (or a very narrow one). Third, the dynamical transition occurs in the presence of perpendicular domains that result from the system moving to the global energy minimum. The fact that a divergence in $\chi_{001}$ is observed shows that, as far as the system is concerned, there is a change in magnetic symmetry as the in-plane spins on the 3rd layer islands reorient to a perpendicular geometry, making the entire magnetic system perpendicular. This means that, in a practical sense, the magnetic contribution of the spins within the domain walls is negligible. Inverting this argument, the presence of the peak allows a calibration of the values of the ratio of domain width to domain wall width, $L/\ell$, where the system responds as if the spins in the domain walls do not break the perpendicular magnetic symmetry. This argument can be made quantitative by using the data for $\theta_R$, $\theta_{001}$ and the magnetic constant in fig.(\[fig4\]a) and (b), to calculate $L/\ell$ when $\theta = \theta_{001}$ using eq.(\[ntheta\]). The result of this calculation is shown on a logarithmic scale in fig.(\[fig4\]c). For comparison, the inverse of the width of the peak in $\chi_{001}$ is plotted in fig.(\[fig4\]b), using open symbols. At low temperature, the peak in $\chi_{001}$ is very narrow and $L/\ell$=3900 at 270 K. Even as $L/\ell$ falls to a value of 39 at 330 K, $\chi_{001}$ has broadened only slightly in fig.(\[fig4\]b), indicating that a change of two orders of magnitude in the proportion of the film comprised of domain walls has not made a significant difference. However, by 360 K, $\chi_{001}$ has broadened dramatically. At this temperature $L/\ell\approx$10. Somewhere in the interval $39>L/\ell>10$ the presence of the domain walls begins to break the magnetic symmetry, so that there is no longer a divergent susceptibility. This calibration of $L/\ell$ as a function of temperature can now be applied to the measurements as a function of deposition. For concreteness of discussion, consider any of the panels in fig.(\[fig2\]b) through (e). At the deposition where the dynamical transition occurs, $L/\ell$ is large and $\chi_{001}$ is divergent. Moving to higher deposition, eq.(\[ntheta\]) shows that $L/\ell$ gets smaller and smaller. When $L/\ell \approx$ 10 the domain walls break the magnetic symmetry and a divergent susceptibility is no longer expected. This occurs well before $\theta = \theta_R$, where $L/\ell \approx$ 4.3. This illustrates quantitatively that there will be no divergence in $\chi_{001}$ at the thickness dependent re-orientation transition in the presence of the domain phase. These experimental data therefore support the suggestion of Pighin et al.[@Pighin1], that there is no critical phase transition at $\theta_R$ where canting begins because there is no differentiation between domain walls and domains. This implies that there is no phase line between the perpendicular and canted domain states, although a qualitative distinction may be useful for physical arguments. Simulations that find a phase transition line between canted domain and Ising domain phases (accompanied by, for example, a peak in the specific heat[@Whitehead]) might be influenced by finite size effects due to coarse graining in the simulation[@Whitehead2]. Coarse graining is necessary to increase the effective size of the simulated system, but the domain walls appear Ising-like prematurely once they are thinner than the grain size. Fourth, there is no divergence of $\chi_{\perp}$ at the dynamical transition, even though there is a divergence in $\chi_{001}$. This supports the argument that, because both the initial and final perpendicular domain states have $M_{\perp}$=0, this is not a useful order parameter for the transition, not withstanding questions of relative scale. The absence of this peak at the dynamical transition implies that the absence of a divergence in $\chi_{\perp}$ at the equilibrium transition can be interpreted with confidence. The experiments therefore support the results of simulations of the equilibrium transition[@Whitehead; @Pighin1]. The simulations show that, in the neighbourhood of the in-plane state, the canted state takes the form of a sinusoidal modulation of the magnetization with a low amplitude in the perpendicular direction. The amplitude of the perpendicular modulation goes continuously to zero as $K_{eff}$ is reduced and the system enters the in-plane state. Since both the sinusoidal and in-plane states have $M_{\perp}$=0, there is no critical phase transition in the magnetization. The simulations find that the transition to the in-plane state is determined instead by the domain orientational order parameter[@Whitehead], $O$, as the ordered stripe pattern disappears. Finally, we make some speculative comments on the transition from the perpendicular domain state to the paramagnetic state as the temperature is varied. Consider making this thermal transition by following the path of the dashed line in fig.(\[fig4\]a). The variation of the fitted magnetic constant $\Gamma/\Omega b^2$ along this path due to temperature renormalization is given by the solid points in fig.(\[fig4\]b). For example, the literature values for bulk Fe[@Chikazumi] and the layer thickness of Fe/2ML Ni/W(110) films[@Johnston1] yield $\Gamma/(\Omega b^2)=$200, in good agreement with the fitted value for the measurements at 270 K. The magnetic constant scales essentially as the effective exchange constant $\Gamma_{eff}(T) \sim J_{eff}(T)$, since $\Omega(M_{sat})$ is constant. In this light, fig.(\[fig4\]b) appears to represent a type of ferromagnetic-to-paramagnetic transition for the perpendicular magnetization due to the reduction of $J_{eff}(T)$, with a Curie temperature $T_C$ in the neighbourhood of 305 K. This point of view is explored by Saratz et al.[@Saratz], where they identify a “putative" $T_C$ using magnetization curves, and by Won et al.[@Won1], who identify $T_C$ by the loss of magnetic contrast in microscopy images. A difficulty with this interpretation is that a strong, narrow peak in $\chi_{001}$ persists above $T_C$ defined in this way. The open points in fig.(\[fig4\]b) show that the inverse width of $\chi_{001}$ is essentially unchanged from its value at low temperature until about 340 K. It is not clear how the system can respond with long-range magnetic coherence in the dynamical reorientation in the temperature range of 305 to 340 K if it is in a locally disordered paramagnetic state. It appears that the inverse peak width $\theta_{001}/\Delta \theta$ is a better qualitative indicator of the transition to microscopic paramagnetism than is $J_{eff}(T)$, and that this transition occurs near or above 360 K. These qualitative observations offer experimental support to the computational simulations of the thermal transition from the perpendicular domain state to the paramagnetic state[@Whitehead; @Pighin1]. These studies find no Curie-type transition of the magnetization, but rather a continuous evolution from the mesoscopic paramagnetic behaviour of the domain state to microscopic paramagnetism. This is again consistent with the assertion that $M_{\perp}$ is not an order parameter of the system in the critical region, but that a second-order transition occurs in the orientational order parameter, $O(T)$, as the domain pattern symmetry changes from striped to tetragonal. We speculate that, if the simulations were made in the presence of two-fold in-plane anisotropy as is the case in the present experiments, the second-order transition in the orientational order parameter would mark the transition from the perpendicular stripes to microscopic paramagnetism. These are subtle questions that deserve further study. Conclusions =========== As Fe/2ML Ni/W(110) films are grown they undergo three distinct versions of the same spin-reorientation transition. At low Fe deposition, domain walls are pinned and a metastable reorientation occurs due to the local energetics of 3rd layer Fe islands. At intermediate deposition the domain walls depin and a dynamical reorientation occurs as the system is able to access a global energetic minimum. At even higher deposition, an equilibrium reorientation from the ordered perpendicular domain state occurs. The dynamical reorientation is marked by a divergence in $\chi_{001}$, but no divergence in $\chi_{\perp}$, in agreement with simple models of magnetic symmetry breaking. A detailed expression for the equilibrium perpendicular domain width as a function of deposition (eq.(\[chiplot\])) gives an excellent quantitative description of $\chi_{\perp}$, and has been used to determine the phase line $\theta_R(T)$ for the equilibrium transition. This is a significant improvement on many previous studies that relied on a qualitative linear relation between the film thickness and the logarithm of the domain width. The experimental $\theta_R(T)$ is then used to confirm the identity of the dynamical transition by fitting the peaks in $\chi_{001}$ to a quantitative model of the deposition where domain wall depinning occurs. This identification of the dynamical transition permits a comparative analysis with the equilibrium transition. The experimental results for the dynamical version of the reorientation clarify or corroborate the nature of the phase transitions in the equilibrium version. First, they establish that the transition is not first-order. Second, they demonstrate quantitatively that domain walls in the perpendicular domain state break the perpendicular magnetic symmetry once $L/\ell<10$, so that no divergence in $\chi_{001}$ is expected at the equilibrium transition between the perpendicular and canted states. Although a distinction between the perpendicular and canted domain states is useful for physical arguments, the experiments are not consistent with an equilibrium critical phase transition between them. Finally, they corroborate, by providing a second example, that the absence of a divergence in $\chi_{\perp}$ near $\theta_R(T)$ is a reliable null result. This agrees with simulations showing that the equilibrium transition from the canted to in-plane state is described using the domain orientation $O$ as the order parameter, and not by the magnetization as an order parameter. Finally, the experimental results also offer qualitative support to the idea that the thermal transition from the domain state directly to paramagnetism is not Curie-like, but is also decribed by the domain orientation as an order parameter. This comparative analysis provides experimental confirmation of a counter-intuitive result: there are no divergences in the magnetic susceptibility at the equilibrium reorientation transition because neither the magnetization nor its orientation undergo a second-order critical phase transition. For an equilibrium system studied in zero field, the dipole interactions create perpendicular domains that either remove $M_{\perp}$ as a useful order parameter, or break magnetic symmetries via* the domain walls. Simulations predict that the second-order critical phase transitions that do occur are associated with the orientational structure of the perpendicular domain patterns themselves. Financial support for this work was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. We acknowledge helpful discussions with K. De’Bell.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The distribution of a gluon condensate in a flux tube is calculated. The result is that the chromoelectric fields are confined with a surrounding coset chromomagnetic field. Such picture presents the concrete realization of dual QCD model in a scalar model of the flux tube. In the scalar model the SU(3) gauge fields are separated on two parts: (1) is the $SU(2) \subset SU(3)$ subgroup, (2) is the coset $SU(3) / SU(2)$. The SU(2) degrees of freedom are almost classical and the coset degrees of freedom are quantum ones. A nonperturbative approach for the quantization of the coset degrees of freedom is applied. In this approach 2-point Green’s function is a bilinear combination of scalar fields and 4-point Green’s function is the product of 2-points Green’s functions. The gluon condensate is an effective Lagrangian describing the SU(2) gauge field with broken gauge symmetry and coupling with the scalar field. Corresponding field equations give us the flux tube.' author: - Vladimir Dzhunushaliev title: 'SU(3) flux tube gluon condensate' --- Introduction ============ The problem of quark confinement has been one of the central problem of the high energy physics for years, where according to the dual QCD picture the QCD vacuum behaves like a dual superconductor and the condensation of monopoles plays a vital role in the whole confinement mechanism. In the dual picture of QCD [@nambu], the monopoles get condensed and an Abrikosov vortex is formed between quark - antiquark, which gives rise to the infinitely rising linear confining potential. For review of dual QCD, see [@baker]. One of the problems in a nonperturbative QCD is the determination of the condensates of the QCD vacuum. It is well known that the condensates can only be determined in a nonperturbative formulation of the QCD. There is a long history of attempts to determine the gluon condensate from first principles [@Banks]. The problem of the quantization of strong interaction is the problem of a nonperturbative quantization. The solution of this problem is connected with the search of nonperturbative technique. It means that in the nonperturbative quantization technique we , i.e. all words connected with the perturbative technique (Feynman diagrams). In this paper we calculate the gluon condensate of flux tube and show that the dual QCD picture is realized in a scalar model of flux tube between quark - antiquark. In this model the SU(3) gauge potential $A^B_\mu \in SU(3), B=1,2, \cdots , 8$ is separated on two parts: - the first one is the gauge components $A^b_\mu \in SU(2) \subset SU(3), b=1,2,3$ which is in a classical state; - the second one is $A^m_\mu \in SU(3)/SU(2), m=4,5,6,7,8$ and it is in a quantum state. One can say that $A^b_\mu$ is in an ordered phase and $A^m_\mu$ is in a disordered phase. The effective Lagrangian for such system (which up to a sign is the SU(3) gluon condensate) can be obtained using nonperturbative quantization method with some assumptions and approximations (see [@Dzhunushaliev:2010ab] for the application of this method for a glueball scalar model). Briefly saying in the scalar model the 2-point Green’s function of color quantum field can be approximately presented as the product of scalar fields with some coefficients having color and Lorentzian indixes. 4-point Green’s function is decomposed as the product of two 2-point Green’s functions. One can say that the quantum strongly interacting fields are not a cloud of quanta but is more similar to a turbulent fluid with a non-zero mean velocity and fluctuations about it. In QCD it corresponds to a longitudinal chromoelectric field in the flux tube and quantum fluctuations of the gauge field. Flux tube solution ================== In Appendix \[appendix\] we have obtained an effective Lagrangian (which is up to a sign the SU(3) gluon condensate) describing the situation where there are ordered and disordered phases $$\begin{split} & \mathcal L_{eff} = \left\langle \mathcal L_{SU(3)} \right\rangle = - \frac{1}{4 g^2} \left\langle \hat {\mathcal F}^{B\mu\nu} \hat {\mathcal F}^{B}_{\mu\nu} \right\rangle = - \frac{1}{4 g^2} F^{a}_{\mu\nu} F^{a \mu\nu} + \frac{1}{2} E^\mu_\nu \left\| \phi_\mu \right\|^2 - \frac{\lambda}{4} \left( \left\| \phi \right\|^2 - \phi_\infty^2 \right)^2 + \\ & \frac{1}{2} D^{ab \nu}_{\mu} A^a_\nu A^{b \mu} \left\| \phi \right\|^2 - \frac{1}{2} \left( M^2 \right)^{ab \nu}_\mu A^a_\nu A^{b \mu} + \frac{1}{2} A^{a \nu} \left[ \left(B_1\right)^{a \mu}_\nu \phi^* \phi_\mu + \left(B_2\right)^{a \mu}_\nu \phi \phi^_\mu \right] \label{1-10} \end{split}$$ where $F^a_{\mu \nu} = \partial_\mu A^a_\nu - \partial_\nu A^a_\mu + \epsilon^{abc} A^b_\mu A^c_\nu$ is the SU(2) field strength; $a,b,c = 1, 2,3$ are the SU(2) color indexes; $\epsilon^{abc}$ are the structure constants for the SU(2) gauge group and $g$ is the coupling constant. We do not know the values of coefficients $E, D, M^2, B_{1,2}$ and for the simplicity we choose their in the form $$\begin{split} E^\mu_\nu =& \delta^\mu_\nu, \\ D^{ab \nu}_{\mu} = & \delta^{ab} \delta^\nu_\mu, \\ \left( M^2 \right)^{ab \nu}_\mu = & m^2_a \delta^{ab} \delta^\nu_\mu, \text{ no summation over } a, \\ \left(B_1\right)^{a \mu}_\nu = & \left(B_2\right)^{a \mu}_\nu = 0 . \end{split} \label{1-20}$$ Then the effective Lagrangian is $$\mathcal L_{eff} = - \frac{1}{4 g^2} F^{a}_{\mu\nu} F^{a \mu\nu} + \frac{1}{2} \left\| \phi_\mu \right\|^2 - \frac{\lambda}{4} \left( \left\| \phi \right\|^2 - \phi_\infty^2 \right)^2 + \frac{1}{2} A^a_\mu A^{a \mu} \left\| \phi \right\|^2 - \frac{1}{2} m^2_a A^a_\nu A^{a \mu} \label{1-25}$$ The field equations are $$\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{4g^2}D_\nu F^{a\mu\nu} &=& \left( \left\| \phi \right\|^2 - m^2_a \right) A^{a \mu}, \text{ no summation over } a , \label{1-30}\\ \phi_\mu^{; \mu} &=& -\lambda \phi \left( \left\| \phi \right\|^2 - \phi_\infty^2 \right) + A^a_\mu A^{a \mu} \phi . \label{1-35}\end{aligned}$$ The solution we search in the following form $$A^1_t(\rho) = f(\rho) ; \quad A^2_z(\rho) = v(\rho) ; \quad \phi(\rho) = \phi(\rho) \label{1-40}$$ here $z, \rho , \varphi$ are cylindrical coordinate system. The substitution into equations gives us $$\begin{aligned} f'' + \frac{f'}{x} &=& f \left( \phi^2 + v^2 - m^2_1 \right), \label{1-50}\\ v'' + \frac{v'}{x} &=& v \left( \phi^2 - f^2 - m^2_2 \right), \label{1-60}\\ \phi'' + \frac{\phi'}{x} &=& \phi \left[ - f^2 + v^2 + \lambda \left( \phi^2 - \mu^2 \right)\right] \label{1-70}\end{aligned}$$ here we redefined $g \phi /\phi(0) \rightarrow \phi$, $f /\phi(0) \rightarrow f$, $v /\phi(0) \rightarrow v$, $g \phi_\infty /\phi(0) \rightarrow \mu$, $g m_{1,2} /\phi(0) \rightarrow m_{1,2}$, $\rho \sqrt{\phi(0)} \rightarrow x$. The color electric and magnetic fields are $$F^1_{t \rho} = -f', \quad F^2_{z \rho} = - v', \quad F^3_{tz} = fv . \label{1-80}$$ For the numerical calculations we choose the following parameters values $$\lambda = 0.1, \quad \phi (0) = 1, \quad v(0) = 0.5, \quad f(0) = 0.2. \label{1-90}$$ We apply the methods of step by step approximation for finding of numerical solutions (the details of similar calculations can be found in Ref. [@Dzhunushaliev:2003sq]). The numerical calculations give us the eigenvalues $m_1^ \approx 1.23258$, $m_2^* \approx 1.18069$, $\mu^* \approx 1.3136$ and eigenfunctions $v^(x), f^(x), \phi^(x)$. The numerical solution is presented in Fig’s. \[fig1\] - \[fig2\]. One can show that the flux of the chromoelectric field is nonzero $$\Phi = 2 \pi \int \limits_0^\infty \rho F^3_{tz} d \rho \neq 0. \label{1-95}$$ The gluon condensate distribution in the flux tube ================================================== The distribution of the gluon condensate $\left\langle \mathcal F^A_{\mu\nu} \mathcal F^{A\mu\nu} \right\rangle$ in the flux tube can be found from the effective Lagrangian . The coset gluon condensate is $$G = - \mathcal L_{eff} = \left\langle \mathcal H^A_\mu \mathcal H^{A\mu} \right\rangle - \left\langle \mathcal E^A_\mu \mathcal E^{A\mu} \right\rangle \label{2-10}$$ where $\mathcal E^A_\mu, \mathcal H^A_\mu$ are chromoelectric and chromomagnetic fields. We see that if $G(x) < 0$ then in this area the chromoelectric field is predominant but if $G(x) > 0$ then the chromomagnetic field is predominant. The substitution of the ansatz into the gluon condensate gives us following $$G = - \frac{1}{2} {f'}^2 + \frac{1}{2} {v'}^2 - \frac{1}{2} f^2 v^2 + \frac{1}{2} m_1^2 f^2 - \frac{1}{2} m_2^2 v^2 + \frac{1}{2} {\phi'}^2 - \frac{1}{2} \left( f^2 - v^2 \right) \phi^2 + \frac{\lambda}{4} \left( \phi^2 - \mu^2 \right)^2 . \label{2-15}$$ The profile of $G(x)$ is presented in Fig. \[fig3\] and in Fig. \[fig4\] one can see a schematical presentation of the flux tube with the distribution of chromoelectric and chromomagnetic fields. We see that the flux tube has a core (in ) where the quantum fluctuations of chromoelectric field and the longitudinal classical chromoelectric field $E^3_z$ are concentrated. These chromoelectric fields are confined by a belt (in ) filled with the chromomagnetic field. That is exactly what us say the dual QCD model: In the dual superconductor picture of the QCD vacuum, chromomagnetic monopoles (creating chromomagnetic field) condense into dual Cooper pairs, causing chromoelectric flux to be squeezed into tubes. In this connection one can note that: (a) in Ref. [@Antonov:1998xt] it is derived the string representation of field correlators and it is shown that the obtained results are in agreement with the stochastic model of QCD vacuum; (b) it is possible that the gluon condensate is created not only by monopoles but dyons also [@Nandan:2004ms]. Discussion and conclusions ========================== Here we have shown that using nonperturbative quantization technique one can obtain a flux tube connecting quark - antiquark. In such tube a longitudinal chromoelectric field and quantum fluctuations of chromoelectric and chromomagnetic fields are presented. In our approximation the fluctuations of quantum gauge fields with a scalar field are described: 2-point Green’s function is a bilinear combination of the scalar fields. The proportionality coefficients carry on themselves color and Lorentzian indexes. 4-point Green’s function is the product of 2-point Green’s functions. In this approximation one can average SU(3) Lagrangian and obtain an effective Lagrangian, i.e. to calculate gluon condensate. The effective Lagrangian describes SU(2) gauge field with broken gauge symmetry and coupling to the scalar field. In the presented model the SU(3) gauge field is separated on ordered (almost classical $SU(2)$ gauge field) and disordered (quantum gauge fields belonging to the coset $SU(3) / SU(2)$) phases. The ordered phase is the longitudinal chromoelectric field. The disordered phase is the coset gluon condensate. We have found that the SU(3) gluon condensate in the flux tube has interesting space distribution: (a) at the core of the flux tube are the SU(2) longitudinal chromoelectric field and the quantum fluctuating coset chromoelectric field, (b) round the core is the quantum fluctuating coset chromomagnetic field. Such distribution confirms the dual QCD picture: the chromomagnetic field confines the chromoelectric fields into the tube. Thus the correctness of the presented approach are completely borne out by two conclusions: (a) the flux tube solution is obtained, (b) the distribution of gluon condensate in flux tube is in agreement with the dual QCD picture. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== I am grateful to the Research Group Linkage Programme of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for the support of this research. The calculation of gluon condensate - effective Lagrangian {#appendix} ========================================================== The SU(3) Lagrangian is $$\mathcal L_{SU(3)} = - \frac{1}{4 g^2} \mathcal F^{B\mu\nu} \mathcal F^{B}_{\mu\nu} \label{1a-20}$$ where $\mathcal F^B_{\mu \nu} = \partial_\mu A^B_\nu - \partial_\nu A^B_\mu + g f^{BCD} A^C_\mu A^D_\nu$ is the field strength; $B,C,D = 1, \ldots ,8$ are the SU(3) color indices; $g$ is the coupling constant; $f^{BCD}$ are the structure constants for the SU(3) gauge group and $g$ is the coupling constane. Our goal is to average quantum version of the Lagrangian which is up to a sign the SU(3) gluon condensate $$\left\langle \mathcal L_{SU(3)} \right\rangle = - \frac{1}{4 g^2} \left\langle \hat {\mathcal F}^{B\mu\nu} \hat {\mathcal F}^{B}_{\mu\nu} \right\rangle \label{1a-30}$$ with some approximations concerning to 2 and 4-point Green’s function $$\begin{aligned} G^{mn}_{\mu \nu}(x_1, x_2) &=& \left\langle \hat A^m_\mu (x_1) \hat A^n_\nu (x_2) \right\rangle , \label{1a-40}\\ G^{mnpq}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma}(x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4) &=& \left\langle \hat A^m_\mu (x_1) \hat A^n_\nu (x_2) \hat A^p_\rho (x_3) \hat A^q_\sigma (x_4) \right\rangle \label{1a-45}\end{aligned}$$ where $\left\langle \cdots \right\rangle $ is a quantum averaging over some quantum state $\left\| \psi \right\rangle$, and $\hat A^m_\mu \in SU(3) / SU(2), m = 4,5, \cdots , 8$ in are the operators but $A^b_\mu \in SU(2), b=1,2,3$ are classical degrees of freedom. Below we will omit the operator symbol $(\widehat {\cdots})$. Taking into account that $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal F^{a}_{\mu\nu} &=& F^{a}_{\mu\nu} + f^{amn} A^m_\mu A^n_\nu , \label{1a-50}\\ \mathcal F^{m}_{\mu\nu} &=& \left( F_0 \right)^{m}_{\mu\nu} + f^{mpq} A^p_\mu A^q_\nu + f^{mnb} \left( A^n_\mu A^b_\nu - A^n_\nu A^b_\mu \right) \label{1a-60}\end{aligned}$$ we have $$\begin{split} \mathcal F^{B}_{\mu\nu} \mathcal F^{B \mu\nu} = & F^{a}_{\mu\nu} F^{a\mu\nu} + f^{amn} F^a_{\mu \nu} A^{m \mu} A^{n \nu} + f^{amn} f^{apq} A^m_\mu A^n_\nu A^{p \mu} A^{q \nu} + \\ & \left( F_0 \right)^{m}_{\mu\nu} \left( F_0 \right)^{m \mu\nu} + f^{mpq} f^{mrs} A^p_\mu A^q_\nu A^{r \mu} A^{s \nu} + f^{mna} f^{mpb} \left( A^n_\mu A^a_\nu - A^n_\nu A^a_\mu \right) \left( A^{p \mu} A^{b \nu} - A^{p \nu} A^{b \mu} \right) + \\ & f^{amn} \left[ \left( F_0 \right)^{m}_{\mu\nu} A^{p \mu} A^{q \nu} + A^{p}_\mu A^{q}_\nu \left( F_0 \right)^{m \mu\nu} \right] + \\ & f^{mna} \left\{ \left( F_0 \right)^{m}_{\mu\nu} \left( A^{n \mu} A^{a \nu} - A^{n \nu} A^{a \mu} \right) + \left( A^{n}_\mu A^{a}_\nu - A^{n}_\nu A^{a}_\mu \right) \left( F_0 \right)^{m \mu\nu} \right\} \\ & f^{mpq} f^{mna} \left[ A^p_\mu A^q_\nu \left( A^{n \mu} A^{a \nu} - A^{n \nu} A^{a \mu} \right) + \left( A^n_\mu A^a_\nu - A^n_\nu A^a_\mu \right) A^{p \mu} A^{q \nu} \right] \label{1a-70} \end{split}$$ where $F^a_{\mu \nu} = \partial_\mu A^a_\nu - \partial_\nu A^a_\mu + f^{abc} A^b_\mu A^c_\nu \in SU(2) \subset SU(3)$; $\left( F_0 \right)^{m}_{\mu\nu} = \partial_\mu A^m_\nu - \partial_\nu A^m_\mu$. For the calculation of the gluon condensate we need some information about 2 and 4-points Green’s functions. We will assume that in our appoximation $$\begin{aligned} \left( G_2 \right)^{mn}_{\mu \nu}(x_1, x_2) \left\langle A^m_\mu (x_1) A^n_\nu (x_2) \right\rangle &\approx& C^{mn}_{\mu \nu} \phi(x_1) \phi^(x_2) + \tilde m^{mn}_{\mu \nu}, \label{1a-80}\\ \left\langle A^m_\mu (x_1) A^n_\nu (x_2) A^p_\rho (x_3) A^q_\sigma (x_4) \right\rangle &\approx& \left\langle A^m_\mu (x_1) A^n_\nu (x_2) \right\rangle \left\langle A^p_\rho (x_3) A^q_\sigma (x_4) \right\rangle \label{1a-90}\end{aligned}$$ with following properties $$\begin{aligned} C^{mn}_{\mu \nu} &=& C^{mn}_{\nu \mu}, \label{1a-100}\\ \tilde m^{mn}_{\mu \nu} &=& \tilde m^{mn}_{\nu \mu}. \label{1a-110}\end{aligned}$$ The ansatz is similar to a model in which the QCD vacuum is simulated by a stochastic background field [@Dosch:1987sk] [^1]. The difference is that we use the ansatz for the calculation of an effective Lagrangian describing the scalar field describing 2-point Green’s function. Using one calculate $$\left\langle \left( \partial_\mu A^m_\nu(x) \right) A^n_\alpha(x) \right\rangle = \left. \frac{\partial}{\partial y^\mu} \left\langle A^m_\nu(y) A^n_\alpha(x) \right\rangle \right\|_{y \rightarrow x} = C^{mn}_{\nu \alpha} \partial_\mu \phi(x) \phi^(x). \label{1a-115}$$ For the calculation of the gluon condensate we need to take into account the decomposition and the form for 2 and 4-point Green’s functions . At first we will calculate $$F^a_{\mu \nu} A^{m \mu} A^{n \nu} = 0 \label{1a-120}$$ as $F^a_{\mu \nu} = - F^a_{\nu \mu}$ is antisymmetric but $\left( G_2 \right)^{mn}_{\mu \nu} = \left( G_2 \right)^{mn}_{\nu \mu}$ is symmetric. Using we have $$f^{amn} f^{apq} \left\langle A^m_\mu A^n_\nu A^{p \mu} A^{q \nu} \right\rangle = \lambda_1 \left( \left\| \phi \right\|^2 - \phi_\infty^2 \right)^2 + C_1 \label{1a-130}$$ where $\lambda_1 = f^{amn} f^{apq} C^{mn}_{\mu \nu} C^{pq \mu \nu}$; $-2 \phi_\infty^2 \lambda_1 = f^{amn} f^{apq} \left[ C^{mn}_{\mu \nu}\tilde m^{pq \mu \nu} + C^{pq \mu \nu}\tilde m^{mn}_{\mu \nu} \right]$ and $\phi_\infty^4 \lambda_1 + C_1 = f^{amn} f^{apq} \tilde m^{mn}_{\mu \nu} \tilde m^{pq \mu \nu}$. The same for $$f^{mpq} f^{mrs} \left\langle A^p_\mu A^q_\nu A^{r \mu} A^{s \nu} \right\rangle = \lambda_2 \left( \left\| \phi \right\|^2 - \phi_\infty^2 \right)^2 + C_2 \label{1a-140}$$ where $\lambda_2 = f^{mpq} f^{mrs} C^{pq}_{\mu \nu} C^{rs \mu \nu}$; $-2 \phi_\infty^2 \lambda_2 = f^{mpq} f^{mrs} \left[ C^{pq}_{\mu \nu}\tilde m^{rs \mu \nu} + C^{rs \mu \nu}\tilde m^{pq}_{\mu \nu} \right]$ and $\phi_\infty^4 \lambda_2 + C_2 = f^{mpq} f^{mrs} \tilde m^{pq}_{\mu \nu} \tilde m^{rs \mu \nu}$. Next is the calculation of $$\left\langle \left( F_0 \right)^{m}_{\mu\nu} \left( F_0 \right)^{m \mu\nu} \right\rangle = 2 C^{mm \mu}_{\mu} \left\| \phi_\mu \right\|^2 - 2 C^{mm \mu}_{\nu} \phi_\mu \phi^{ \nu} = - 2 E^\mu_\nu \phi_\mu \phi^{\nu}. \label{1a-150}$$ The next is $$\begin{split} & f^{mna} f^{mpb} \left\langle \left( A^n_\mu A^a_\nu - A^n_\nu A^a_\mu \right) \left( A^{p \mu} A^{b \nu} - A^{p \nu} A^{b \mu} \right) \right\rangle = \left( \tilde C^{ab} \delta^\nu_\mu - \tilde C^{ab \nu}_\mu \right) A^a_\nu A^{b \mu} \left\| \phi \right\|^2 + \\ & \left[ m^{ab} \delta^\nu_\mu - m^{ab \nu}_\mu \right] A^a_\nu A^{b \mu} = - 2 D^{ab \nu}_{\mu} A^a_\nu A^{b \mu} \left\| \phi \right\|^2 + 2 \left( M^2 \right)^{ab \nu}_\mu A^a_\nu A^{b \mu} \label{1a-160} \end{split}$$ where $\tilde C^{ab} = 2 f^{mna} f^{mpb} C^{np \mu}_\mu$; $\tilde C^{ab \nu}_\mu = 2 f^{mna} f^{mpb} C^{np \nu}_\mu$; $m^{ab} = 2 f^{mna} f^{mpb} \tilde m^{np \mu}_{\mu}$ and $m^{ab \nu}_\mu = 2 f^{mna} f^{mpb} \tilde m^{np \nu}_{\mu}$. The next is $$\begin{split} & f^{mna} \left\langle \left( F_0 \right)^{m}_{\mu\nu} \left( A^{n \mu} A^{a \nu} - A^{n \nu} A^{a \mu} \right) + \left( A^{n}_\mu A^{a}_\nu - A^{n}_\nu A^{a}_\mu \right) \left( F_0 \right)^{m \mu\nu} \right\rangle = \\ & 2 f^{mna} A^{a \nu} \left[ \left( C^{mn \mu}_\nu - C^{mn \alpha}_\alpha \delta^\mu_\nu \right) \phi^ \phi_\mu + \left( C^{nm \mu}_\nu - C^{nm \alpha}_\alpha \delta^\mu_\nu \right) \phi \phi^_\mu \right] = 2 A^{a \nu} \left[ \left( B_1 \right)^{a \mu}_\nu \phi^ \phi_\mu + \left(B_2 \right)^{a \mu}_\nu \phi \phi^_\mu \right] \label{1a-170} \end{split}$$ The next is $$\left\langle A^p_\mu A^q_\nu \left( A^{n \mu} A^{a \nu} - A^{n \nu} A^{a \mu} \right) + \left( A^n_\mu A^a_\nu - A^n_\nu A^a_\mu \right) A^{p \mu} A^{q \nu} \right\rangle = 0 \label{1a-180}$$ as we assume as usually that schematically $\left( A^m_{\cdots} \right)^3 = 0$. Collecting all together we have $$\begin{split} & \left\langle \mathcal L_{SU(3)} \right\rangle = - \frac{1}{4 g^2} \left\langle \hat {\mathcal F}^{B\mu\nu} \hat {\mathcal F}^{B}_{\mu\nu} \right\rangle = - \frac{1}{4 g^2} F^{a}_{\mu\nu} F^{a \mu\nu} + \frac{1}{2} E^\mu_\nu \phi_\mu \phi^{\nu} - \frac{\lambda}{4} \left( \left\| \phi \right\|^2 - \phi_\infty^2 \right)^2 + \\ & \frac{1}{2} D^{ab \nu}_{\mu} A^a_\nu A^{b \mu} \left\| \phi \right\|^2 - \frac{1}{2} \left( M^2 \right)^{ab \nu}_\mu A^a_\nu A^{b \mu} + \frac{1}{2} A^{a \nu} \left[ \left(B_1\right)^{a \mu}_\nu \phi^* \phi_\mu + \left(B_2\right)^{a \mu}_\nu \phi \phi^_\mu \right] \label{1a-190} \end{split}$$ here we have redefined $\phi/g \rightarrow \phi$ and $g^2(\lambda_1 + \lambda_2) \rightarrow \lambda$. All coefficients $E, \lambda, \phi_\infty, D, M^2, B_{1,2}$ are linear or bilinear combinations of $C^{\cdots}_{\cdots}$ and $\tilde m^{\cdots}_{\cdots}$ and we omit unessential constant. Finally we have the Lagrangian describing SU(2) gauge theory coupling to a scalar field. Let us note that the sum $$\frac{1}{2} E^\mu_\nu \phi_\mu \phi^{\nu} + \frac{1}{2} A^{a \nu} \left[ \left(B_1\right)^{a \mu}_\nu \phi^* \phi_\mu + \left(B_2\right)^{a \mu}_\nu \phi \phi^_\mu \right] + \frac{1}{2} D^{ab \nu}_{\mu} A^a_\nu A^{b \mu} \left\| \phi \right\|^2 \label{1a-200}$$ is similar to the kinetic term for a color scalar field in corresponding Lagrangian $$D_\mu \phi^a D^\mu {\phi^}^a = \left\| \partial_\mu \phi^a + \epsilon^{abc} A^b_\mu \phi^c \right\|^2 . \label{1a-220}$$ [99]{} Nambu Y., Phys. Rev. D, 10, 4262 (1974). M. Baker, James S. Ball and F. Zachariasen, Phys. Rep. 209, 73 (1991). T. Banks, R. Horsley, H.R. Rubinstein, and U. Wolff, Nucl. Phys. B190, 692 (1981); A.Di Giacomo and G.C. Rossi, Phys. Lett. B 100, 481 (1981); P.E. Rakow, PoS LAT2005, 284 (2006) and references therein. V. Dzhunushaliev, “Mass gap in scalar glueball model,” arXiv:1007.3174 \[hep-ph\]. V. Dzhunushaliev, Hadronic J. Suppl. [19]{}, 185 (2004), hep-ph/0312289. D. Antonov and D. Ebert, Eur. Phys. J. C [8]{}, 343 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9806153\]. H. Nandan, T. Anna and H. C. Chandola, Europhys. Lett. [67]{} (2004) 746; IJPAP, 47, 808 (2009). H. G. Dosch, Phys. Lett. B [190]{}, 177 (1987); H.G. Dosch and Yu.A. Simonov, Phys. Lett. B 205 (1988) 339; Yu.A. Simonov, Nucl. Phys. B 324 (1989) 67; Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 54 (1991) 115; H.G. Dosch, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 33 (1994) 121. A. I. Shoshi, F. D. Steffen, H. G. Dosch and H. J. Pirner, Phys. Rev. D [68]{} (2003) 074004 [^1]: In this connection one can note that in Ref. [@Shoshi:2002rd] on the basis of the stochastic vacuum model the chromofield distributions of static color dipoles were calculated. There it was shown that the nonperturbative stochastic vacuum model leads to confinement of the color charges in the dipole via a string of color fields.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Let $M$ be a connected smooth $G$-manifold, where $G$ is a connected compact Lie group. In this paper, we first study the relation between $\pi_1\left(M\right)$ and $\pi_1\left(M/G\right)$. Then we particularly focus on the case when $M$ is a connected Hamiltonian $G$-manifold with an equivariant moment map $\phi$. In [@L2], for [compact]{} $M$, we proved that $\pi_1\left(M\right)\cong \pi_1\left(M/G\right)\cong\pi_1\left(M_a\right)$ for all $a\in \mbox{image}(\phi)$, where $M_a$ is the symplectic quotient at $a$. We generalize and extend these results to Hamiltonian $G$-manifolds with [proper]{} moment maps. Our main results are Proposition \[M=M/G\], Theorems \[thm2\] and \[thm3\].' address: \| Institut de Mathematiques de Bourgogne\ 9 Av. Alain Savary, 21078, Dijon, France. author: - Hui Li title: 'The fundamental group of $G$-manifolds' --- [^1] Introduction ============ Let $M$ be a smooth manifold. Let a connected compact Lie group $G$ act on $M$. We call $M$ a [$G$-manifold]{}. Let $(M, \omega)$ be a symplectic manifold. Assume that a connected compact Lie group $G$ acts on $M$ with moment map $\phi: M\rightarrow \mathfrak{g}^$, where $\mathfrak{g}^$ is the dual Lie algebra of $G$. In this case, we call $(M, \omega)$ a [Hamiltonian $G$-manifold]{}. We will always assume that $\phi$ is equivariant with respect to the $G$ action, where $G$ acts on $\mathfrak{g}^$ by the coadjoint action. Take a moment map value $a$ in $\mathfrak{g}^$, the space ${\bf M_{a}}=\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)/G$ is called the [symplectic quotient]{} or the [reduced space]{} at the coadjoint orbit $G\cdot a$. If $G_a$ is the stabilizer group of $a$ under the coadjoint action, by equivariance of the moment map, ${\bf M_a}=\phi^{-1}(a)/G_a=\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)/G$. We will use the two notations interchangeably. In this paper, fundamental groups always mean the fundamental groups of topological spaces, even when we do not explicitly say so.\ For compact Hamiltonian $G$-manifold $M$, in [@L2], we had the following results. \[thm1\] Let $(M, \omega)$ be a connected compact Hamiltonian $G$-manifold with equivariant moment map $\phi$, where $G$ is a connected compact Lie group. Then, as fundamental groups of topological spaces, $\pi_1\left(M\right)\cong \pi_1\left(M/G\right)\cong\pi_1\left(M_a\right)$ for all $a\in \mbox{im}(\phi)$. If $M$ is not compact, the results in Theorem \[thm1\] may not be true as the following easy example shows. \[ex\] Consider $M=S^1\times\R$, and let $S^1$ rotate the first factor, then the moment map is the projection to the second factor $\R$. We have that $\pi_1\left(M/S^1\right)\cong\pi_1\left(M_a\right)\ncong\pi_1\left(M\right)$ for all $a\in \mbox{im}(\phi)$. The proof of Theorem \[thm1\] goes as follows (see [@L2] and [@L1]): we prove that $\pi_1\left(M\right)\cong\pi_1\left(M_a\right)$ for [some value $a$]{} which is a [boundary vertex]{} of the moment polytope. In fact, for this special value $a$, the whole set $\phi^{-1}(a)$ is fixed by $G_a\supseteq T$, where $G_a$ is the stabilizer group of $a$ under the coadjoint action, and $T$ is a maximal torus of $G$. Therefore, $\phi^{-1}(a)\approx \phi^{-1}(a)/G_a=M_a$. So $$\label{a} \pi_1\left(M\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(a)\right)\cong\pi_1\left(M_a\right).$$ Then we prove that the $\pi_1(M_a)$’s are isomorphic for all value $a$’s. Finally, we prove that $\pi_1\left(M/G\right)\cong \pi_1\left(M_a\right)$ for a particular value $a$. \[fix\] Let $(M, \omega)$ be a connected Hamiltonian $G$-manifold, where $G$ is a connected compact Lie group. Let $T$ be a maximal torus of $G$. If $M$ is [compact]{}, then there exists a connected subgroup $H$ of $G$ such that $H\supseteq T$ and that $H$ has a fixed point. Let $\phi$ be the moment map. If $G=T$ is abelian, then $\phi(M)$ is a convex polytope for compact $M$. The inverse image of each boundary vertex of the polytope is a fixed component of $T$. If $G$ is nonabelian, let $a$ be a furthest value in the image of $\phi$. In Lemma 6.14 of [@L2], although we did not state it, we proved that $\phi^{-1}(a)$ is fixed by $G_a\supseteq T$, where $G_a$ is the stabilizer group of $a$ under the coadjoint action. If $M$ is not compact, as we saw in Example \[ex\], there may not be isotropy group which contains a maximal torus of $G$; and, for this example, $\pi_1\left(M\right)\ncong\pi_1\left(M/G\right)$. While for compact $M$, Lemma \[fix\] holds, and Theorem \[thm1\] says that $\pi_1\left(M\right)\cong\pi_1\left(M/G\right)$.\ Now, we only assume that $M$ is a connected $G$-manifold with moment map $\phi$. The moment map $\phi$ is [proper]{} if the inverse image under $\phi$ of each compact set is compact. For a noncompact Hamiltonian $G$-manifold $M$ with proper moment map $\phi$, $\phi(M)\cap\mathfrak t^_+$ is a convex polyhedral set (Theorem \[convexity\]), where $\mathfrak t^_+$ is a closed positive Weyl chamber. But, $\phi(M)$ may not be compact and hence there may not be boundary vertex on $\phi(M)\cap\mathfrak t^_+$. We will take a different approach from that of compact $M$ to study $\pi_1(M)$. First, we study $\pi_1(M)$ for general $G$-manifolds. Let a connected compact Lie group $G$ act on a connected smooth manifold $M$. Let $H$ be a subgroup of $G$ which is the stabilizer of some point in $M$. Let $(H)$ be the subgroups of $G$ conjugate to $H$. Denote $M_{(H)}=\{ x\in M\, \|\, G_x\in (H)\}$. The set $M_{(H)}$ is a submanifold of $M$, and we call it the [$(H)$-orbit type]{} or the [$(H)$-isotropy type]{}. There is a [connected open dense]{} orbit type in $M$, which is called the [principal orbit type]{}. We first have the following result. \[M=M/G\] Let $G$ act on a connected smooth manifold $M$, where $G$ is a connected compact Lie group. Assume that each nonprincipal orbit type has codimension at least $2$, and that there exists an orbit which is simply connected. Then $$\pi_1(M)\cong\pi_1\left(M/G\right).$$ If we assume that big enough isotropy group $H\supseteq T$ exists for the $G$ action, then there exists a simply connected orbit (see Lemma \[G/T\]). Now, let us consider Hamiltonian $G$-manifolds. Our next main result is Theorem \[thm2\], where (A) holds without assuming the moment map is proper, and we assume the moment map is proper in (B). \[thm2\] Let $(M, \omega)$ be a connected Hamiltonian $G$-manifold with equivariant moment map $\phi$, where $G$ is a connected compact Lie group. Let $T$ be a maximal torus of $G$. Assume that there is a connected subgroup $H$ of $G$ such that $H\supseteq T$ and that $H$ has a fixed point. Then - $\pi_1\left(M\right)\cong\pi_1\left(M/G\right)\cong\pi_1\left(M/T\right)\cong\pi_1\left(M/H\right).$ - Let $x$ be the $H$ fixed point. If $\phi$ is proper, and if $\phi(x)=a$, then $$\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(a)\right)\cong\pi_1\left(M_a\right).$$ In Theorem \[thm2\], if there is a subgroup $H$ such that $H\supseteq T$ has a fixed point, then the identity component of $H$ has a fixed point. So we can always take connected $H$. In fact, all the isomorphisms except $\pi_1\left(M\right)\cong\pi_1\left(M/H\right)$ do not need $H$ to be connected. We take a connected group to make $M$ to be a Hamiltonian $H$-manifold for the connected group $H$. Next, we observe that, the fact $\pi_1\left(M/G\right)\cong \pi_1\left(M_a\right)$ for all $a\in\mbox{im}(\phi)$ always holds for Hamiltonian $G$-manifolds with proper equivariant moment maps. This is a straightforward generalization of the compact case. See Section \[sectionM/G\] for the proof. We observe that this result does not depend on whether the action has big enough isotropy groups. In our next main result Theorem \[thm3\] below, we first state this generalization in (A). In (B), we made a step further in generalizing (A). For noncompact $M$, we observed that there may not be isotropy groups which contain a maximal torus of $G$. If we take $\Gh$ to be a connected subgroup of $G$ such that up to finitely many elements, every isotropy group is a subgroup of $\Gh$, we can express $\pi_1\left(M/\Gh\right)$ in terms of $\pi_1$ of the “partial” reductions of the $G$-moment map by $\Gh$. \[thm3\] Let $(M, \omega)$ be a connected Hamiltonian $G$-manifold with a proper equivariant moment map $\phi$, where $G$ is a connected compact Lie group. - $\pi_1\left(M/G\right)\cong\pi_1\left(M_a\right)$ for all $a\in \mbox{im}(\phi).$ - More generally, let $\Gh$ be any connected subgroup of $G$ such that up to finitely many elements, every isotropy group is a subgroup of $\Gh$. Then, $\pi_1\left(M/\Gh\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)/\Gh\right)$ for all $a\in\mbox{im}(\phi).$ A special case is when $\mbox{im} (\phi)$ consists of regular values. In this case, all the isotropy groups are finite. Taking $\Gh=1$ in Theorem \[thm3\], we obtain $\pi_1(M)\cong\pi_1(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a))$ for all $a\in \mbox{im}(\phi)$. We have the following lemma, where the proof of the fact $\pi_1(M)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(a)\right)$ for all $a\in \mbox{im}(\phi)$ is given below. \[M-Gregular\] Let $(M, \omega)$ be a connected Hamiltonian $G$-manifold with a proper equivariant moment map $\phi$, where $G$ is a connected compact Lie group. Assume that $\mbox{image} (\phi)$ consists of regular values. Then, $$\pi_1(M)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(a)\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)\right) \quad\mbox{for all} \quad a\in \mbox{im}(\phi).$$ \[Proof of $\pi_1(M)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(a)\right)$ for all $a\in \mbox{im}(\phi)$.\] If $\mbox{im}(\phi)$ consists of regular values, then $\phi$ is a proper submersion from $M$ onto $\mbox{im}(\phi)\subset\mathfrak{g}^$. By Ehresmann’s lemma, $\phi$ gives a fibration from $M$ onto $\mbox{im}(\phi)$ (which is open in $\mathfrak{g}^$) with connected fiber ([@K] or [@LMTW]) diffeomorphic to $\phi^{-1}(a)$ for [any]{} $a\in \mbox{im}(\phi)$. By the homotopy exact sequence for fibrations, we have $\pi_1(M)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(a)\right)$. We have the following corollary of Theorems \[thm2\] and \[thm3\]. It states the important contribution to $\pi_1\left(M\right)$ of the level sets which contain fixed points of big enough subgroups of $G$. In particular, this is a generalization of the fact $\pi_1\left(M\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\mbox{minimum}\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\mbox{maximum}\right)$ for a compact Hamiltonian $S^1$-manifold $M$, where minimum and maximum are those of the real valued moment map for the circle action ([@L1]); and, more generally, it is a generalization of $\pi_1\left(M\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(a)\right)$ as in (\[a\]) for some boundary vertices of the moment polytope for compact Hamiltonian $G$-manifold $M$. This corollary and (B) of Theorem \[thm2\] together generalize (\[a\]), even though here $H$ may not fix the whole set $\phi^{-1}(a)$. \[M+level\] Let $(M, \omega)$ be a connected Hamiltonian $G$-manifold with a proper equivariant moment map $\phi$, where $G$ is a connected compact Lie group. Let $T$ be a maximal torus of $G$. Assume that there is a connected subgroup $H$ of $G$ such that $H\supseteq T$ and that $H$ has a fixed point $x$, and $\phi(x)=a$. Then $$\pi_1\left(M\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(a)\right).$$ For $S^1$-manifolds with proper moment maps, in [@GSD], using Morse theory, Godinho and Sousa-Dias proved that when $S^1$ does not have fixed points, $\pi_1(M)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(a)\right)$ for all $a\in\mbox{im}(\phi)$; and, when $S^1$ has a fixed point, $\pi_1(M)\cong\pi_1\left(M_a\right)$ for all $a\in\mbox{im}(\phi)$. This result is a partial result of our Theorems \[thm2\] and \[thm3\] for the case $G=S^1$. Preliminaries on $G$-manifolds and on Hamiltonian $G$-manifolds =============================================================== In this section, we review some theorems on Hamiltonian $G$-manifolds which constitute the main tools in our proofs, and we will explain how we use them. We review the notion of stratified spaces which are essential for our proof of Theorem \[thm3\] since $M/G$ and $M_a$ are in general stratified spaces. \[convexity\] ([@AT], [@GS0], [@K] and [@LMTW]) Let $(M, \omega)$ be a connected Hamiltonian $G$-manifold with proper moment map $\phi$, where $G$ is a connected compact Lie group. Let $\mathfrak{t}_+^$ be a fixed closed positive Weyl chamber of $\mathfrak{g}^$. Then 1. For each coadjoint orbit $\mathcal{O}$ in the image of $\phi$, $\phi^{-1}(\mathcal{O})$ is connected. 2. The image $\phi(M)\cap\mathfrak{t}_+^$ is a convex polyhedral set. If $G=T$ is abelian, then $\phi(M)$ is a convex polyhedral set; it consists of [faces]{} with different dimensions. A connected open face is called a [chamber]{}. By quotienting out a subtorus which acts trivially, we can assume that the action is effective, and hence there is an open face. \[retract\] ([@W] or [@Ler]) Let $(M, \omega)$ be a connected Hamiltonian $G$-manifold with proper moment map $\phi$, where $G$ is a connected compact Lie group. Choose a $G$-invariant metric on $M$. Assume that $0\in\mbox{im}(\phi)$. Then there exists a $G$-invariant open neighborhood $U\subset\mathfrak g^$ of $0$ such that the gradient flow of the function $-\\|\phi\\|^2$ induces a $G$-equivariant deformation retraction from $\phi^{-1}(U)$ to $\phi^{-1}(0)$. Local normal form theorem ------------------------- \[form\] (Local normal form) ([@M], [@GS1]) Let $(M, \omega)$ be a symplectic manifold with a Hamiltonian connected compact Lie group $G$ action. Let $p\in M$, and assume that the orbit $G\cdot p$ is isotropic. Let $H$ be the isotropy subgroup of $p$. Then a neighborhood of the orbit $G\cdot p$ in $M$ is equivariantly symplectomorphic to $G\times_H(\mathfrak{h}^{\circ}\times V)$, where $\mathfrak{h}^{\circ}$ is the annihilator of $\mathfrak{h}=$Lie$(H)$ in $\mathfrak g^$ on which $H$ acts by the coadjoint action, and $V$ is a complex vector space on which $H$ acts linearly and symplectically. The $G$ action on this local model is $g_1\cdot [g, a, v]=[g_1g, a, v]$, and the moment map on this local model is $\phi([g, a, v])=Ad^(g)(\phi(p)+a+\psi(v))$, where $\psi(v)$ is the moment map for the $H$ action on $V$. Cross section theorem --------------------- \[def 4.1\] Suppose that a group $G$ acts on a manifold $M$. Given a point $m$ in $M$ with isotropy group $G_m$, a submanifold $U_m\subset M$ containing $m$ is a [slice at m]{} if $U_m$ is $G_m$-invariant, $G\cdot U_m$ is a neighborhood of $m$, and the map $$G\times_{G_m}U_m\rightarrow G\cdot U_m, \qquad [g, u]\longmapsto g\cdot u\quad\mbox{is an isomorphism}.$$ For instance, consider the co-adjoint action of $G=SU(2)$ or $SO(3)$ on $\mathbb{R}^3=$Lie$(G)$. For $a\in \mathbb{R}^3, a\neq 0$, there is a unique ray $I_a$ passing through $0$ and $a$; the open ray $I_a^{\circ}=I_a-0$ is a slice at $a$. If $a=0$, then a slice at $0$ is $\mathbb{R}^3$. More generally, consider the co-adjoint action of a connected compact Lie group $G$ on $\mathfrak g^$. Fix a closed positive Weyl chamber $\mathfrak t_+^$, without loss of generality, take $a\in\mathfrak t_+^$. Let $\tau\subset\mathfrak t_+^$ be the open face of $\mathfrak t_+^$ containing $a$ and let $G_a$ be the isotropy group of $a$. Since all the points on $\tau$ have the same isotropy group, we also use $G_{\tau}$ to denote $G_a$. Then the natural slice at $a$ is $U_a=G_a\cdot\{b\in\mathfrak t_+^* \,\|\,G_b\subset G_a\}=G_a\cdot\bigcup_{\tau\subset\bar{\tau'}}\tau'$, and it is an open subset of $\mathfrak g_{\tau}^=\mathfrak g_a^$.\ The following cross section theorem is due to Guillemin and Sternberg. (Theorem 26.7 in [@GS]; for the following version, see Corollary 2.3.6 in [@GLS].) \[cross\] (cross section). Let $(M, \omega)$ be a symplectic manifold with a moment map $\phi: M\rightarrow \mathfrak{g}^$ arising from an action of a compact connected Lie group $G$. Let $a$ be a point in $\mathfrak{g}^$ and let $U_a$ be the natural slice at $a$. Then the [cross section]{} $R=\phi^{-1}(U_a)$ is a $G_a$-invariant symplectic submanifold of $M$, where $G_a$ is the isotropy group of $a$. Furthermore, the restriction $\phi\|_R$ is a moment map for the action of $G_a$ on $R$. The highest dimensional face $\tau^P$ of $\mathfrak{t}_+^$ which contains values of $\phi$ is called the [principal face]{}. Let $U_{\tau^P}$ be the slice at $\tau^P$. The cross section $\phi^{-1}(U_{\tau^P})$ is called the [principal cross section]{}. The maximal torus of $G$ acts on the principal cross section (but not necessarily effectively, see Theorem 3.1 in [@LMTW]).\ We will use the cross section theorem in the following two ways: - If $a\in\mbox{im}(\phi)\cap\tau$ for some face $\tau\subset\mathfrak t^_+$, then $\tau$ lies on the central dual Lie algebra of $G_a$, so the $G_a$-orbits in $\phi^{-1}(a)$ are isotropic orbits; then we can use the local normal form theorem in the cross section $R$ to describe a neighborhood of a $G_a$-orbit. - Assume that the moment map $\phi$ is proper. Fix a $G$-invariant Riemannian metric on $M$. Assume that $a\in\mbox{im}(\phi)\cap\tau$. By Theorem \[retract\], there exists a $G_a$-invariant neighborhood of $\phi^{-1}(a)$ in $R$ which $G_a$-equivariantly deformation retracts to $\phi^{-1}(a)$. By equivariance of $\phi$, there exists a $G$-invariant neighborhood $\mathcal N$ of $\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)$ in $M$ which $G$-equivariantly deformation retracts to $\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)$. Stratified space and link of a point ------------------------------------ Let $G$, a connected compact Lie group, act on a smooth manifold $M$, the quotient space $M/G$ is a stratified space. If $(M, \omega)$ is a symplectic manifold and the $G$ action is Hamiltonian, then the symplectic quotients are stratified spaces ([@SL]). Let $X$ be a Hausdorff and paracompact topological space and let $\mathcal J$ be a partially ordered set with order relation denoted by $\leq$. A $\mathcal J$-decomposition of $X$ is a locally finite collection of disjoint, locally closed manifolds $S_i\subset X$ (one for each $i\in\mathcal J$) called pieces such that $X=\cup_{i\in\mathcal J}S_i$, and that $S_i\cap\bar{S_j}\neq\emptyset\Leftrightarrow S_i\subset\bar{S_j}\Leftrightarrow i\leq j$. We call the space $X$ a $\mathcal J$- [decomposed space]{}. A stratified space is defined recursively as follows. A decomposed space $X$ is called a [stratified space]{} if the pieces of $X$, called strata, satisfy the following condition: Given a point $x$ in a piece $S$ (connected), there exists an open neighborhood $\tilde{U}$ of $x$ in $X$, an open ball $B$ around $x$ in $S$, a compact stratified space $L$, called the [link of x]{}, and a homeomorphism $$\varphi: B\times \overset{\circ}{C}L\rightarrow \tilde{U}$$ that preserves the decompositions. Here, $\overset{\circ}{C}L$ is the space obtained by collapsing the boundary $L\times {0}$ of the half-open cylinder $L\times [0, \infty)$ to a point. We also call the link of $x$ the [link of S]{}. For a smooth manifold $M$, if $N$ is a closed submanifold of $M$, by the tubular neighborhood theorem, a neighborhood of $N$ in $M$ is diffeomorphic to a neighborhood of the normal bundle $E$ of $N$ in $M$. If the fiber sphere of the sphere bundle $S(E)$ of $N$ is connected and simply connected, i.e., if the codimension of $N$ is bigger than or equal to $3$, then $\pi_1(M)\cong\pi_1(M-N)$. For a stratified space $X$, the [link]{} of a stratum $S$ plays the role of the fiber sphere of the sphere bundle of a submanifold in a smooth manifold. Using the Van-Kampen theorem, we can prove the following lemma. May see Lemma 2.3 in [@L2] for detail. \[remove:str\] Let $X$ be a stratified space. Let $S$ be a connected closed stratum of $X$ whose link is connected and simply connected. Then $\pi_1(X)\cong\pi_1\left(X- S\right)$. Proof of Proposition \[M=M/G\] ============================== \[bredon\] (Corollary 6.3 in [@Br]) If $X$ is an arcwise connected $G$-space, $G$ compact Lie, and if there is an orbit which is connected, then the fundamental group of $X$ maps onto that of $X/G$. Let $M$ be a connected smooth $G$-manifold, where $G$ is a connected compact Lie group. In the Introduction, we defined the $(H)$-orbit type $M_{(H)}$ for a stabilizer group $H$ and we defined the principal orbit type. The fact is that all other orbit types are in the closure of the principal orbit type. More generally, if $M_{(H)}\subset \bar M_{(H')}$, then $(H')\subset (H)$. The quotient $M/G$ is a stratified space whose strata are the $M_{(H)}/G$’s. The manifold $M_{(H)}/G$ is called the [$(H)$-stratum]{} of $M/G$. \[homotopic\] Let $G$ act on a connected smooth manifold $M$, where $G$ is a connected compact Lie group. Let $M_{(H)}$ be a closed connected orbit type which has codimension at least $2$ in $M$. Then we have a surjection $$\pi_1\left(M- M_{(H)}\right)\twoheadrightarrow\pi_1\left(M\right).$$ Since the submanifold $M_{(H)}$ has codimension at least $2$ in $M$, its sphere bundle $S\left(M_{(H)}\right)$ (in particular the fiber) is connected, by the homotopy exact sequence for the fibration $S\left(M_{(H)}\right)\to M_{(H)}$, we have a surjection $$\pi_1\left(S\left(M_{(H)}\right)\right)\twoheadrightarrow \pi_1\left(M_{(H)}\right).$$ Take the open cover $\{M- M_{(H)}, N\left(M_{(H)}\right) \}$ of $M$, where $N\left(M_{(H)}\right)$ is a small open neighborhood of $M_{(H)}$. By the Van-Kampen theorem, we have a surjection $$\pi_1\left(M- M_{(H)}\right)\twoheadrightarrow \pi_1\left(M\right).$$ Let $G$ act on a connected smooth manifold $M$, where $G$ is a connected compact Lie group. Assume that [each]{} nonprincipal orbit type has codimension at least $2$ in $M$. Using Lemma \[homotopic\] inductively, in a suitable order, we can continue to throw away certain orbit types to get a surjection. For example, if $\mathcal M_{(H)}$ is the submanifold which consists of those orbit types whose closures contain $M_{(H)}$, where $M_{(H)}$ is a closed connected orbit type, then $$\pi_1\left(\mathcal M_{(H)}\right)\twoheadrightarrow\pi_1\left(M\right);$$ and, if $M_P$ is the principal orbit type, then we have a surjection $$\pi_1\left(M_P\right)\twoheadrightarrow \pi_1\left(M\right).$$ \[Proof of Proposition \[M=M/G\]\] Since $G$ is connected, by Lemma \[bredon\], we have a surjection $$\pi_1(M)\twoheadrightarrow\pi_1\left(M/G\right).$$ Let $G\cdot x$ be the simply connected orbit. Let $q\colon M\to M/G$ be the quotient map and let $\bar x=q(x)$. Let $\alpha$ be a loop in $M/G$ based at $\bar x$ such that $[\alpha]=1\in\pi_1\left(M/G; \bar x\right)$. Let $\Tilde \alpha$ be a loop in $M$ based at $x$ which is any lift of $\alpha$. We need to show that $[\Tilde\alpha]=1\in\pi_1\left(M; x\right)$. First note that in each orbit type, the orbits are diffeomorphic to each other, so we can use this diffeomorphism to deform paths or loops in the same orbit type. Secondly, for a nonprincipal orbit type, since its codimension in $M$ is at least $2$, by Lemma \[homotopic\], we can push paths or loops out of this nonprincipal orbit type to its sphere bundle. For the loop $\Tilde\alpha$, we need to deform it through a family of base point preserving loops to the constant loop $x$. Since $[\alpha]=1\in \pi_1\left(M/G; \bar x\right)$, we have a continuous family of paths from each point of $\alpha$ to $\bar x$. In $M$, we follow this continuous family of paths between the orbits which intersect $\Tilde\alpha$ and the orbit $G\cdot x$, and we use the above two types of deformation to deform $\Tilde\alpha$ to a loop $\Tilde\alpha'$ which lies in the orbit $G\cdot x$. Since $\pi_1\left(G\cdot x\right)=1$, $[\Tilde\alpha]=[\Tilde\alpha']=1\in \pi_1\left(M; x\right)$. Using Proposition \[M=M/G\] on a subspace $\mathcal M_{(H)}$ as follows, we have Let $G$, a connected compact Lie group, act on a connected smooth manifold $M$. Let $M_{(H)}$ be a connected orbit type whose orbits are simply connected. Let $\mathcal M_{(H)}$ be the submanifold which consists of those orbit types whose closures contain $M_{(H)}$. Assume that each nonprincipal orbit type in $\mathcal M_{(H)}$ has codimension at least $2$ in $\mathcal M_{(H)}$. Then $$\pi_1\left(\mathcal M_{(H)}\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\mathcal M_{(H)}/G \right).$$ Proof of Theorem \[thm2\] ========================= \[codim\] Let $M$ be a connected Hamiltonian $G$-manifold, where $G$ is a connected compact Lie group. Then, each nonprincipal orbit type has codimension at least $2$. First assume that $G=T$ is abelian. By the local normal form theorem, a neighborhood of an orbit with isotropy group $H$ is isomorphic to $A=T\times_H (\mathfrak h^{\circ}\times V)=T\times_H (\mathfrak h^{\circ}\times W\times V^H)$, where $V^H$ is the subspace of $V$ fixed by $H$ and $W$ is its complementary subspace in $V$. Note that $A_{H}=T\times_H (\mathfrak h^{\circ}\times V^H)$. So if $H$ is not the principal stabilizer, then $W$ is a nontrivial complex vector space on which $H$ acts nontrivially; so $M_{H}$ has codimension at least $2$. Now assume that $G$ is nonabelian. Fix an isotropy type $(H)$. We may assume that the image of the orbit type $M_{(H)}$ intersects a face $\tau$ of $\mathfrak t^_+$ (then $H\subset G_{\tau}$). By equivariance of the moment map, we only need to consider this orbit type in the cross section $R$ on which $G_{\tau}$ acts. By the local normal form theorem, a neighborhood of an isotropic orbit in $R$ with stabilizer $(H)$ is isomorphic to $A=G_{\tau}\times_H (\mathfrak h^{\circ}\times V)=G_{\tau}\times_H (\mathfrak h^{\circ}\times W\times V^H)$, where $\mathfrak h^{\circ}$ is the annihilator of $\mathfrak h=$Lie$(H)$ in $\mathfrak g^_{\tau}$. Then $A_{(H)}=G_{\tau}\times_H (\R^m\times V^H)$, where $\R^m$ is a subspace of $\mathfrak h^{\circ}$ fixed by $H$. Let $\R^l$ be the complementary subspace of $\R^m$ in $\mathfrak h^{\circ}$. If $(H)$ is not the principal stabilizer type, then $\R^l\oplus W\neq\emptyset$. Based on Proposition 6.3 in [@L2] (one may refer to the proof of Lemma 6.19 in [@L2] for all possible $H$), $\dim(\R^l\oplus W)\geq 2$. \[G/T\] Let $G$ be a connected compact Lie group, and let $T$ be a maximal torus of $G$. Let $H$ be a subgroup of $G$ such that $T\subseteq H$. Then $\pi_1\left(G/H\right)=1$. Since we have a surjection $$\pi_1(T)\twoheadrightarrow\pi_1(G)\quad\mbox{and the inclusions}$$ $$T\overset{\iota}\hookrightarrow H\overset{\iota}\hookrightarrow G,$$ we have a surjection $$\pi_1(H)\twoheadrightarrow\pi_1(G).$$ The claim follows from the homotopy exact sequence for the fibration $H\subset G\to G/H$: $$\cdots \to\pi_1(H)\to \pi_1(G)\to\pi_1\left(G/H\right)\to\cdots .$$ \[levelset\] Let $M$ be a connected Hamiltonian $G$-manifold with proper equivariant moment map $\phi$, where $G$ is a connected compact Lie group. Let $T$ be a maximal torus of $G$. Assume that there is a subgroup $H$ of $G$ such that $H\supseteq T$ and that $H$ has a fixed point $x$, and $\phi(x)=a$. Then $$\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(a)\right)\cong\pi_1\left(M_a \right).$$ Since $\phi$ is proper, $\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)$ and $\phi^{-1}(a)$ are connected by Theorem \[convexity\]; and, by definition of properness, $\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)$ and $\phi^{-1}(a)$ are also compact. Hence, $M_a$ is connected and compact. Consider the map $$\label{level} \pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)\right)\to\pi_1\left(M_a \right).$$ Since $G$ is connected and it acts on $\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)$, by Lemma \[bredon\], (\[level\]) is onto. Now we show that (\[level\]) is injective. Let $\mathcal N$ be an open invariant neighborhood of $\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)$ in $M$ which equivariantly deformation retracts to $\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)$. Since the orbit $G\cdot x\approx G/H$, by Lemma \[G/T\], $\pi_1\left(G\cdot x\right)=1$. By Lemma \[codim\], each nonprincipal orbit type in $\mathcal N$ has codimension at least $2$. Take $[\alpha]=1\in\pi_1\left(M_a\right)$. Then $[\alpha]=1\in\pi_1\left(\mathcal N/G\right)$. Let $\Tilde \alpha\subset\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)$ be a lifted loop of $\alpha$. By Proposition \[M=M/G\], $[\Tilde \alpha]=1\in\pi_1\left(\mathcal N\right)$. Since $\pi_1\left(\mathcal N\right)=\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)\right)$, $[\Tilde \alpha]=1\in\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)\right)$. Now, we prove that $\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(a)\right)\cong\pi_1\left(M_a \right)$. Assume $a\in\tau\subset\mathfrak t^_+$. Since $H$ fixes $x$, and since $\phi(g\cdot x)=Ad^(g)\cdot\phi(x)$, $H\subset G_a$. Consider the $G_a$ action on the cross section $R^{\tau}$ and on $\phi^{-1}(a)$. Take a $G_a$-invariant open neighborhood of $\phi^{-1}(a)$ in $R^{\tau}$ which $G_a$- equivariantly deformation retracts to $\phi^{-1}(a)$ and use the same argument as above. \[Proof of Theorem \[thm2\]\] (A). Let $K$ be $G$, $T$ or $H$. Then $K$ is connected and it acts on $M$. Since $M$ is a Hamiltonian $G$-manifold, it is a Hamiltonian $K$-manifold for any $K$. Moreover, the $K$ action has an orbit which is simply connected by Lemma \[G/T\]. Then $\pi_1\left(M\right)\cong\pi_1\left(M/K\right)$ follows from Lemmas \[bredon\], \[codim\] and Proposition \[M=M/G\]. \(B) is Proposition \[levelset\]. Proof of (A) of Theorem \[thm3\] {#sectionM/G} ================================ The method of removing and deforming used in [@L2] to prove the same fact for compact manifold $M$ applies to this case. Hamiltonian action plays crucial roles in the removing process — we have the local normal form theorem and the cross section theorem. The [properness of $\phi$]{} or the [compactness of $M$]{} is used to control the gradient flow of suitable components of $\phi$ or of $\\|\phi\\|^2$ — we use these flows to do [local]{} deformation retractions (Theorem \[retract\]). We will state the important lemmas which lead to the results and we will emphasize the key points which make these lemmas hold. The corresponding proofs in [@L2] apply or apply with slight modifications. \[a’s\] (see Lemma 3.6 in [@L2]) Let $(M, \omega)$ be a connected Hamiltonian $T$- manifold with proper moment map $\phi$, where $T$ is a connected compact torus. Then, for all value $a$’s in one connected chamber of im$(\phi)$, $\pi_1(M_a)$’s are isomorphic. For the method of removing, the results in Lemmas \[Tlink0\] and \[Glink0\] below are the key reasons for Lemmas 7.20, 3.8 and 6.19 in [@L2] to hold. Lemmas 7.20, 3.8 and 6.19 in [@L2] were stated in emphasizing the consequences of these results. Here and in Lemmas \[Tlinksame\] and \[Glinksame\], we are particularly emphasizing these points themselves. \[Tlink0\] (see Lemmas 7.20 and 3.8 in [@L2]) Let $M$ be a connected Hamiltonian $T$-manifold with proper moment map $\phi$, where $T$ is a connected compact torus. Let $\mathcal F$ be a singular face of im$(\phi)$. Let $\bar U$ be the closure of one open connected chamber such that $\mathcal F \subset\bar U$. - For each [nonprincipal isotropy type]{} $M_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(\mathcal F)$, the link of $\left(M_{(H)}\cap \phi^{-1}(\mathcal F)\right)/T$ in $M/T$ is connected and simply connected. - For each isotropy type $M_{(H)}\cap \,\phi^{-1}(\mathcal F)$, the link of $\left(M_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(\mathcal F)\right)/T$ in $\phi^{-1}(\bar U)/T$ is connected and simply connected. We can use (2) of Lemma \[Tlink0\] to prove Lemma \[a=c\]. The idea is to use Lemma \[remove:str\] and Theorem \[retract\]. We refer to the proof of Lemma 3.8 in [@L2]. \[a=c\] Let $(M, \omega)$ be a connected Hamiltonian $T$-manifold with proper moment map $\phi$, where $T$ is a connected compact torus. Let $c$ be a value on a singular face of im$(\phi)$, and let $a$ be a regular value very near $c$. Then $\pi_1(M_c)\cong\pi_1(M_a)$. \[G-a’s\](see Lemma 6.15 in [@L2]) Let $(M, \omega)$ be a connected Hamiltonian $G$-manifold with proper moment map $\phi$, where $G$ is a connected compact non-abelian Lie group. Let $\tau^P\subset\mathfrak t^_+$ be the principal face. Then, for all value $a$’s on $\tau^P$, $\pi_1(M_a)$’s are isomorphic. \[Glink0\] (see Lemma 6.19 in [@L2]) Let $M$ be a connected Hamiltonian $G$-manifold with proper moment map $\phi$, where $G$ is a connected compact non-abelian Lie group. Let $C$ be the central face of $\mathfrak t^_+$, and assume that $C\cap\mbox{im}(\phi)\neq \emptyset$ and that $C$ is not the only face of $\mathfrak t^_+$ which contains $\mbox{im}(\phi)$. Then, for each isotropy type $M_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(C)$, the link of $\left(M_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(C)\right)/G$ in $M/G$ is connected and simply connected. We can use Lemma \[Glink0\] to prove Lemma \[G-a=c\] below. See the proof of Lemma 6.16 in [@L2]. \[G-a=c\] Let $(M, \omega)$ be a connected Hamiltonian $G$-manifold with proper moment map $\phi$, where $G$ is a connected compact non-abelian Lie group. Let $a$ be a generic value on the principal face $\tau^P$ of $\mathfrak t^_+$, and let $c$ be a value which is not on $\tau^P$. Then $\pi_1(M_c)\cong\pi_1(M_a)$. Lemmas \[a’s\], \[a=c\], \[G-a’s\] and \[G-a=c\] imply Proposition \[M\_a\]. \[M\_a\] Let $(M, \omega)$ be a connected Hamiltonian $G$-manifold with proper moment map $\phi$, where $G$ is a connected compact Lie group. Then, $\pi_1(M_a)$’s are isomorphic for all $a\in \mbox{im}(\phi)$. Similar to the proof of Theorem 1.6 in [@L2], we can use Lemmas \[Tlink0\] and \[Glink0\] to prove Proposition \[M/G\] which is (A) of Theorem \[thm3\]. \[M/G\] Let $(M, \omega)$ be a connected Hamiltonian $G$-manifold with proper moment map $\phi$, where $G$ is a connected compact Lie group. Then, $\pi_1(M/G)\cong\pi_1(M_a)$ for all $a\in \mbox{im}(\phi)$. Proof of (B) of Theorem \[thm3\] for $G=T$ ========================================== \[Tisom\] Let $(M, \omega)$ be a connected Hamiltonian $T$-manifold with proper moment map $\phi$, where $T$ is a connected compact torus. Let $T'\subset T$ be a connected subgroup. Then, for all values $a$’s in one connected chamber of im$(\phi)$, $\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(a)/T'\right)$’s are isomorphic. This is because for all values $a$’s in one connected chamber of im$(\phi)$, $\phi^{-1}(a)$’s are $T$-equivariantly diffeomorphic. \[Tlinksame\] Assume the assumptions of Theorem \[thm3\] hold, where $G=T$ is a connected compact torus. Let $\Th\subset T$ be a connected subgroup such that up to a finite subgroup, every isotropy group is a subgroup of $\Th$. Let $\mathcal F$ be a singular face on im$(\phi)$. Let $\bar U$ be the closure of one open connected chamber $U$ such that $\mathcal F \subset\bar U$. Let $N$ be $M$ or be $\phi^{-1}(\bar U)$. For each isotropy type $M_{H}\cap\phi^{-1}(\mathcal F)$, let $L_H$ be the link of $\left(M_{H}\cap\phi^{-1}(\mathcal F)\right)/T$ in $N/T$, and let $L'_H$ be the link of $\left(M_{H}\cap\phi^{-1}(\mathcal F)\right)/\Th$ in $N/\Th$. - If $H \subseteq \Th$, then $L_H=L'_H$. - If $H\subseteq \Th$ except for a finite subgroup $\Gamma$ of $H$, then $L_H=L'_H/\Gamma$, and, $L_H$ and $L'_H$ are homeomorphic. Let us prove the claims for $N=M$. Let $p\in M$ be a point with stabilizer $H$ such that $\phi(T\cdot p)\in\mathcal F$. By the local normal form theorem (Theorem \[form\]), a neighborhood of the (isotropic) orbit $T\cdot p$ in $M$ is isomorphic to $A=T\times_H(\mathfrak h^{\circ}\times V)=T\times_H(\mathfrak h^{\circ}\times W\times V^H)$, where $\mathfrak h=$Lie$(H)$, $\mathfrak h^{\circ}$ is its annihilator in $\mathfrak t^$, $V^H$ is the subspace of $V$ fixed by $H$ and $W$ is such that $V=W\oplus V^H$. The moment map $\phi$ on $A$ is $\phi ([t, a, w, v])=\phi(p)+ a + \psi(w)$, where $\psi$ is the moment map of the $H$ action on $W$. The isotropy type $A_H\cap\phi^{-1}(\mathcal F)=T\times_H(\R^m\times 0\times V^H)$, where $\R^m\subset\mathfrak h^{\circ}$ is a subspace which is mapped to $\mathcal F$. Let $\R^l$ be the subspace such that $\mathfrak h^{\circ}=\R^l\oplus\R^m$ (note that $H$ acts on $\mathfrak h^{\circ}$ by the trivial coadjoint action). We see that $\left(A_H\cap\phi^{-1}(\mathcal F)\right)/T=\R^m\times 0\times V^H$, and $A/T=\mathfrak h^{\circ}\times V^H\times W/H$. So $L_H=S(\R^l\times W)/H$. Here, $S(\R^l\times W)$ denotes a sphere of the vector space $\R^l\times W$. If $H\subseteq \Th$, then $\left(A_H\cap\phi^{-1}(\mathcal F)\right)/\Th=T/\Th\times\R^m\times 0\times V^H$, and $A/\Th=T/\Th\times\mathfrak h^{\circ}\times V^H\times W/H$. So $L'_H=S(\R^l\times W)/H$. If $H\subseteq \Th$ except for a finite subgroup $\Gamma$, then $\left(A_H\cap\phi^{-1}(\mathcal F)\right)/\Th =T/\Th\times_H\left(\R^m\times 0\times V^H\right)=T/\Th\times_{\Gamma}\left(\R^m\times V^H\right)$, and $A/\Th = T/\Th\times_H \left(\mathfrak h^{\circ}\times V^H\times W\right)=(T/\Th\times\R^m\times V^H)\times_{\Gamma}\left((\R^l\times W)/(H\cap \Th)\right)$. So $L'_H=S(\R^l\times W)/(H\cap \Th)$. Therefore, $L_H=L'_H/\Gamma=S(\R^l\times W)/(H\cap \Th\times\Gamma)$. Since $\Gamma$ acts on $\R^l$ trivially and it acts on $W$ as a subgroup of $T=(S^1)^m$ (for some $m$), we easily see that $L_H$ and $L'_H$ are homeomorphic. We can similarly prove the claims for $\bar U$. We refer to the proof of Lemma 3.8 in [@L2] for the computation of $L_H$. Then one can compute $L'_H$ as above. \[Tlink\] Assume the assumptions of Theorem \[thm3\] hold, where $G=T$ is a connected compact torus. Let $\Th\subset T$ be a connected subgroup such that up to a finite subgroup, every isotropy group is a subgroup of $\Th$. Let $\mathcal F$ be a singular face on im$(\phi)$. Let $\bar U$ be the closure of one open connected chamber $U$ such that $\mathcal F \subset\bar U$. - For each [nonprincipal isotropy type]{} $M_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(\mathcal F)$, the link of $\left(M_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(\mathcal F)\right)/\Th$ in $M/\Th$ is connected and simply connected. - For each isotropy type $M_{(H)}\cap\,\phi^{-1}(\mathcal F)$, the link of $\left(M_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(\mathcal F)\right)/\Th$ in $\phi^{-1}(\bar U)/\Th$ is connected and simply connected. This follows from Lemmas \[Tlink0\] and \[Tlinksame\]. \[T-remove\] Assume the assumptions of Theorem \[thm3\] hold, where $G=T$ is a connected compact torus. Let $\Th\subset T$ be a connected subgroup such that up to a finite subgroup, every isotropy group is a subgroup of $\Th$. Let $c$ be a singular value, and let $a$ be a regular value very near $c$. Let $O$ be a small open neighborhood of $c$ containing $a$. Let $O'$ be the intersection of $O$ with the connected open chamber containing $a$, and let $\bar{O'}$ be its closure in $O$. Let $B$ be the set of values in $\bar{O'}$ but not in $O'$. Then $$\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(\bar{O'})/\Th\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(\bar{O'})/\Th-\phi^{-1}(B)/\Th\right).$$ We inductively use (2) of Lemma \[Tlink\] to remove $\phi^{-1}(B)/\Th$ from $\phi^{-1}(\bar{O'})/\Th$. One may refer to the proof of Lemma 3.8 in [@L2]. \[Tisom’\] Assume the assumptions of Theorem \[thm3\] hold, where $G=T$ is a connected compact torus. Let $c$ be a singular value, and let $a$ be a regular value very near $c$. Then $\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(c)/\Th\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(a)/\Th\right)$. We take the $O$ in Lemma \[T-remove\] small enough so that $\phi^{-1}(O)$ and $\phi^{-1}(\bar{O'})$ equivariantly deformation retracts to $\phi^{-1}(c)$ (Theorem \[retract\]). So $$\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(\bar{O'})/\Th\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(c)/\Th\right).$$ Since $$\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(\bar{O'})/\Th-\phi^{-1}(B)/\Th\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(a)/\Th\right),$$ the claim follows from Lemma \[T-remove\]. \[TT\_m\] Assume the assumptions of Theorem \[thm3\] hold, where $G=T$ is a connected compact torus. Let $\Th\subset T$ be a connected subgroup such that up to a finite subgroup, every isotropy group is a subgroup of $\Th$. Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a singular face on im$(\phi)$. Let $O$ be a small open neighborhood of $\mathcal{F}$ on the moment map image ($O$ does not intersect the faces which are in the closure of $\mathcal{F}$). Let $S$ be the set of nonprincipal orbits in $\phi^{-1}(\mathcal{F})$. Then $\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(O)/\Th\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(O)/\Th-S/\Th\right)$. The argument is similar to the proof of Lemma 7.20 in [@L2], but using (1) of Lemma \[Tlink\]. Using Lemmas \[Tisom\], \[Tisom’\] and \[TT\_m\], follow the argument used in the proof of Theorem 1.6 in [@L2] for the case $G=T$. Proof of (B) of Theorem \[thm3\] for nonabelian $G$ =================================================== \[Glinksame\] Assume the assumptions of Theorem \[thm3\] hold, where $G$ is nonabelian. Let $C$ be the central face of $\mathfrak t^_+$, and assume that $C\cap\mbox{im}(\phi)\neq \emptyset$ and that $C$ is not the only face of $\mathfrak t^_+$ which contains $\mbox{im}(\phi)$. For each isotropy type $M_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(C)$, let $L_H$ be the link of $\left(M_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(C)\right)/G$ in $M/G$, and let $L'_H$ be the link of $\left(M_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(C)\right)/\Gh$ in $M/\Gh$. - If $H\subseteq \Gh$, then $L_H=L'_H$, they are connected and $\pi_1(L_H)=\pi_1(L'_H)=1$. - If $H\subseteq \Gh$ except for finitely many elements, then $L_H$ and $L'_H$ are connected and $\pi_1(L_H)=\pi_1(L'_H)=1$. By the local normal form theorem (Theorem \[form\]), a neighborhood in $M$ of an orbit $\mathrm O$ in $\phi^{-1}(C)$ with isotropy group $(H)$ is isomorphic to $A=G\times_H (\mathfrak{h}^{\circ}\times V)=G\times_H (\mathfrak{h}^{\circ}\times W\times V^H)$, where $\mathfrak{h}^{\circ}$ is the annihilator of $\mathfrak{h}=$Lie$(H)$ in $\mathfrak{g}^=$Lie$^(G)$, and, $V^H$ is the subspace of $V$ fixed by $H$ and $W$ is such that $V=W\oplus V^H$. The moment map $\phi$ on $A$ is $\phi ([g, a, w, v])=Ad^(g)\left(\phi(\mathrm O)+ a + \psi(w)\right)$, where $\psi$ is the moment map of the $H$ action on $W$. So $A_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(C) = G\times_H(\R^m\times 0\times V^H)$, where $\R^m\subset\mathfrak h^{\circ}$ is the subspace which is mapped to $C$ and therefore on which $H$ acts trivially. Let $\R^l\subset\mathfrak h^{\circ}$ be the subspace such that $\mathfrak h^{\circ}=\R^l\oplus\R^m$. Then $\left(A_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(C)\right)/G=\R^m\times 0\times V^H$, and $A/G=\R^m\times 0\times V^H\times (\R^l\times W)/H$. So $L_H=S(\R^l\times W)/H$. If $H\subseteq \Gh$, then $\left(A_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(C)\right)/\Gh=G/\Gh\times\R^m\times V^H$, and $A/\Gh = G/\Gh\times\R^m\times V^H \times (\R^l\times W)/H$. So $L'_H=S(\R^l\times W)/H=L_H$. If $H\subseteq \Gh$ except for finitely many elements of $H$, then $\left(A_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(C)\right)/\Gh$ $=G/\Gh\times_H (\R^m\times V^H)=(\R^m\times V^H)\times G/\Gh\times_H 0$, and $A/\Gh=G/\Gh\times_H (\R^m\times V^H\times \R^l\times W)=(\R^m\times V^H)\times G/\Gh\times_H (\R^l\times W).$ So $L'_H=S(\R^l\times W)/(H\cap \Gh)$. By Lemma \[Glink0\], $L_H$ is connected and $\pi_1(L_H)=1$. The claim for the first case when $L_H=L'_H$ follows immediately. For the second case, we think about it as follows. If we take the new subgroup $H'=H\cap \Gh$ of $G$ which differs from $H$ by finitely many elements, the $S(\R^l\times W)$ in the above analysis does not change; by the same arguments (or criteria) of the connectedness and simply connectedness of $L_H$, $L'_H$ is connected and simply connected. For details of the arguments, we refer to the proof of Lemma 6.19 in [@L2]. \[Glink\] Assume the assumptions of Theorem \[thm3\] hold, where $G$ is nonabelian. Let $C$ be the central face of $\mathfrak t^_+$, and assume that $C\cap\mbox{im}(\phi)\neq \emptyset$ and that $C$ is not the only face of $\mathfrak t^_+$ which contains $\mbox{im}(\phi)$. Then $$\pi_1\left (M/\Gh\right )\cong \pi_1\left (M/\Gh-\phi^{-1}(C)/\Gh\right ).$$ Similarly, if $O$ is a small open invariant neighborhood of $C$ in $\mathfrak g^$, then $$\pi_1\left (\phi^{-1}(O)/\Gh\right )\cong \pi_1\left (\phi^{-1}(O)/\Gh-\phi^{-1}(C)/\Gh\right ).$$ By Lemma \[Glinksame\], for each possible $H$, the link of $\left(M_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(C)\right)/\Gh$ in $M/\Gh$ is connected and simply connected. Therefore we can inductively remove the strata of $\phi^{-1}(C)/\Gh$ from $M/\Gh$ or from $\phi^{-1}(O)/\Gh$ using Lemma \[remove:str\]. \[link\] Assume the assumptions of Theorem \[thm3\] hold, where $G$ is nonabelian. 1. Let $\tau$ be a non-principal face of $\mathfrak t^_+$ such that $\tau\cap\mbox{im}(\phi)\neq\emptyset$ and let $R^{\tau}$ be the corresponding cross section. Then, for each $M_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(\tau)$, the link of $\left(M_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(\tau)\right)/(G_{\tau}\cap \Gh)$ in $R^{\tau}/(G_{\tau}\cap \Gh)$ is the same as the link of $\left(M_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(G\cdot\tau)\right)/\Gh$ in $G\cdot R^{\tau}/\Gh$. 2. Let $\tau^P$ be the principal face and let $R^{\tau^P}$ be the principal cross section. Let $c\in\tau^P$ be a singular value. Then, for each $M_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(c)$, the link of $\left(M_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(c)\right)/(T\cap \Gh)$ in $R^{\tau^P}/(T\cap \Gh)$ is the same as the link of $\left(M_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(G\cdot c)\right)/\Gh$ in $G\cdot R^{\tau^P}/\Gh$. First note that, if a point with isotropy group $H$ is mapped to a face $\tau$, then since $\phi (g\cdot m)=Ad^(g)\cdot\phi(m)$, $H\subset G_{\tau}$. \(1) The manifold $G\cdot R^{\tau}$ is a fibration over the coadjoint orbit $G/G_{\tau}$ with fiber $R^{\tau}$; and correspondingly, each $M_{(H)}\cap (G\cdot R^{\tau})$ is a fibration over $G/G_{\tau}$ with fiber $M_{(H)}\cap R^{\tau}$, moreover, each $M_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(G\cdot \tau)$ is a fibration over $G/G_{\tau}$ with fiber $M_{(H)}\cap\phi^{-1}(\tau)$. The claim follows from the equivariance of $\phi$. The proof of (2) is similar. Note that for any face $\tau\subset\mathfrak t^_+$ and the stabilizer group $G_{\tau}$ of $\tau$, the subgroup $G_{\tau}\cap \Gh$ of $G_{\tau}$ is connected since $G_{\tau}$ and $\Gh$ are both connected. \[Gisom\] Assume the assumptions of Theorem \[thm3\] hold, where $G$ is nonabelian. Let $\tau^P\subset\mathfrak t^_+$ be the principal face. Then, $\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot\tau^P)/\Gh\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)/\Gh\right)$ for all $a\in\tau^P$. First, consider the space $\phi^{-1}(\tau^P)$ with the $T$ action, where $T$ is a maximal torus of $G$. Similar to the proof of the theorem for abelian group actions, by using removing and deforming in the space $\phi^{-1}(\tau^P)/(\Gh\cap T)$, we get $$\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(\tau^P)/(\Gh\cap T)\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(a)/(\Gh\cap T)\right)$$ for some [particular]{} $a\in \tau^P$. Then by Lemma \[Tlink\] and (2) of Lemma \[link\], we can do corresponding removing and deforming in the space $\phi^{-1}(G\cdot\tau^P)/\Gh$, and we arrive at $$\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot\tau^P)/\Gh\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)/\Gh\right)$$ for this [particular]{} $a\in\tau^P$. For any two values $a$ and $b$ in the same connected open face on $\tau^P$, $$\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)/\Gh\right)\cong \pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot b)/\Gh\right)$$ since $\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)$ and $\phi^{-1}(G\cdot b)$ are equivariantly diffeomorphic. Now, let $c\in\tau^P$ be a value on a singular face. Take a value $a\in\tau^P$ in a connected open face very close to $c$. Take $\bar O'\subset \tau^P$ as in Lemma \[T-remove\]. Using (2) of Lemma \[link\] again, we can do removing in $\phi^{-1}(G\cdot\bar O')/\Gh$ corresponding to the removing in $\phi^{-1}(\bar O')/(T\cap \Gh)$; and we arrive at $$\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)/\Gh\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot c)/\Gh\right).$$ \[remove\] Assume the assumptions of Theorem \[thm3\] hold, where $G$ is nonabelian. Let $c\in\tau$ be a value, where $\tau$ is a face of $\mathfrak t^_+$ such that $\tau\neq\tau^P$, and let $a$ be a generic value on $\tau^P$ very near $c$. Let $O\subset\mathfrak{g}^$ be a small open invariant neighborhood of $c$ containing $a$. Let $B$ be the set of values in $O\cap\mathfrak t^_+$ other than those on the open connected face of generic values on $\tau^P$ containing $a$. Then $$\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(O)/\Gh\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(O)/\Gh-\phi^{-1}(G\cdot B)/\Gh\right).$$ Consider the cross section $R^{\tau}$ where $G_{\tau}$ acts. Note that $\tau$ lies in the central dual Lie algebra of $G_{\tau}$. Using Lemmas \[Glink\] and \[link\], we have $$\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(O)/\Gh\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(O)/\Gh-\phi^{-1}(G\cdot \tau)/\Gh\right).$$ For other non-principal faces $\tau'$’s, we use the cross section theorem and Lemma \[link\] to inductively remove $\phi^{-1}(G\cdot\tau')/\Gh$’s. If there are singular faces on $O\cap\tau^P$, then we use Lemmas \[Tlink\] and \[link\] to remove the rest (deforming may also be needed). If further detail is prefered, one may refer to the proof of Lemma 6.18 in [@L2]. \[Gisom’\] Assume the assumptions of Theorem \[thm3\] hold, where $G$ is nonabelian. Let $c\in\tau$ be a value, where $\tau$ is a face of $\mathfrak t^_+$ such that $\tau\neq\tau^P$, and let $a$ be a generic value on $\tau^P$ very near $c$. Then $\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot c)/\Gh\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)/\Gh\right)$. In Lemma \[remove\], we take $O$ small enough such that $\phi^{-1}(O)$ equivariantly deformation retracts to $\phi^{-1}(G\cdot c)$. Then $$\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(O)/\Gh\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot c)/\Gh\right).$$ Since $$\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(O)/\Gh-\phi^{-1}(G\cdot B)/\Gh\right)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)/\Gh\right),$$ the claim follows from Lemma \[remove\]. \[Proof of (B) of Theorem \[thm3\] for nonabelian $G$\] We use Lemma \[Glink\], the cross section theorem and Lemma \[link\] to inductively remove $\phi^{-1}(G\cdot \tau)/\Gh$ from $M/\Gh$ for the faces $\tau$’s other than the principal face $\tau^P$ which contain values of $\phi$. Assume we have now $\pi_1(M/\Gh)\cong\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot\tau^P)/\Gh \right)$. Then by Lemma \[Gisom\], $\pi_1\left(\phi^{-1}(G\cdot\tau^P)/\Gh \right)\cong\pi_1\left( \phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)/\Gh\right)$ for $a\in\tau^P$. The claim that the $\pi_1\left( \phi^{-1}(G\cdot a)/\Gh\right)$’s are isomorphic for all $a\in\mbox{im}(\phi)$ follows from Lemma \[Gisom’\]. [99]{} M. Atiyah, [Convexity and commuting Hamiltonians]{}, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. [14]{} (1982), 1-15. G. Bredon, [Introduction to Compact Transformation Groups]{}, Academic Press, New York, 1972. V. Guillemin, E. Lerman, and S. Sternberg, [Symplectic fibrations and multiplicity diagrams]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996. V. Guillemin and S. Sternberg, [Convexity properties of the moment mapping]{}, Invent. Math. [67]{} (1982), no. 3, 491–513. V. Guillemin and S. Sternberg, [Symplectic techniques in physics]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990. V. Guillemin and S. Sternberg, [A normal form for the moment map]{}, Differential geometric methods in mathematical physics, (S. Sternberg, Ed.) Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1984. L. Godinho and M. E. Sousa-Dias, [The fundamental group of $S^1$-manifolds]{}, math.SG/0505420. F. C. Kirwan, [Convexity properties of the moment mapping III]{}, Invent. Math. [77]{} (1984), 547-552. F. C. Kirwan, [The cohomology of quotients in symplectic and algebraic geometry]{}, Princeton University Press, 1984. E. Lerman, [Gradient flow of the norm squared of a moment map]{}, Enseign.Math. (2) 51 (2005), no. 1-2, 117-127. E. Lerman, E. Meinrenken, S. Tolman, and C. Woodward, [Nonabelian convexity by symplectic cuts]{}, Topology [37]{}, no. 2, 245–259, 1998. H. Li, [$\pi_1$ of Hamiltonian $S^1$-manifolds]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [131]{}, no. 11, 3579-3582, 2003. H. Li, [The fundamental group of symplectic manifolds with Hamiltonian Lie group actions]{}, Journal of Symplectic Geometry, Vol. 4, No. 3, 345-372, 2007. C. M. Marle, [Le voisinage d’une orbite d’une action hamiltonienne d’un group de Lie]{}, In: Séminaire sud-rhodanien de géométrie, $\Pi$ (Lyon, 1983), 19-35, Travaux en cours, Hermann, Paris, 1984. R. Sjamaar and E. Lerman, [Stratified symplectic spaces and reduction]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) [134]{}, no. 2, 375–422, 1991. C. Woodward, [The Yang-Mills heat flow on the moduli space of framed bundles on a surface*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 128 (2006), no. 2, 311-359. [^1]: 2000 MSC. Primary : 53D05, 53D20; Secondary : 55Q05, 57R19.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| In the following article we study the limiting properties of the Yang-Mills flow associated to a holomorphic vector bundle $E$ over an arbitrary compact Kähler manifold $(X,\omega )$. In particular we show that the flow is determined at infinity by the holomorphic structure of $E$. Namely, if we fix an integrable unitary reference connection $A_{0}$ defining the holomorphic structure, then the Yang-Mills flow with initial condition $% A_{0} $, converges (away from an appropriately defined singular set) in the sense of the Uhlenbeck compactness theorem to a holomorphic vector bundle $% E_{\infty }$, which is isomorphic to the associated graded object of the Harder-Narasimhan-Seshadri filtration of $(E,A_{0})$. Moreover, $E_{\infty }$ extends as a reflexive sheaf over the singular set as the double dual of the associated graded object. This is an extension of previous work in the cases of $1$ and $2$ complex dimensions and proves the general case of a conjecture of Bando and Siu. address: 'Department of Mathematics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA ' author: - Benjamin Sibley title: ' Asymptotics of the Yang-Mills Flow for Holomorphic Vector Bundles Over Kähler Manifolds: The Canonical Structure of the Limit' --- Introduction ============ This paper is a study of the Yang-Mills flow, the $L^{2}$-gradient flow of the Yang-Mills functional; and in particular its convergence properties at infinity. The flow is (after imposing the Coulomb gauge condition) a parabolic equation for a connection on a holomorphic vector bundle. Very soon after the introduction of the flow equations, Donaldson and Simpson proved that in the case of a stable bundle the gradient flow converges smoothly at infinity (see [@DO1],[@DO2],[@SI]). In the unstable case the behaviour of the flow is more ambiguous. Nevertheless, even in the general case there is an appropriate notion of convergence (a version of Uhlenbeck’s compactness theorem) that is always satisfied. The goal of this article is to prove that this notion depends only on the holomorphic structure of the original bundle. We follow up on work whose origin lies in two principal directions, both related to stability properties of holomorphic vector bundles over compact Kähler manifolds. The first strain is the seminal work of Atiyah and Bott [@AB], in which the authors study the moduli space of stable holomorphic bundles over Riemann surfaces. In particular, they computed the $\mathcal{G}% ^{% %TCIMACRO{\U{2102} }% %BeginExpansion \mathbb{C} %EndExpansion }$-equivariant Betti numbers of this space in certain cases, where $\mathcal{% G}^{% %TCIMACRO{\U{2102} }% %BeginExpansion \mathbb{C} %EndExpansion }$ is the complex gauge group of a holomorphic vector bundle $E$ (over a Riemann surface $X$) acting on the space $\mathcal{A}_{\limfunc{hol}}$ of holomorphic structures of $E$. Their approach was to stratify $\mathcal{A}_{% \limfunc{hol}}$ by Harder-Narasimhan type. The type is a tuple of rational numbers $\mu =(\mu _{1},\cdots ,\mu _{R})$ associated to a holomorphic structure $(E,\bar{\partial}_{E})$, defined using a filtration of $E$ by analytic subsheaves whose successive quotients are semi-stable, called the Harder-Narasimhan filtration. One of the resulting strata of $\mathcal{A}_{% \limfunc{hol}}$ consists of the semi-stable bundles. Furthermore the action of $\mathcal{G}^{% %TCIMACRO{\U{2102} }% %BeginExpansion \mathbb{C} %EndExpansion }$ preserves the stratification, and the main result that yields the computation of the equivariant Betti numbers is that the stratification by Harder-Narasimhan type is equivariantly perfect under this action. Atiyah and Bott also noticed that the problem might be amenable to a more analytic approach. Specifically they considered the Yang-Mills functional $% YM $ on the space $\mathcal{A}_{h}$ of integrable, unitary connections with respect to a fixed hermitan metric on $E$. The space $\mathcal{A}_{h}$ may be identified with $\mathcal{A}_{\limfunc{hol}}$ by sending a connection $% \nabla _{A}$ to its $(0,1)$ part $\bar{\partial}_{A}$. The Yang-Mills functional is defined by taking the $L^{2}$ norm of the curvature of $\nabla _{A}$, and is a Morse function on $\mathcal{A}_{h}/\mathcal{G}$, where $% \mathcal{G}$ is the unitary gauge group. Therefore this functional induces the usual stable-unstable manifold stratification on $\mathcal{A}_{h}$ (or equivalently $\mathcal{A}_{\limfunc{hol}}$) familiar from Morse theory. It is natural to conjecture that this analytic stratification is in fact the same as the algebraic stratification given by the Harder-Narasimhan type. The authors of [@AB] stopped short of proving this statement, instead leaving it at the conjectural level, and working directly with the algebraic stratification. They noted however that a key technical point in proving the equivalence was to show the convergence of the gradient flow of the Yang-Mills functional at infinity. This was proven in [@D] by Daskalopoulos (see also [@R]). Specifically, in the case of Riemann surfaces, Daskalopoulos showed the asymptotic convergence of the Yang-Mills Flow, that there is indeed a well-defined stratification in the sense of Morse theory in this case, and that it coincides with the algebraic stratification (which makes sense in all dimensions). When $(X,\omega )$ is a higher dimensional Kähler manifold, the Yang-Mills flow fails to converge in the usual sense. This brings us to the second strain of ideas of which the present paper is a continuation: the so-called Kobayashi-Hitchin correspondences. These are statements (in various levels of generality) relating the existence of Hermitian-Einstein metrics on a holomorphic bundle $E$, to the stability of $E$. Namely, $E$ admits an Hermitian-Einstein metric if and only if $E$ is polystable. This was first proven in the case of a Riemann surface by Narasimhan and Seshadri. Their proof did not use differential geometry, and the condition that the bundle admits an Hermitian-Einstein connection was originally formulated purely in terms of representations of the fundamental group of the Riemann surface. It was Donaldson who gave the first proof using gauge theory, reformulating the statement in terms of a metric of constant central curvature. He initially did this in the case of a Riemann surface in [@DO3] by considering sequences of connections in a complex gauge orbit that are minimising for a certain functional, which is analogous to our $HYM_{\alpha }$ functionals defined in Section $3.2$. Shortly after this, Donaldson extended the result to the case of algebraic surfaces in [@DO1], and later to the case of projective complex manifolds in [@DO2]. In both [@DO1] and [@DO2] the idea of the proof was to reformulate the flow as an equivalent parabolic $PDE$, show long-time existence of the equation, and then prove that for a stable bundle, this modified flow indeed converges, the solution being the desired Hermitian-Einstein metric. This was generalised by Uhlenbeck and Yau in [@UY] in the case of a compact Kähler manifold using different methods. Finally, in [@BS], Bando and Siu extended the correspondence to coherent analytic sheaves on Kähler manifolds by considering what they called admissible hermitian metrics, which are metrics on the locally free part of the sheaf having controlled curvature. They also conjectured that there should also be a correspondence (albeit far less detailed) between the Yang-Mills flow and the Harder-Narasimhan filtration in higher dimensions despite the absence of a Morse theory for the Yang-Mills functional. There are two main features that distinguish the higher dimensional case from the case of Riemann surfaces. As previously mentioned, the flow does not converge in general. However, the only obstruction to convergence is bubbling phenomena. Specifically, one of Uhlenbeck’s compactness results (see [@UY] Theorem $5.2$) applies to the flow, which means that there are always subsequences that converge (in a certain Sobolev norm) away from a singular set of Hausdorff codimension at least $4$ inside $X$ (which we will denote by $Z_{\limfunc{an}}$), to a connection on a possibly different vector bundle $E_{\infty }$. A priori, this pair of a limiting connection and bundle depends on the subsequence. In the case of two complex dimensions, the singular set is a locally finite set of points (finite in the compact case) and by Uhlenbeck’s removable singularities theorem $% E_{\infty }$ extends over the singular set as a vector bundle with a Yang-Mills connection. In higher dimensions, again due to a result of Bando and Siu, $E_{\infty }$ extends over the singular set, but only as a reflexive sheaf. Although we will not use their result, Hong and Tian have proven in [@HT] that in fact the convergence is in $C^{\infty }$ on the complement of $Z_{\limfunc{an}}$ and that $Z_{\limfunc{an}}$ is a holomorphic subvariety. A separate, but intimately related issue is the Harder-Narasimhan filtration. In the case of a Riemann surface the filtration is given by subbundles. In higher dimensions, it is only a filtration by subsheaves. Again however, away from a singular set $Z_{\limfunc{alg}}$, which is a complex analytic subset of $X$ of complex codimension at least $2$, the filtration is indeed given by subbundles. Once more, in the case of a Kähler surface this is a locally finite set of points (finite in the compact case). The main result of this paper (the conjecture of Bando and Siu), describes the relationship between the analytic and algebraic sides of the above picture. To state it, we recall that there is a refinement of the Harder-Narasimhan filtration called the Harder-Narasimhan-Seshadri filtration, which is a double filtration whose successive quotients are stable rather than merely semi-stable. Then if $(E,\bar{\partial}_{E})$ is a holomorphic vector bundle where the operator $\bar{\partial}_{E}$ denotes the holomorphic structure, write $Gr_{\omega }^{HNS}(E,\bar{\partial}_{E})$ for the associated graded object (the direct sum of the stable quotients) of the Harder-Narasimhan-Seshadri filtration. Notice that by the Kobayashi-Hitchin correspondence, $Gr_{\omega }^{HNS}(E,\bar{\partial}_{E})$ also carries a natural Yang-Mills connection on its locally free part, given by the direct sum of the Hermitian-Einstein connections on each of the stable factors, and this connection is unique up to gauge. The main theorem says in particular that the limiting bundle along the flow is in fact independent of the subsequence chosen in order to employ Uhlenbeck compactness, and is determined entirely by the holomorphic structure $\bar{% \partial}_{E}$ of $E$. Furthermore, the limiting connection is precisely the connection on $Gr_{\omega }^{HNS}(E,\bar{\partial}_{E})$. \[THM:MainTheorem\]Let $(X,\omega )$ be a compact Kähler manifold, and $E\rightarrow X$ be an hermitian vector bundle. Let $A_{0}$ denote an integrable, unitary connection endowing $E$ with a holomorphic structure $% \bar{\partial}_{E}=\bar{\partial}_{A_{0}}$. Let $A_{\infty }$ denote the Yang-Mills connection on $Gr_{\omega }^{HNS}(E,\bar{\partial}_{E})$ restricted to $X-Z_{\limfunc{alg}}$ induced from the Kobayashi-Hitchin correspondence. Let $A_{t}$ be the time $t$ solution of the flow with initial condition $A_{0}$. Then as $t\rightarrow \infty $, $A_{t}\rightarrow A_{\infty }$ in the sense of Uhlenbeck, and on $X-Z_{\limfunc{alg}}\cup Z_{% \limfunc{an}}$, the vector bundles $Gr_{\omega }^{HNS}(E,\bar{\partial}_{E})$ and the limiting bundle $E_{\infty }$ are holomorphically isomorphic. Moreover, $E_{\infty }$ extends over $Z_{\limfunc{an}}$ as a reflexive sheaf to $\left( Gr_{\omega }^{HNS}(E,\bar{\partial}_{E})\right) ^{\ast \ast }$. This theorem was proven in [@DW1] by Daskalopoulos and Wentworth in the case when $\dim X=2$. In this case, the filtration consists of vector bundles, whose successive quotients may have point singularities. As stated earlier, this means $E_{\infty }$ extends as a vector bundle and [@DW1] proves that this bundle is isomorphic to the vector bundle $\left( Gr_{\omega }^{HNS}(E,\bar{\partial}_{E})\right) ^{\ast \ast }$. We now give an overview of our proof, pointing out what goes through directly from [@DW1] and where we require new arguments. Section $2$ consists of the basic definitions we need from sheaf theory, including the Harder-Narasimhan and Harder-Narasimhan-Seshadri filtrations and their associated graded objects, as well as the corresponding types. We also discuss the Yang-Mills functional, the Hermitian-Yang-Mills functional and the version of the Uhlenbeck compactness result that we will need. Although we will primarily be concerned with the flow, the proof of Theorem [THM:MainTheorem]{} is set up to work for slightly more general sequences of connections, so we state the compactness theorem in this generality first, and specialise to the flow when appropriate. Lastly, we recall the notion of a weakly holomorphic projection operator associated to a subsheaf first introduced in [@UY], the Chern-Weil formula, and a lemma on the boundedness of second fundamental forms from [@DW1]. In Section $3$ we introduce the Yang-Mills flow and its basic properties. We recast Uhlenbeck compactness in the context of the flow, which satisfies the boundedness conditions required to apply the general theorem. We recall one of the main results of [@DW1], that the Harder-Narasimhan type of an Uhlenbeck limit is bounded from below by the type of the initial bundle with respect to the partial ordering on types. Finally, Section $3$ ends with a discussion of Yang-Mills type functionals associated to $\limfunc{Ad}$-invariant convex functions on the Lie algebra of the unitary group. Section $4$ details the main results we will need about resolution of singularities. This is the first place in which our presentation differs fundamentally from that of [@DW1]. The main strategy of the proof is to eliminate the singular set of the Harder-Narasimhan-Seshadri filtration by blowing up, and doing all the necessary analysis on the blowup. In the two-dimensional case, since the singularities consist only of points, this can be done directly by hand as in [@DW1] see also [@BU1]. In the general case we must appeal to the resolution of singularities theorem of Hironaka see [@H1] and [@H2]. We consider the filtration as a rational section of a flag bundle, and apply the resolution of indeterminacy theorem for rational maps. If we write $\pi :\tilde{X}\rightarrow X$ for the composition of the blowups involved in resolution, the result is that the pullback bundle $\pi ^{\ast }E\rightarrow \tilde{X}$ has a filtration by subbundles, which away from the exceptional divisor $\mathbf{E}$ is precisely the filtration on $X$. We will need to consider a natural family of Kähler metrics $\omega _{\varepsilon }$ on $\tilde{X}$, which are perturbations of the pullback form $\pi ^{\ast }\omega $ by the irreducible components of the exceptional divisor, and which are introduced in order to compensate for the fact that $% \pi ^{\ast }\omega $ fails to be a metric on $\mathbf{E}$. The filtration of $\pi ^{\ast }E$ by subbundles is not quite the Harder-Narasimhan-Seshadri filtration with respect to $\omega _{\varepsilon }$ but is closely related. In particular, the main result of this section is that the Harder-Narasimhan type of $\pi ^{\ast }E$ with respect to $\omega _{\varepsilon }$ converges to the type of $E$ with respect to $\omega $. This was proven in the surface case in [@DW1] using an argument of Buchdahl from [@BU1]. The proof contained in [@DW1] seems to be insufficient in the higher dimensional case, so we give a rather different proof of this result. The main ingredient is a bound on the $\omega _{\varepsilon }$ degree of a subsheaf of $\pi ^{\ast }E$ with torsion-free quotient in terms of its pushforward sheaf that is uniform as $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$. To prove this we use standard algebro-geometric facts together with a modification of an argument of Kobayashi [@KOB] first used to prove the uniform boundedness of the degree of subsheaves of a vector bundle with respect to a fixed Kähler metric. In particular we prove the following theorem: Let $(X,\omega )$ be a compact Kähler manifold and $\tilde{S}$ be a subsheaf (with torsion free quotient $\tilde{Q}$) of a holomorphic vector bundle $\tilde{E}$ on $\tilde{X}$, where $\pi :\tilde{X}\rightarrow X$ is given by a sequence of blowups along complex submanifolds of $\limfunc{codim}% \geq 2$. Then then there is a uniform constant $M$ such that the degrees of $% \tilde{S}$ and $\tilde{Q}$ with respect to $\omega _{\varepsilon }$ satisfy: $\deg (\tilde{S},\omega _{\varepsilon })\leq \deg (\pi _{\ast }\tilde{S}% )+\varepsilon M$, and $\deg (\tilde{Q},\omega _{\varepsilon })\geq \deg (\pi _{\ast }\tilde{Q})-\varepsilon M$. Similar statements are proven in the case of a surface by Buchdahl [@BU1] and for projective manifolds by Daskalopoulos and Wentworth see [@DW3]. Section $5$ is the technical heart of the proof. An essential fact needed to complete the proof of Theorem \[THM:MainTheorem\] is that the Harder-Narasimhan type of the limiting sheaf is in fact equal to the type of the initial bundle. This fact seems to be closely related to the existence of what is called an $L^{p}$-approximate critical hermitian structure. In rough terms this is an hermitian metric on a holomorphic vector bundle whose Hermitian-Einstein tensor is $L^{p}$-close to that of a Yang-Mills connection (a critical value) determined by the Harder-Narasimhan type of the bundle (see Definition \[Def6\]). Since any connection on $E$ has Hermitian-Yang-Mills energy bounded below by the type of $E$, and we have a monotonicity property along the flow, the result of Section $3$ implies that the existence of an approximate structure then ensures that the flow starting from this initial condition realises the correct type in the limit. Then one shows that any initial condition flows to the correct type, essentially by proving that the set of such metrics is open and closed (and non-empty by the existence of an approximate structure) in the space of smooth metrics, and applying the connectivity of the latter space. This last argument appears in detail in [@DW1] and we do not repeat it. The main theorem of Section $5$ is the following: Let $E\rightarrow X$ be a holomorphic vector bundle over a Kähler manifold with Kähler form $\omega $. Then given $\delta >0$ and any $% 1\leq p<\infty $, $E$ has an $L^{p}\ \delta $-approximate critical hermitian structure. The method does not extend to $p=\infty $. This is straightforward in the case when the filtration is given by subbundles (even for $p=\infty $). Given an exact sequence of holomorphic vector bundles:$$0\longrightarrow S\longrightarrow E\longrightarrow Q\longrightarrow 0$$and hermitian metrics on $S$ and $Q$, one can scale the second fundamental form $\beta \mapsto t\beta $ to obtain an isomorphic bundle whose Hermitian-Einstein tensor is close to the direct sum of those of $S$ and $Q$. In general it seems difficult to do this directly. The problem here is that the filtration is not in general given by subbundles, and so the vast majority Section $5$ is an argument needed to address this point. This is precisely where we need the resolution of the filtration obtained in Section $4$. We first take the direct sum of the Hermitian-Einstein metrics on the stable quotients in the resolution by subbundles, which sits inside the pullback $\pi ^{\ast }E$ under the blowup map $\pi :\tilde{X}\rightarrow X$. Then the argument above shows that after modifying this metric by a gauge transformation, its Hermitian-Einstein tensor becomes close to the type in the $L^{p}$ norm. We complete the proof by pushing this metric down to $% E\rightarrow X$ using a cutoff argument. In broad outline our discussion in Section $5$ follows the ideas in [DW1]{}. The principal difference is that the authors of [@DW1] were able to rely on the fact that the singular set was given by points when applying the cutoff argument, in particular they knew that there were uniform bounds on the derivatives of the cutoff function. We must allow for the fact that the singular set is higher dimensional, and therefore need to replace their arguments involving coverings of the singular set by disjoint balls of arbitrarily small radius by calculations in a tubular neighbourhood. We first assume $Z_{\limfunc{alg}}$ is smooth and that blowing up once along $% Z_{\limfunc{alg}}$ resolves the singularities. The essential point is that the Hausdorff codimension of $Z_{\limfunc{alg}}$ is large enough to allow the arguments of [@DW1] to go through in this case. We then reduce the general theorem to this case by applying an inductive argument on the number of blowups required to resolve the filtration. It is here that we crucially use the convergence of the Harder-Narasimhan type proven in section $4$. In Section $6$, following Bando and Siu, we introduce a degenerate Yang-Mills flow on the composition of blowups $\tilde{X}$ with respect to the degenerate metric $\pi ^{\ast }\omega $. We review some basic properties of this flow that are necessary for the proof of Theorem [THM:MainTheorem]{}. In particular we show that a solution of this degenerate flow is in fact an hermitian metric, and solves the ordinary flow equations with respect to the metric $\pi ^{\ast }\omega $ away from the exceptional divisor $\mathbf{E}$. Section $7$ completes the proof of the main theorem by showing the isomorphism of the limit $E_{\infty }$ with $\left( Gr_{\omega }^{HNS}(E,% \bar{\partial}_{E})\right) ^{\ast \ast }$. The basic idea follows that of [@DW1] which in turn is a generalisation of the argument of Donaldson in [@DO1]. His idea is to construct a non-zero holomorphic map to the limiting bundle as the limit of the sequence of gauge transformations defined by the flow. In the case that the initial bundle is stable and has stable image, one may apply the basic fact that such a map is always an isomorphism. In general, the idea in [@DW1] is simply to apply this argument to the first factor of the associated graded object (which is stable) and then perform an induction. The image of the first factor will be stable because of the result in Section $5$ about the type of the limiting sheaf. The difficulty with this method is in proving that the limiting map is in fact non-zero. This follows directly from Donaldson’s proof in the case of a single subsheaf, but it is more complicated to construct such a map on the entire filtration. The authors of [@DW1] avoid applying Donaldson’s method directly by appealing to a complex analytic argument involving analytic extension see also [@BU2]. Arguing in this fashion makes the induction rather easier. However, this requires the complement of the singular set to have strictly pseudo-concave boundary, which is true in the case of surfaces, but is not guaranteed in higher dimensions. Therefore we give a proof of a slightly more differential geometric character. Namely, in the case that the filtration is given by subbundles, we follow the argument of Donaldson, which goes through with modest corrections in higher dimensions, and does indeed suffice to complete the induction alluded to. In the general case, we must again appeal to a resolution of singularities of the filtration and apply the previous strategy to the pullback bundle over the composition of blowups $\tilde{X}$. The problem one encounters with this approach is that the induction breaks down due to the appearance of second fundamental forms of each piece of the filtration, which are not bounded in $L^{\infty }$ with respect to the degenerate metric $\pi ^{\ast }\omega $. To rectify this, we apply the degenerate flow of Section $6$ for some fixed non-zero time $t$ to each element of the sequence of connections, and this new sequence does have the desired bound. This is due to the key observation of Bando and Siu that the Sobolev constant of $\tilde{X}$ with respect to the metrics $\omega _{\varepsilon }$ is bounded away from zero. A theorem of Cheng and Li then implies uniform control over subsolutions to the heat equation, which is sufficient to understand the degenerate flow. One then has to show that the limit obtained from this new sequence of connections is independent of $t$ and is the correct one. This section is an expanded and slightly modified account of an argument contained in the unpublished preprint [@DW3]. We conclude the introduction with some general comments. First of all, as pointed out in [@DW1], the proof of Theorem \[THM:MainTheorem\] is essentially independent of the flow, and one obtains a similar theorem by restricting to sequences of connections which are minimising with respect to certain Hermitian-Yang-Mills type functionals. Indeed, the statement appears explicitly as Theorem \[Thm12\]. Secondly, one expects that there should be a relationship between the two singular sets $Z_{\limfunc{alg}}$ and $Z_{% \limfunc{an}}$. Namely, in the best case $Z_{\limfunc{alg}}$ should be exactly the set of points where bubbling occurs. One always has containment $% Z_{\limfunc{alg}}\subset Z_{\limfunc{an}}$, and in the separate article [DW2]{} Daskalopoulos and Wentworth have shown that in the surface case equality does in fact hold. We hope to be able to clarify this issue in higher dimensions in a future paper. Finally, the author is aware of a recent series of preprints [@J1],[J2]{},[@J3] by Adam Jacob which collectively give a proof of Theorem [THM:MainTheorem]{} using different methods. Acknowledgement The author would like to thank his thesis advisor, Richard Wentworth, who suggested this problem and gave him considerable help in solving it. He also owes a great debt to the anonymous referee, who has given comments of exceptional detail through three separate readings, pointed out errors, fixed numerous typos, and whose comments have in general improved the exposition considerably. The author was also partially supported by $NSF$ grant number 1037094 while working on this manuscript. Finally, the author would like to thank Xuwen Chen for occasional discussions about certain technical points in the paper. Preliminary Remarks =================== Subsheaves of Holomorphic Bundles and the $HNS$ Filtration ---------------------------------------------------------- We now recall some basic sheaf theory. All of this material may be found in [@KOB]. As stated in the introduction, the main obstacle we will face is that we must consider arbitrary subsheaves of a holomorphic vector bundle. Throughout, $X$ will be a compact Kähler manifold (unless otherwise stated) with Kähler form $\omega $, $E$ a holomorphic vector bundle, and $S\subset E$ a subsheaf. Recall that an analytic sheaf $\mathcal{E}$ on $X$ is called torsion free if the natural map $\mathcal{E}\rightarrow $ $\mathcal{E}^{\ast \ast }$ is injective. We call $\mathcal{E}$ reflexive if this map is an isomorphism. Of vital importance is the fact that a torsion free sheaf is almost a vector bundle in the following sense. For $% \mathcal{E}$ a sheaf on $X$ recall that its singular set is $\limfunc{Sing}(% \mathcal{E})=\{x\in X\mid \mathcal{E}_{x}$ $is$ $not$ $free\}$. Here $% \mathcal{E}_{x}$ is the stalk of $\mathcal{E}$ over $x$. In other words $% \limfunc{Sing}(\mathcal{E})$ is the set of points where $\mathcal{E}$ fails to be locally free, i.e., a vector bundle. The set $\limfunc{Sing}(\mathcal{E% })$ is a closed complex analytic subvariety of $X$ of codimension at least $% 2 $. Recall that the saturation of a subsheaf $S\subset E$ is defined by $% \limfunc{Sat}_{E}(S)=\ker (E\rightarrow Q/\limfunc{Tor}(Q))$ and that $S$ is a subsheaf of $\limfunc{Sat}_{E}(S)$ with torsion quotient, and the quotient $E/\limfunc{Sat}_{E}(S)$ is torsion free. We also have the following lemma whose proof we omit. \[Lemma1\]Let $E$ be a holomorphic vector bundle. Suppose $S_{1}\subset S_{2}\subset $ $E$ are subsheaves with $S_{2}/S_{1}$ torsion. Then $\limfunc{% Sat}_{E}(S_{1})=\limfunc{Sat}_{E}(S_{2})$. The $\omega $-slope of a torsion free sheaf $\mathcal{E}$ on $X$ is defined by:$$\mu _{\omega }(\mathcal{E)=}\frac{\deg _{\omega }(\mathcal{E)}}{\limfunc{rk}(% \mathcal{E)}}=\frac{1}{\limfunc{rk}(\mathcal{E)}}\int_{X}c_{1}(\mathcal{% E)\wedge \omega }^{n-1}.$$Note that the right hand side is well defined independently of the representative for $c_{1}(\mathcal{E)}$ since $\omega $ is closed. Throughout we will assume that the volume of $X$ with respect to $\omega $ is normalised to be $\frac{2\pi }{(n-1)!}$, where $n=\dim _{% %TCIMACRO{\U{2102} }% %BeginExpansion \mathbb{C} %EndExpansion }X$. \[Def1\]We say that a torsion free sheaf $\mathcal{E}$ is $\omega $-stable ($\omega $-semistable) if for all proper subsheaves $S\subset \mathcal{E}$, $\mu _{\omega }(S)<$ $\mu _{\omega }(\mathcal{E})$ $% \left( \mu _{\omega }(S)\leq \mu _{\omega }(\mathcal{E})\right) $. Equivalently $\mu _{\omega }(Q)>\mu _{\omega }(\mathcal{E})$ $\left( \mu _{\omega }(Q)\geq \mu _{\omega }(\mathcal{E}\right) )$ for every torsion free quotient $Q$. We have the following important proposition. \[Prop2\]There is an upper bound on the set of slopes $\mu _{\omega }(S)$ of subsheaves of a torsion free sheaf $\mathcal{E}$, and moreover this upper bound is realised by some subsheaf $\mathcal{E}_{1}\subset \mathcal{E}$. Furthermore, we can choose $\mathcal{E}_{1}$ so that for any $S\subset \mathcal{E}$, if $\mu _{\omega }(S)=\mu _{\omega }(\mathcal{E}_{1})$ then $% \limfunc{rk}(S)\leq \limfunc{rk}(\mathcal{E}_{1})$. Moreover such a subsheaf is unique. For the proof see Kobayashi [@KOB]. The sheaf $\mathcal{E}_{1}$ is called the maximal destabilising subsheaf of $\mathcal{E}$. This sheaf is also clearly semistable. \[Rmk1\]If $S\subset \mathcal{E}$ is a subsheaf with torsion free quotient $Q=\mathcal{E}/S$, then $Q^{\ast }\hookrightarrow \mathcal{E}^{\ast }$ is a subsheaf and $\deg (Q^{\ast })=-\deg (Q)$. By the above proposition $% \mu _{\omega }(Q^{\ast })$ is bounded from above, so $\mu _{\omega }(Q)$ is bounded from below. \[Rmk2\]Note also that the saturation of a sheaf has slope at least as large as the slope of the original sheaf. Therefore the maximal destabilising subsheaf is saturated by definition. \[Def2\]We will write $\mu ^{\max }(\mathcal{E)}$ for the maximal slope of a subsheaf, and $\mu ^{\min }(\mathcal{E)}$ for the minimal slope of a torsion free quotient. Clearly we have the equality $\mu ^{\min }(\mathcal{% E)=-}\mu ^{\max }(\mathcal{E}^{\ast }\mathcal{)}$. We now specialise to the case of a holomorphic vector bundle $E$, although the following all holds also for an arbitrary torsion-free sheaf. \[Prop3\]There is a filtration:$$0=E_{0}\subset E_{1}\subset \cdots \subset E_{l}=E$$such that the quotients $Q_{i}=E_{i}/E_{i-1}$ are torsion free and semistable, and $\mu _{\omega }(Q_{i+1})<\mu _{\omega }(Q_{i})$. Furthermore, the associated graded object: $Gr_{\omega }^{HN}(E)={\Huge % \oplus }_{i}Q_{i}$, is uniquely determined by the isomorphism class of $E$ and is called the Harder-Narasimhan filtration. The Harder-Narasimhan filtration is unique. In the sequel we will usually abbreviate this as the $HN$ filtration, and we will write $\mathbb{F}_{i}^{HN}(E)$ for the $i^{th}$ piece of the filtration. The previous proposition follows from Proposition $2$. The maximal destabilising subsheaf is $\mathbb{F}_{1}^{HN}(E)$. Then consider the quotient $E/\mathbb{F}_{1}^{HN}(E)$ and its maximal destabilising subshseaf. Define $\mathbb{F}_{2}^{HN}(E)$ to be the pre-image of this subsheaf under the natural projection. Iterating this process gives the stated filtration, and one easily checks that it has the desired properties. Another invariant of the isomorphism class of $E$ is the collection of all slopes of the quotients $Q_{i}$. \[Def3\]Let $E$ have rank $K$. Then we form a $K$-tuple $$\mu (E)=(\mu (Q_{1}),\cdots ,\mu (Q_{1}),\cdots ,\mu (Q_{i}),\cdots ,\mu (Q_{i}),\cdots \mu (Q_{l}),\cdots \mu (Q_{l}))$$where $\mu (Q_{i})$ is repeated $\limfunc{rk}(Q_{i})$ times. Then $\mu (E)$ is called the Harder-Narasimhan (or $HN$) type of $E$. We will also need a result describing the $HN$ filtration of $E$ in terms of the $HN$ filtration of a subsheaf $S$ and its quotient $Q$. The following lemma and its corollary are elementary and we omit the proofs. \[Prop4\]Let $0\rightarrow S\rightarrow E\rightarrow Q\rightarrow 0$ be an exact sequence of torsion free sheaves with $E$ a holomorphic vector bundle such that $\mu ^{\min }(S)>\mu ^{\max }(Q)$. Then the $HN$ filtration of $E$ is given by: $$0\subset \mathbb{F}_{1}^{HN}(S)\subset \cdots \subset \mathbb{F}% _{k}^{HN}(S)=S\subset \mathbb{F}_{k+1}^{HN}(E)\subset \cdots \subset \mathbb{% F}_{l}^{HN}(E)=E,$$where $\mathbb{F}_{k+i}^{HN}(E)=\ker (E\rightarrow Q/\mathbb{F}_{i}^{HN}(Q))$, for $i=0,1,\cdots ,l-k$. In particular, this means that $Q_{i}=\mathbb{F}% _{k+i}^{HN}(E)/\mathbb{F}_{k+i-1}^{HN}(E)=\mathbb{F}_{i}^{HN}(Q)$ and therefore $Gr^{HN}(E)=Gr^{HN}(S)\oplus Gr^{HN}(Q)$. \[Cor1\]Suppose that $0\subset E_{1}\subset \cdots \subset E_{l-1}\subset E_{l}=E$ is a filtration of $E$ by subbundles, and suppose that for each $i$, $\mu ^{\min }(E_{i})>\mu ^{\max }(E/E_{i})$. Then the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of $E$ is given by:$$\begin{aligned} 0 &\subset &\mathbb{F}_{1}^{HN}(E_{1})\subset \cdots \subset \mathbb{F}% _{k_{1}}^{HN}(E_{1})=E_{1}\subset \cdots \subset \mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{l-1}}^{HN}(E_{l-1})=E_{l-1} \\ &\subset &\mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{l-1}+1}^{HN}(E)\subset \cdots \subset \mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{l}}^{HN}(E)=E.\end{aligned}$$ Now we will define the double filtration that appears in the statement of the Main Theorem. Its existence follows from the existence of the $HN$ filtration and the following proposition. \[Prop5\]Let $Q$ be a semi-stable torsion free sheaf on $X$. Then there is a filtration:$$0\subset F_{1}\subset \cdots \subset F_{l}=Q$$such that $F_{i}/F_{i-1}$ is stable and torsion-free. Also, for each $i$ we have $\mu \left( F_{i}/F_{i-1}\right) =\mu (Q)$. The associated graded object:$$Gr_{\omega }^{S}(Q)={\Huge \oplus }_{i}F_{i}/F_{i-1}$$is uniquely determined by the isomorphism class of $Q$, though the filtration itself is not. Such a filtration is called a Seshadri filtration of $Q$. \[Prop6\]Let $E$ be a holomorphic vector bundle on $X$. Then there is a double filtration $\left\{ E_{i,j}\right\} $ with the following properties. If the $HN$ filtration is given by:$$0\subset E_{1}\subset \cdots \subset E_{l-1}\subset E_{l}=E,$$then $E_{i-1}=E_{i,0}\subset E_{i,1}\subset \cdots \subset E_{i,l_{i}}=E_{i}$, where the successive quotients $Q_{i,j}=E_{i,j}/E_{i,j-1}$ are stable and torsion-free. Furthermore: $\mu _{\omega }(Q_{i,j})=\mu _{\omega }(Q_{i,j+1}) $ for $j>0$, and $\mu _{\omega }(Q_{i,j})>\mu _{\omega }(Q_{i+1,j})$. The associated graded object $Gr_{\omega }^{HNS}(E)={\Huge % \oplus }_{i}{\Huge \oplus }_{j}Q_{i,j}$ is uniquely determined by the isomorphism class of $E$. This double filtration is called the Harder-Narasimhan-Seshadri filtration (or $HNS$ filtration) of $E$. Similarly, we can define an $K$-tuple:$$\mu =\left( \mu (Q_{1,1}),\cdots ,\mu (Q_{i,j}),\cdots ,\mu (Q_{l,k_{l}})\right)$$where each $\mu (Q_{i,j})$ is repeated according to $\limfunc{rk}(Q_{i,j})$. Note that this vector is exactly the same as the Harder-Narasimhan type of $% E $ (the slopes of a Seshadri filtration are all equal). Since each of the quotients $Q_{i,j}$ is torsion-free, $\limfunc{Sing}(Q_{ij})$ lies in codimension at least $2$. We will write:$$Z_{\limfunc{alg}}={\Huge \cup }_{i,j}\limfunc{Sing}(E_{i,j})\cup \limfunc{% Sing}(Q_{i,j}).$$This is a complex analytic subset of codimension at least two, and corresponds exactly to the set of points at which the $HNS$ filtration fails to be given by subbundles. We will refer to it as the algebraic singular set of the filtration. The Yang-Mills Functional and Uhlenbeck Compactness --------------------------------------------------- Recall that for $E\rightarrow X$ a complex vector bundle, the set of holomorphic structures on $E$ may be identified with the set of operators $% \bar{\partial}_{E}$ satisfying the Leibniz rule and the integrability condition $\bar{\partial}_{E}\circ \bar{\partial}_{E}=0$. When we wish to make the holomorphic structure explicit we will sometimes write $(E,\bar{% \partial}_{E})$. In general we will represent a connection either abstractly by its covariant derivative $\nabla _{A}$ or in local coordinates by its connection $1$-form $% A$. We will be careless about this distinction and use whichever notation is more convenient. We will write $\bar{\partial}_{A}$ and $\partial _{A}$ for the $(0,1)$ and $(1,0)$ parts of $\nabla _{A}$ respectively. If $(E,\bar{% \partial}_{E})$ is equipped with a smooth hermitian metric $h$, then there is a unique $h$-unitary connection $\nabla _{A}$ on $E$ called the Chern connection that satisfies $\bar{\partial}_{A}=$ $\bar{\partial}_{E}$. More specifically the local form of this connection in terms of $h$ is: $A=% \bar{h}^{-1}\partial \bar{h}$, with curvature $F_{A}=\bar{\partial}\left( \bar{h}^{-1}\partial \bar{h}\right) $. Sometimes we will denote this connection by $\nabla _{A}=(\bar{\partial}_{E},h)$. Conversely, if we have in hand a unitary connection $\nabla _{A}$ whose curvature $F_{A}=\nabla _{A}\circ \nabla _{A}$ is of type $(1,1)$ (i.e. $F_{A}^{0,2}=0$), then $\bar{% \partial}_{A}$ defines a holomorphic structure on $E$ by the Newlander-Nirenberg theorem, and $\nabla _{A}=(\bar{\partial}_{A},h)$. Let $\mathcal{A}_{h}$ denote the space of $h$-unitary connections $\nabla _{A}$ on $E$, and write $\mathcal{A}_{h}^{1,1}$ for the subset consisting of those with $F_{A}^{0,2}=0$. The above discussion translates to the statement that there is a bijection between $\mathcal{A}_{h}^{1,1}$ and the space $% \mathcal{A}_{\limfunc{hol}}$ of integrable $\bar{\partial}_{E}$ operators. We will write $\mathcal{G}$ for the set of unitary gauge transformations of $% E$. The set $\mathcal{G}$ is a bundle of groups whose fibres are copies of $% U(n)$, and $\mathcal{G}$ acts on $\mathcal{A}_{h}$ by the usual conjugation $% g\cdot \nabla _{A}=g^{-1}\circ \nabla _{A}\circ g$. Moreover this induces an action on $F_{A}$, which is also by conjugation, so the subspace $\mathcal{A}% _{h}^{1,1}$ is preserved. We will write:$$\mathcal{B}_{h}=\mathcal{A}_{h}/\mathcal{G}\ ,\ \mathcal{B}_{h}^{1,1}=% \mathcal{A}_{h}^{1,1}/\mathcal{G}$$for the quotients. Finally there is also an action of the full complex gauge group $\mathcal{G}% ^{% %TCIMACRO{\U{2102} }% %BeginExpansion \mathbb{C} %EndExpansion }$ (the set of all complex gauge transformations of $E$) on $\mathcal{A}_{% \limfunc{hol}}$ again by conjugation, i.e. $g\cdot \bar{\partial}% _{E}=g^{-1}\circ \bar{\partial}_{E}\circ g$. The set of isomorphism classes of holomorphic structures on $E$ is precisely the quotient $\mathcal{A}_{% \limfunc{hol}}/\mathcal{G}^{% %TCIMACRO{\U{2102} }% %BeginExpansion \mathbb{C} %EndExpansion }$, and via the bijection $\mathcal{A}_{\limfunc{hol}}\simeq \mathcal{A}% _{h}^{1,1}$ we see that $\mathcal{G}^{% %TCIMACRO{\U{2102} }% %BeginExpansion \mathbb{C} %EndExpansion }$ also acts on $\mathcal{A}_{h}^{1,1}$, extending the action of $\mathcal{G} $. Moreover, $\mathcal{G}^{% %TCIMACRO{\U{2102} }% %BeginExpansion \mathbb{C} %EndExpansion }$ also acts on the space of hermitian metrics via $h\mapsto g\cdot h$ where $g\cdot h(s_{1},s_{2})=h(g(s_{1}),g(s_{2}))$. In matrix form this reads $% g\cdot h=\bar{g}^{T}hg$. Now, starting from a holomorphic bundle $E$ with hermitian metric $h$ and Chern connection $(\bar{\partial}_{E},h)$, we may use a complex gauge transformation to perturb this connection in two different ways. We may either let $g$ act on $\bar{\partial}_{E}$ or on $h$. If we write $g^{\ast }$ for the adjoint of $g$ with respect to $h$, then $g\cdot h(s_{1},s_{2})=h(g^{\ast }g(s_{1}),s_{2})$. If we set $k=g^{\ast }g$, then the connection corresponding to $h$ and $g\cdot h$ are related by:$$\bar{\partial}_{h}=\bar{\partial}_{g\cdot h}\text{ }and\text{ }\partial _{g\cdot h}=k\circ \partial _{h}\circ k^{-1}.$$Now note that the action of a complex gauge transformation $g$ on a connection $\nabla _{A}$ is $$g\cdot \nabla _{A}=g^{\ast }\circ \partial _{A}\circ (g^{\ast })^{-1}+g^{-1}\circ \bar{\partial}_{A}\circ g,$$so $g\circ \nabla _{g\cdot A}\circ g^{-1}=k\circ \partial _{A}\circ k^{-1}+% \bar{\partial}_{A}=(\bar{\partial}_{E},g\cdot h)$ or$$\nabla _{g\cdot A}=(g\cdot \bar{\partial}_{E},h)=g^{-1}\circ (\bar{\partial}% _{E},g\cdot h)\circ g.$$Taking the square of this formula also gives the relation between the respective curvatures:$$F_{(g\cdot \bar{\partial}_{E},h)}=g^{-1}\circ F_{(\bar{\partial}_{E},g\cdot h)}\circ g.$$ If we denote by $\mathfrak{u}((E,h))\subset End(E)$ the subbundle of skew-hermitian endomorphisms, then for a section $\sigma $ of $\mathfrak{u}% (E)$, we will write $\left\vert \sigma \right\vert $ for its pointwise norm. This is defined as usual by$$\left\vert \sigma \right\vert =\left( \sum_{i=1}^{K}\left\vert \lambda _{i}\right\vert ^{2}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}$$where the $\lambda _{i}$ are the eigenvalues of $\sigma $ at a given point and $K$ is the rank of $E$. Now we may define the Yang-Mills functional ($YM$ functional) by:$$YM(\nabla _{A})=\int_{X}\left\vert F_{A}\right\vert ^{2}dvol.$$If we assume that $X$ is Kähler, we have:$$YM(\nabla _{A})=\int_{X}\left\vert F_{A}\right\vert ^{2}\frac{\omega ^{n}}{n!% }.$$This functional is gauge invariant and so defines a map $YM:\mathcal{B}_{h}% \mathcal{\rightarrow %TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }% %BeginExpansion \mathbb{R} %EndExpansion }$. Its critical points are the so called Yang-Mills connections and satisfy the Euler-Lagrange equations for $YM$: $d_{A}^{\ast }F_{A}=0$, where $d_{A}$ is the covariant derivative induced on $End(E)$ valued $2$-forms by $\nabla _{A}$. If $\nabla _{A}\in $ $\mathcal{A}_{h}^{1,1}$ then we may also define the Hermitian-Yang-Mills functional:$$HYM(\nabla _{A})=\int_{X}\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A}\right\vert ^{2}% \frac{\omega ^{n}}{n!},$$where $\Lambda _{\omega }$ is, as usual the adjoint of the Lefschetz operator, (which is given by wedging with the Kähler form). For a $(1,1)$ form $G=\sum G_{i,j}dz_{i}\wedge d\bar{z}_{j}$ this can be written explicitly in coordinates as$$\Lambda _{\omega }G=-2\sqrt{-1}\left( g^{ij}G_{ij}\right)$$where $g^{ij}$ denotes the inverse of the metric. The quantity $\Lambda _{\omega }F_{A}$ is called the Hermitian-Einstein tensor of $A$. Again $HYM$ is gauge invariant and so defines a functional $HYM:\mathcal{B}% _{h}^{1,1}\rightarrow %TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }% %BeginExpansion \mathbb{R} %EndExpansion $. Critical points of the functional satisfy the Euler-Lagrange equations: $% d_{A}\Lambda _{\omega }F_{A}=0$. On the other hand, just as in the preceding discussion, we may regard the holomorphic stucture as being fixed and consider the space of $(1,1)$ connections as being the set of pairs $(\bar{% \partial}_{E},h)$ where $h$ varies over all hermitian metrics. We may therefore think of $HYM$ as a functional $HYM(h)=HYM(\bar{\partial}_{E},h)$ on the space of hermitian metrics on $E$. A critical metric of $HYM$ is referred to a critical hermitian structure on $(E,\bar{\partial})$. An important fact that we will use is that when $X$ is compact, there is a relation between the two functionals $YM$ and $HYM$. Explicitly:$$YM(\nabla _{A})=HYM(\nabla _{A})+\frac{4\pi ^{2}}{\left( n-2\right) !}% \int_{X}\left( 2c_{2}(E)-c_{1}^{2}(E)\right) \wedge \omega ^{n-2}$$for any $A\in \mathcal{A}_{h}^{1,1}$. The second term depends only on the topology of $E$ and the form $\omega $, so $YM$ and $HYM$ have the same critical points on $\mathcal{A}_{h}^{1,1}$. Furthermore, $\nabla _{A}$ is a critical point of $YM$ and $HYM$, if and only if $h$ is a critical hermitian structure for the holomorphic stucture on $E$ given by $A$. For a Yang-Mills connection we have the following proposition. \[Prop7\]Let $\nabla _{A}\in \mathcal{A}_{h}^{1,1}$ be a Yang-Mills connection on an hermitian vector bundle $(E,h)$ over a Kähler manifold $% X$. Then $\nabla _{A}=\oplus _{i=1}^{l}\nabla _{A_{i}}$ where $E=\oplus _{i=1}^{l}Q_{i}$ is an orthogonal splitting of $E$, and where $\sqrt{-1}% \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{i}}=\lambda _{i}\mathbf{Id}_{Q_{i}}$, where $\lambda _{i}$ are constant. If $X$ is compact, then $\lambda _{i}=\mu (Q_{i})$. The proof is simply the observation (stated above) that the Hermitian-Einstein tensor of a Yang-Mills connection is covariantly constant, and so has constant eigenvalues and eigenspaces of constant rank. Therefore $E$ breaks up into a direct sum of the eigenspaces of this operator. \[Def4\]Let $E\rightarrow (X,\omega )$ be a holomorphic bundle. Then a connection $\nabla _{A}$ such that there exists a constant $\lambda $ with:$$\sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega }F_{A}=\lambda \mathbf{Id}_{E}$$is called an Hermitian-Einstein connection. If $A$ is the Chern connection of $(\bar{\partial}_{E},h)$ for some hermitian metric $h$, then $% h $ is called an Hermitian-Einstein metric. The existence of such a metric is related to stability properties of $E$. This is the Kobayashi-Hitchin correspondence (or Donaldson-Uhlenbeck-Yau theorem). \[Thm2\]A holomorphic vector bundle $E$ on a compact Kähler manifold $(X,\omega )$, admits an Hermitian-Einstein metric if and only if $E$ is polystable, i.e. $E$ splits holomorphically into a direct sum of $\omega $-stable bundles of the same $\omega $-slope $\mu _{\omega }(E)$. Such a metric is unique up to a positive constant. For the proof in the case of projective surfaces and projective complex manifolds see [@DO1] and [@DO2] respectively. For the proof in the general case see [@UY]. From the $HYM$ equations it is clear that an Hermitian-Einstein connection is Hermitian-Yang-Mills (and so Yang-Mills). \[Rmk3\]Note that if $E$ is holomorphic and $\nabla _{A}=(\bar{\partial}% _{E},h)$ for some hermitian metric $h$, then the same argument shows that $% (E,h)=\oplus _{i=1}^{l}(Q_{i},h_{i})$ where the $h_{i}$ are Hermitian-Einstein metrics and the splitting is orthogonal with respect to $% h $. Since the splitting is preserved by the Chern connection $\nabla _{A}$, it is also holomorphic with respect to the holomorphic structure on $E$ given by $\bar{\partial}_{E}$. We now give the statement of the general Uhlenbeck compactness theorem. Although we will be primarily concerned with the theorem as it applies to the Yang-Mills flow of the next section, the proof of the main theorem in Section $7$ will also rely on this more general statement. \[Thm3\]Let $X$ be a Kähler manifold (not necessarily compact) and $% E\rightarrow X$ a hermitian vector bundle with metric $h$. Fix any $p>n$. Let $\nabla _{A_{j}}$ be a sequence of integrable, unitary connections on $E$ such that $\left\Vert F_{A_{j}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(X)}$ and $\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{j}}\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }(X)}$ are uniformly bounded. Then there is a subsequence (still denoted $A_{j}$), a closed subset $Z_{\limfunc{an}}\subset X$ with Hausdorff codimension at least $4$, and a smooth hermitian vector bundle $(E_{\infty },h_{\infty })$ defined on the complement $X-Z_{\limfunc{an}}$ with a finite action Yang-Mills connection $\nabla _{A_{\infty }}$ on $E_{\infty }$, such that $\nabla _{A_{j}\mid X-Z_{\limfunc{an}}}$ is gauge equivalent to a sequence of connections that converges to $\nabla _{A_{\infty }}$ weakly in $% L_{1,loc}^{p}(X-Z_{\limfunc{an}})$. The statement of this version of Uhlenbeck compactness may be found for example in Uhlenbeck-Yau ([@UY] Theorem $5.2$). The proof is essentially contained in [@U2] and the statement about the singular set follows from the arguments in [@NA]. We will call such a limit $\nabla _{A_{\infty }}$ an Uhlenbeck limit. Furthermore, we have the following crucial extension of this theorem due essentially to Bando and Siu. \[Cor2\]If in addition to the assumptions in the previous theorem, we also require that:$$\left\Vert d_{A_{j}}\Lambda _{\omega }F_{Aj}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(X)}\longrightarrow 0,$$then any Uhlenbeck limit $\nabla _{A_{\infty }}$ is Yang-Mills. On $X-Z_{% \limfunc{an}}$ we therefore have a holomorphic, orthogonal, splitting:$$(E_{\infty },h_{\infty },\nabla _{A_{\infty }})={\Huge \oplus }% _{i=1}^{l}(Q_{\infty ,i},h_{\infty ,i},\nabla _{A_{\infty ,i}})$$Moreover $E_{\infty }$ extends to a reflexive sheaf (still denoted $% E_{\infty }$) on all of $X$. Most of the content of this corollary resides in the last statement, which may be found in [@BS] as Corollary $2$. The proof presented there is based on results in the papers [@B] and [@SIU]. The statement about the splitting follows directly from the fact that an Uhlenbeck limit is Yang-Mills and $\limfunc{Proposition}$ \[Prop7\]. Therefore it only remains to prove that the stated condition implies the limit is Yang-Mills. For a proof of this see for example [@DW1]. We will need the following simple corollary of Uhlenbeck compactness, which we will use repeatedly. \[Cor4\]With the same assumptions as in Theorem \[Thm3\], $\Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{j}}\rightarrow \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{\infty }}$ in $% L^{p}(X-Z_{\limfunc{an}})$ for all $1\leq p<\infty $. For the proof see [@DW1]. In general, if $\mathcal{E}$ is only a reflexive sheaf, Bando and Siu ([BS]{}) defined the notion of an admissible hermitian metric. This is an hermitian metric $h$ on the locally free part of $\mathcal{F}$ such that: $\cdot $ $\Lambda _{\omega }F_{h}\in L^{\infty }(X,\omega )$ $\cdot $ $F_{h}\in L^{2}(X,\omega ).$ Corollary \[Cor2\] says that the limiting metric is an admissible hermitian metric on the reflexive sheaf $E_{\infty }$ that is a direct sum of admissible Hermitian-Einstein metrics. We also point out the version of the Kobayashi-Hitchin correspondence for reflexive sheaves, due to Bando and Siu [@BS]. \[THM Bando-Siu\](Bando-Siu) A reflexive sheaf $\mathcal{E}$ on a compact Kähler manifold $(X,\omega )$ admits an admissible Hermitian-Einstein metric if and only if it is polystable. Such a metric is unique up to a positive constant. Note that this theorem says the $(Gr_{\omega }^{HNS}(E))^{\ast \ast }$ carries an admissible Yang-Mills connection (where admissible has the same meaning for connections), which is unique up to gauge. Weakly Holomorphic Projections/Second Fundamental Forms ------------------------------------------------------- Let $S\subset E$ be a subsheaf with quotient $Q$. Then away from $\limfunc{% Sing}(S)\cup \limfunc{Sing}(Q)$, $S$ is a subbundle. If we fix an hermitian metric $h$ on $E$, then we may think of $S$ as a direct summand away from the singular set, and there is a corresponding smooth projection operator $% \pi :E\rightarrow S$ depending on $h$. The condition of being a holomorphic subbundle almost everywhere can be shown to be equivalent to the condition: $% \left( \mathbf{Id}_{E}-\pi \right) \bar{\partial}_{E}\pi =0$. Since $\pi $ is a projection operator we also have $\pi ^{2}=\pi =\pi ^{\ast }$. Furthermore it can be shown that $\pi $ extends to an $L_{1}^{2}$ section of $\limfunc{End}E$. Conversely it turns out that an operator with these properties determines a subsheaf. \[Def5\]An element $\pi \in L_{1}^{2}(\limfunc{End}E)$ is called a weakly holomorphic projection operator if the conditions $$\left( \mathbf{Id}_{E}-\pi \right) \bar{\partial}_{E}\pi =0\text{ }and\text{ }\pi _{j}^{2}=\pi _{j}=\pi _{j}^{\ast }\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\ast$$hold almost everywhere. \[Thm4\](Uhlenbeck-Yau) A weakly holomorphic projection operator $\pi $ of a holomorphic vector bundle $(E,h)$ with a smooth hermitian metric over a compact Kähler manifold $(X,\omega )$ determines a coherent subsheaf of $% E$. That is, there exists a coherent subsheaf $S$ of $E$ together with a singular set $V\subset X$ with the following properties: $\cdot \limfunc{Codim}V\geq 2,$ $\cdot \pi _{\mid X-V}$ is $C^{\infty }$ and satisfies $\ast $, $\cdot S_{\mid X-V}=$ $\pi _{\mid X-V}(E_{\mid X-V})\hookrightarrow $ $% E_{\mid X-V}$ is a holomorphic subbundle. The proof of this theorem is contained in [@UY]. From here on out we will identify a subsheaf with its weakly holomorphic holomorphic projection. If $S\subset E$ is a subsheaf, then away from $\limfunc{Sing}(S)\cup \limfunc{Sing}(Q)$ there is an orthogonal splitting $E=S\oplus Q$. In general we may write the Chern connection $\nabla _{(\bar{\partial}_{E},h)}$ connection on $E$ as:$$\nabla _{(\bar{\partial}_{E},h)}=% \begin{pmatrix} \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{S},h_{S}\right) } & \beta \\ -\beta ^{\ast } & \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{Q},h_{Q}\right) }% \end{pmatrix}%$$where $\nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{S},h_{S}\right) }$ and $\nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{Q},h_{Q}\right) }$ are the induced Chern connections on $S$ and $Q$ respectively, and $\beta $ is the second fundamental form. Recall that $\beta \in \Omega ^{0,1}(Hom(Q,S))$. More specifically, in terms of the projection operator, we have$\ \bar{\partial}% _{E}\pi =\beta $ and$\ \partial _{E}\pi =\beta ^{\ast }$. Also $\beta $ extends to an $L^{2}$ section of $\Omega ^{0,1}(Hom(Q,S))$ everywhere as $% \bar{\partial}_{E}\pi $ since $\pi $ is $L_{1}^{2}$. We also have the following well-known formula for the degree of a subsheaf in terms of its weakly holomorphic projection. \[Thm5\](Chern-Weil Formula) Let $S\subset E$ be a saturated subsheaf of a holomorphic vector bundle with hermitian metric $h$, and $\pi $ the associated weakly holomorphic projection. Let $\bar{\partial}_{E}$ denote the holomorphic structure on $E$. Then we have:$$\deg S=\frac{1}{2\pi n}\int_{X}\limfunc{Tr}\left( \sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega }F_{(\bar{\partial}_{E},h)}\pi \right) \omega ^{n}-\frac{1}{2\pi n}% \int_{X}\left\vert \beta \right\vert ^{2}\omega ^{n}$$ The statement of this theorem as well as a sketch of the proof may be found in [@SI]. This formula will also follow as a special case of our discussion in Section $4$. Clearly any sequence $\pi _{j}$ of such projection operators is uniformly bounded in $L^{\infty }(X)$. As an immediate corollary of the Chern-Weil formula we have the following. \[Cor5\]A sequence $\pi _{j}$ of weakly holomorphic projection operators such that $\deg \pi _{j}$ is bounded from below is uniformly bounded in $% L_{1}^{2}$. In particular, if $\deg \pi _{j}$ is constant then $\pi _{j}$ is bounded in $L_{1}^{2}$. Now suppose $\nabla _{A_{0}\text{ }}$is a reference connection, $g_{j}\in \mathcal{G}^{% %TCIMACRO{\U{2102} }% %BeginExpansion \mathbb{C} %EndExpansion }$ is a sequence of complex gauge transformations, and $\nabla _{A_{j}}$ is the sequence of integrable unitary connections on an hermitian vector bundle $(E,h)$ given by $\nabla _{A_{j}}=g_{j}\cdot \nabla _{A_{0}}$, and assume as before that $\Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{j}}$ is uniformly bounded in $L^{\infty }$. Let $S\subset E$ be a subbundle with quotient $Q$. We have a sequence of projection operators $\pi _{j}$ given by orthogonal projection onto $% g_{j}(S) $ (with respect to the metric $h$) from $E$ to holomorphic subbundles $S_{j}$ (whose holomorphic structures are induced by the connections $\nabla _{A_{j}} $) smoothly isomorphic to $S$. We will denote by $Q_{j}$ the corresponding quotients. Each of these holomorphic subbundles has a second fundamental form which we will write as $\beta _{j}$. Assume that the $\beta _{j}$ are also uniformly bounded in $L^{2}$ (this will later be a consequence of our hypotheses). Then with all of the above understood, we have the following result. \[Lemma4\]For any $1\leq p<\infty $, the $\beta _{j}$ are bounded in $% L_{1,loc}^{p}(X-Z_{\limfunc{an}})$, uniformly for all $j$. In particular the $\beta _{j}$ are uniformly bounded on compact subsets of $X-Z_{\limfunc{an}}$. The proof is the same as in [@DW1] Section 2.2. The Yang-Mills Flow and Basic Properties ======================================== The Flow Equations/Lower Bound for the $HN$ Type of the Limit ------------------------------------------------------------- As stated in the introduction, although many of our arguments are valid for minimising sequences of unitary connections, our primary interest will be in sequences obtained from the Yang-Mills flow. This is a sequence of integrable unitary connections $A_{t}$ obtained as solutions of the $L^{2}$-gradient flow equations for the $YM$ functional. Explicitly:$$\frac{\partial A_{t}}{\partial t}=-d_{A_{t}}^{\ast }F_{A_{t}},\text{ \ }% A_{0}\in \mathcal{A}_{h}^{1,1}.$$It follows from [@DO1] and [@SI] that the above equations have a unique solution in $\mathcal{A}_{h}^{1,1}\times \lbrack 0,\infty )$. Moreover, the flow preserves complex gauge orbits, that is, $A_{t}$ lies in the orbit $\mathcal{G}^{% %TCIMACRO{\U{2102} }% %BeginExpansion \mathbb{C} %EndExpansion }\cdot A_{0}$. This may be seen as follows. Instead of solving for the connection, fix $A_{0}$ so that $\bar{\partial}_{A_{0}}=\bar{\partial}_{E}$, and consider instead the family of hermitian metrics $h_{t}$ satisfying the Hermitian-Yang-Mills flow equations:$$h_{t}^{-1}\frac{\partial h_{t}}{\partial t}=-2\left( \sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega }F_{h_{t}}-\mu _{\omega }(E)Id_{E}\right) .$$In the above, $F_{h_{t}}$ is the curvature of $(\bar{\partial}_{E},h_{t})$. The Yang-Mills and Hermitian-Yang-Mills flow equations are equivalent up to gauge. If $A_{t}=g_{t}\cdot A_{0}$ is a solution of the Yang-Mills flow, then $h_{t}=h_{0}g_{t}^{\ast }g_{t}$ is a solution of the Hermitian-Yang-Mills flow. Conversely, if $h_{t}=h_{0}k_{t}$ (where $% h_{0}k_{t}(s_{1},s_{2})=h_{0}(k_{t}s_{1},s_{2})$) for a positive definite self-adjoint (with respect to $h_{0}$) endomorphism $k_{t}$, then $% A_{t}=\left( k_{t}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}A_{0}$ is real gauge equivalent to a solution of the Yang-Mills flow. To spell out the equivalence precisely, the map:$$g_{t}:(E,\bar{\partial}_{E},h_{0}k_{t})\longrightarrow (E,g_{t}(\bar{\partial% }_{E}),h_{0})$$is a biholomorphism and an isometry, where $k_{t}=g_{t}^{\ast }g_{t}$. For a detailed discussion of this see [@WIL] section $3.1$ for details. \[Lemm5\]Let $A_{t}$ be a solution of the $YM$ flow. Then: $(1)$ $$\frac{\partial F_{A_{t}}}{\partial t}=-\triangle _{A_{t}}F_{A_{t}}$$and therefore,$$\frac{d}{dt}\left\Vert F_{A_{t}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{2}=-2\left\Vert d_{A_{t}}^{\ast }F_{A_{t}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{2}\leq 0.$$Hence, $t\mapsto YM(A_{t})$, and $t\mapsto HYM(A_{t})$ are non-increasing. $(2)$ $\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{t}}\right\vert ^{2}$ satisfies$$\frac{\partial \left\vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{t}}\right\vert ^{2}}{% \partial t}+\triangle \left\vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{t}}\right\vert ^{2}=-2\left\vert d_{A_{t}}^{\ast }F_{A_{t}}\right\vert ^{2}\leq 0,$$so by the maximum principle $\sup \left\vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{t}}\right\vert ^{2}$ is decreasing in $t$. For the proof see [@DOKR] Chapter 6. Now we may apply the Uhlenbeck compactness theorem to a sequence of connections given by the flow. \[Prop8\]Let $X$ be a compact Kähler manifold. Let $A_{0}$ be any fixed connection, and $A_{t}$ denote its evolution along the flow. Fix $p>n$. For any sequence $t_{j}\rightarrow \infty $ there is a subsequence (still denoted $t_{j}$), a closed subset $Z_{\limfunc{an}}\subset X$ with Hausdorff codimension at least $4$, and a smooth hermitian vector bundle $(E_{\infty },h_{\infty })$ defined on the complement $X-Z_{\limfunc{an}}$ with a finite action Yang-Mills connection $A_{\infty }$ on $E_{\infty }$, such that $% A_{t_{j}\mid X-Z_{\limfunc{an}}}$ is gauge equivalent to a sequence of connections that converges to $A_{\infty }$ weakly in $L_{1,loc}^{p}(X-Z_{% \limfunc{an}})$. Away from $Z_{\limfunc{an}\text{ }}$there is a smooth splitting: $\left( E_{\infty },A_{\infty },h_{\infty }\right) =\oplus _{i=l}^{l}\left( Q_{\infty ,i},A_{\infty ,i},h_{\infty ,i}\right) $, where $% A_{\infty ,i}$ is the induced connection on $Q_{i}$, and $h_{\infty ,,i}$ is an Hermitian-Einstein metric. Furthermore, $E_{\infty }$ extends over $Z_{% \limfunc{an}}$ as a reflexive sheaf (still denoted $E_{\infty }$), so that the metrics $h_{\infty ,i}$ are admissible Hermitian-Einstein metrics on the extension. The functions $\left\Vert F_{A_{t}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}}$ and $\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{t}}\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }}$ are uniformly bounded by parts $(1)$ and $(2)$ of Lemma $\ref{Lemm5}$ respectively. By [@DOKR] $\limfunc{Proposition}$ $6.2.14$, $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty }\left\Vert \nabla _{A_{t}}\Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{t}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}}=0$. The remaining statements follow from Corollary $\ref{Cor2}$. Just as before we call $A_{\infty }$ an Uhlenbeck limit of the flow. \[Lemma6\]If $A_{\infty }$ is an Uhlenbeck limit of $A_{t_{j}}$, then $% \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{j}}\rightarrow \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{\infty }}$ in $L^{p}(X-Z_{\limfunc{an}})$ for all $1\leq p<\infty $. Moreover, $% \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty }HYM(A_{t})=HYM(A_{\infty })$. The first part is immediate from Corollary $\ref{Cor4}$. The second statement is immediate from the facts that $t\rightarrow HYM(A_{t})$ is non-increasing, and $HYM(A_{t_{j}})\mapsto HYM(A_{\infty })$. The set of all $HN$ types of holomorphic bundles on $X$ has a partial ordering due to Shatz [@SH]. For a pair of $K$-tuples $\mu $ and $\lambda $ with $\mu _{1}\geq \mu _{2}\geq \cdots \geq \mu _{K}$ and $% \lambda _{1}\geq \lambda _{2}\geq \cdots \geq \lambda _{K}$ and $\sum_{i}\mu _{i}=\sum_{i}\lambda _{i}$, we write$$\mu \leq \lambda \Longleftrightarrow \sum_{j\leq k}\mu _{j}\leq \sum_{j\leq k}\lambda _{j}\text{ }for\text{ }all\text{ }k=1,\cdots ,K.$$This partial ordering was originally used by Shatz to stratify the space of holomorphic structures on a complex vector bundle. The first crucial step in [@DW1] is to prove that the $HN$ type of an Uhlenbeck limit is bounded below by the $HN$ type $\mu _{0}$ of $E$. For the proofs of this and its corollaries, we refer to [@DW1] as the proof is unchanged in the general case. \[Prop9\]Let $A_{j}$ be a sequence of connections along the $YM$ flow on a holomorphic vector bundle of rank $K$, with Uhlenbeck limit $A_{\infty }$. Let $\mu _{0}$ be the $HN$ type of $E$ with holomorphic structure $\bar{% \partial}_{A_{0}}$. Let $\lambda _{\infty }$ be the $HN$ type of $\bar{% \partial}_{A_{\infty }}$. Then $\mu _{0}\leq \lambda _{\infty }$. \[Cor3\]Let $\mu =\left( \mu _{1},\cdots ,\mu _{K}\right) $ be the $HN$ type of a rank $K$ holomorphic vector bundle $(E,\bar{\partial}_{E})$ on $X$. Then$$\sum_{i=1}^{K}\mu _{i}^{2}\leq \frac{1}{2\pi n}\int_{X}\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A}\right\vert ^{2}\omega ^{n}$$and $$\left( \sum_{i=1}^{K}\mu _{i}^{2}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}\leq \frac{1}{2\pi n}% \int_{X}\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A}\right\vert \omega ^{n}$$for all unitary connections $\nabla _{A}$ in the $\mathcal{G}^{% %TCIMACRO{\U{2102} }% %BeginExpansion \mathbb{C} %EndExpansion }$ orbit of $(E,\bar{\partial}_{E})$. Hermitian-Yang-Mills Type Functionals ------------------------------------- The $YM$ and $HYM$ functionals are not sufficient to distinguish different $% HN$ types in general. In other words there may be multiple connections with the same $YM$ number, but which induce holomorphic structures with different $HN$ types. In this subsection we introduce generalisations of the $HYM$ functional that can be used to distinguish different types. This is only a technical device, but will be used essentially in Section $5$. Write $\mathfrak{u}(K)$ for the Lie algebra of the unitary group $U(K)$. Fix a real number $\alpha \geq 1$. Then for $\mathbf{v}\in \mathfrak{u}(K),$ a skew hermitian matrix with eigenvalues $\sqrt{-1}\lambda _{1},\cdots ,\sqrt{% -1}\lambda _{K},$ let $\varphi _{\alpha }(\mathbf{v})=\sum_{i=1}^{K}\left% \vert \lambda _{i}\right\vert ^{\alpha }$. It can be seen that there is a family $\varphi _{\alpha ,\rho }$, $0<\rho \leq 1$, of smooth convex $% \limfunc{Ad}$-invariant functions such that $\varphi _{\alpha ,\rho }\rightarrow \varphi _{\alpha }$ uniformly on compact subsets of $\mathfrak{u% }(K)$. By Atiyah-Bott ([@AB]), $\limfunc{Proposition}$ $12.16$, $\varphi _{\alpha }$ is a convex function on $\mathfrak{u}(K)$. Now if $E$ is a vector bundle of rank $K$ equipped with an hermitian metric, we may consider a section $\sigma \in \Gamma (X,\mathfrak{u}(E))$ as collection of local sections $\{\sigma _{\beta }\}$ such that $\sigma _{\beta }=\limfunc{Ad}% (g_{\beta \gamma })\sigma _{\gamma }$ where $g_{\beta \rho }$ are the transition functions for $E$. By the $\limfunc{Ad}$-invariance of $\varphi _{\alpha }$, $\varphi _{\alpha }(\sigma _{\beta })=\varphi _{\alpha }(\sigma _{\gamma })$, so $\varphi _{\alpha }$ induces a well-defined function $\Phi _{\alpha }$ on $\mathfrak{u}(E)$. Then for a fixed real number $N$, define:$$HYM_{\alpha ,N}(A)=\int_{X}\Phi _{\alpha }(\Lambda _{\omega }F_{A}+\sqrt{-1}N% \mathbf{Id}_{E})dvol_{\omega }$$and $HYM_{\alpha }(A)=HYM_{\alpha ,0}(A)$. Note that $HYM=HYM_{2}$ is the usual $HYM$ functional. In the sequel we will write:$$\begin{aligned} HYM_{\alpha ,N}(\mu ) &=&HYM_{\alpha }(\mu +N)=\frac{2\pi }{\left( n-1\right) !}\Phi _{\alpha }(\sqrt{-1}\left( \mu +N\right) ), \\ where\text{ }\mu +N &=&\left( \mu _{1}+N,\cdots ,\mu _{K}+N\right)\end{aligned}$$is identified with the matrix $\limfunc{diag}\left( \mu _{1}+N,\cdots ,\mu _{K}+N\right) $. Therefore:$$HYM(\mu )=\frac{2\pi }{\left( n-1\right) !}\sum_{i=1}^{K}\mu _{i}^{2}.$$We have the following elementary lemma whose proof we omit. \[Lemma9\]The functional $\mathbf{v\to }\left( \int_{X}\Phi _{\alpha }(% \mathbf{v})\right) ^{\frac{1}{\alpha }}$ is equivalent to the $L^{\alpha }(% \mathfrak{u}(E))$ norm. The following three propositions will be crucial in Section $5$. For the proofs see [@DW1]. \[Prop10\]$(1)$ If $\mu \leq \lambda $, then $\Phi _{\alpha }(\sqrt{-1}% \mu )\leq \Phi _{\alpha }(\sqrt{-1}\lambda )$ for all $\alpha \geq 1$. $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (2)$ Assume $\mu _{K}\geq 0$ and $\lambda _{K}\geq 0$. If $\Phi _{\alpha }(\sqrt{-1}\mu )=\Phi _{\alpha }(\sqrt{-1}% \lambda )$ for all $\alpha $ in some set $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ A\subset \lbrack 1,\infty )$ possessing a limit point, then $\mu =\lambda $. \[Prop11\]Let $A_{t}$ be a solution of the $YM$ flow. Then for any $% \alpha \geq 1$ and any $N$, $t\mapsto HYM_{\alpha ,N}(A_{t})$ is non-increasing. \[Prop12\]Let $A_{\infty }$ be a subsequential Uhlenbeck limit of $A_{t}$ where $A_{t}$ is a solution of the $YM$ flow. Then for all $\alpha \geq 1$, $% \lim_{t\to\infty }HYM_{\alpha ,N}(A_{t})=HYM_{\alpha ,N}(A_{\infty }) $. Properties of Blowups and Resolution of the $HNS$ Filtration ============================================================ In this section we discuss the properties of blowups of complex manifolds along complex submanifolds that will be used in the subsequent discussion. Essentially all of this material is standard, but we review it carefully now because we will need to employ these facts often in the proofs of the main results. Resolution of Singularities Type Theorems ----------------------------------------- The $HNS$ filtration is in general only given by subsheaves, making it difficult to do analysis. We will therefore need some way of obtaining a filtration by subbundles, that is, a way of resolving the singularities. In two dimensions, when the singular set consists of point singularities this can be done by hand (see [@BU1]), but in higher dimensions the only available tool seems to be the general resolution of singularities theorem of Hironaka. Specifically: \[Thm6\](Resolution of Singularities) Let $X$ be a compact, complex space (or $\mathbb{C}$-scheme). Then there exists a finite sequence of blowups with smooth centres:$$\tilde{X}=X_{m}\overset{\pi _{m}}{\longrightarrow }X_{m-1}\longrightarrow \cdots \longrightarrow X_{1}\overset{\pi _{1}}{\longrightarrow }X_{0}=X$$such that $\tilde{X}$ is compact and non-singular (a complex manifold) and the centre $Y_{j-1}$ of each blowup $\pi _{j}$ is contained in the singular locus of $X_{j-1}$. For the proof see [@H1] and [@H2]. What we will actually use is the following corollary: \[Cor6\](Resolution of the Locus of Indeterminacy) Let $X$ and $Y$ be compact, complex spaces and let $\varphi :X\dashrightarrow Y$ be a rational (meromorphic) map. Then there exists a compact, complex space $\tilde{X}% \overset{\pi }{\rightarrow }X$ obtained from $X$ by a sequence of blowups with smooth centres and a holomorphic map $\psi :\tilde{X}\rightarrow Y$ such that the following diagram commutes:$$\begin{array}{ccc} \widetilde{X} & & \\ \downarrow & \searrow & \\ X & \underset{\varphi }{\dashrightarrow } & Y% \end{array}% .$$ In our case both $X$ and $Y$ (and hence also $\tilde{X}$) will be complex manifolds. Note that in this case a blowup with smooth centre is the same as the blowup along a complex submanifold. We will apply the Corollary in the following way. The $HNS$ filtration of a bundle $E$, which in the sequel we will abbreviate for simplicity as:$$0=E_{0}\subset E_{1}\subset \cdots \subset E_{l-1}\subset E_{l}=E$$(i.e. we ignore the notation indicating that it is a double filtration), as stated previously, is in general a filtration only by subsheaves of $E$. We may think of a subbundle $S\subset E$ of rank $k$ as a holomorphic section of the Grassmann bundle $Gr(k,E)$, the bundle whose fibre at each point is the set of $k$-dimensional complex subspaces of the fibre of $E$. Similarly a filtration by subbundles corresponds to a holomorphic section of the partial flag bundle $\mathbb{FL}(d_{1},\cdots ,d_{l},E)$, the bundle whose fibre at each point is the set of $l$ flags of type $(d_{1},\cdots ,d_{l})$ where $d_{i}=\limfunc{rk}(E_{i})$. On the other hand a filtration by subsheaves corresponds to a rational section $X\overset{\sigma }{% \dashrightarrow }\mathbb{FL}(d_{1},\cdots ,d_{l},E)$. The corollary says that by blowing up finitely many times along complex submanifolds, we obtain an honest section $\tilde{X}\rightarrow \mathbb{FL}(d_{1},\cdots ,d_{l},\pi ^{\ast }E)$. More explicitly, we have a diagram:$$\begin{array}{ccc} \tilde{X} & \overset{\overset{\tilde{\sigma}}{\longrightarrow }}{% \longleftarrow } & \mathbb{FL}(\pi ^{\ast }E) \\ \downarrow & \searrow & \downarrow \\ X & \overset{\overset{\sigma }{\dashrightarrow }}{\underset{p}{% \longleftarrow }} & \mathbb{FL}(E)% \end{array}%$$where $\tilde{\sigma}$ will be constructed below. The outer square is just the pullback diagram for the map $\tilde{X}\overset{\pi }{\rightarrow }X$. First we claim that the triangle:$$\begin{array}{ccc} \tilde{X} & & \\ \downarrow & \searrow & \\ X & \longleftarrow & \mathbb{FL}(E)% \end{array}%$$commutes. If we write $\psi $ for the desingularised map $\tilde{X}% \longrightarrow \mathbb{FL}(E)$, then note that for a point $\tilde{x}\in \tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$, we have $\psi (\tilde{x})=\psi (\pi ^{-1}(x))$ for $% x\in Z_{\limfunc{alg}}$. Then we have: $p(\psi (\tilde{x}))=p(\sigma (\pi (% \tilde{x})))=x=\pi (\tilde{x})$ since $\sigma $ is well-defined and a section away from $Z_{\limfunc{alg}}$ and we know the diagram:$$\begin{array}{ccc} \tilde{X} & & \\ \downarrow & \searrow & \\ X & \overset{\sigma }{\dashrightarrow } & \mathbb{FL}(E)% \end{array}%$$commutes. In other words on $\tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$ we have $p\circ \psi =\pi $. But since both of these are holomorphic maps $\tilde{X}\longrightarrow X$, $p\circ \psi =\pi $ on $\tilde{X}$ by the uniqueness principle for holomorphic maps, since they agree on a non-empty open subset. Now $\mathbb{% FL}(\pi ^{\ast }E)=\pi ^{\ast }\mathbb{FL}(E)=\{(\tilde{x},\nu )\in \tilde{X}% \times \mathbb{FL}(E)\mid \pi (\tilde{x})=p(\nu )\}$. Now define $\tilde{% \sigma}:\tilde{X}\longrightarrow \mathbb{FL}(\pi ^{\ast }E)$ by $\tilde{% \sigma}(\tilde{x})=(\tilde{x},\psi (\tilde{x}))$. Since $p\circ \psi =\pi $ this is indeed a map into $\mathbb{FL}(\pi ^{\ast }E)$, and it is manifestly a section. In other words there is a filtration of $\pi ^{\ast }E$:$$0=\tilde{E}_{0}\subset \tilde{E}_{1}\subset \cdots \subset \tilde{E}% _{l-1}\subset \tilde{E}_{l}=\pi ^{\ast }E$$where the $\tilde{E}_{i}$ are subbundles. Now note that we have the following diagram:$$\begin{array}{ccc} & & \tilde{Q}_{i} \\ & & \uparrow \\ & & \pi ^{\ast }E \\ & \nearrow & \uparrow \\ \pi ^{\ast }E_{i} & \dashrightarrow & \tilde{E}_{i}% \end{array}%$$where the dashed line is the rational map corresponding to the equality of $% \pi ^{\ast }E_{i}$ and $\tilde{E}_{i}$ away from $\mathbf{E}$ (both are equal to $E_{i}$), and $\tilde{Q}_{i}$ is the quotient of $\pi ^{\ast }E$ by $\tilde{E}_{i}$. Then $\tilde{Q}_{i}$ is a vector bundle and in particular torsion free. On the other hand the image of $\pi ^{\ast }E_{i}$ under the composition $\pi ^{\ast }E_{i}\rightarrow \pi ^{\ast }E\rightarrow \tilde{Q}% _{i}$ is torsion since it is supported on the divisor $\mathbf{E}$, and hence must be zero. If we write $\limfunc{Im}\pi ^{\ast }E_{i}$ for the image of $\pi ^{\ast }E_{i}\longrightarrow \pi ^{\ast }E$, this means there is an actual inclusion of sheaves $\limfunc{Im}\pi ^{\ast }E_{i}\hookrightarrow \tilde{E}_{i}$. The quotient sheaf $\tilde{E}_{i}/% \limfunc{Im}\pi ^{\ast }E_{i}$ is supported on $\mathbf{E}$, hence torsion and so it follows from Lemma \[Lemma1\] that $\tilde{E}_{i}=\limfunc{Sat}% _{\pi ^{\ast }E}(\limfunc{Im}\pi ^{\ast }E_{i})$. Since $\pi _{\ast }\tilde{E}_{i}$ is equal to $E_{i}$ away from $\limfunc{% Sing}E_{i}$ there is a birational map $E_{i}\dashrightarrow \pi _{\ast }% \tilde{E}_{i}$. Now consider the short exact sequence:$$0\longrightarrow \tilde{E}_{i}\longrightarrow \pi ^{\ast }E\rightarrow \tilde{Q}_{i}\longrightarrow 0.$$Pushing this sequence forward, and noting that $\pi _{\ast }\tilde{Q}_{i}$ is torsion free and hence injects into its double dual, we have an exact sequence:$$0\longrightarrow \pi _{\ast }\tilde{E}_{i}\longrightarrow E\rightarrow \left( \pi _{\ast }\tilde{Q}_{i}\right) ^{\ast \ast }.$$Recall that a sheaf $S$ is normal if for any analytic subset $Z$ of codimension at least two, the map $S(U)\longrightarrow S(U-Z)$ on local sections is an isomorphism for any open set $U$. In other words, the local sections of a normal sheaf extend over codimension two subvarieties. Furthermore, recall that a sheaf is reflexive if and only if it is both torsion free and normal. Then $(\pi _{\ast }\tilde{Q}_{i})^{\ast \ast }$ and $E$ are in particular both normal since they are reflexive. A simple diagram chase reveals that normality of these sheaves together with the exactness of this last sequence implies that $\pi _{\ast }\tilde{E}_{i}$ is also normal (and in fact reflexive, since it is also torsion free). Because $E_{i}$ is saturated by construction, it is also reflexive and therefore normal. It is easy to see from the definitions that a map between normal sheaves that is defined away from a codimension two subvariety extends to a map on all of $X$. Since $\limfunc{Sing}E_{i}$ has singular set of codimension at least three, the map $E_{i}\dashrightarrow \pi _{\ast }% \tilde{E}_{i}$ extends to an isomorphism $E_{i}\cong \pi _{\ast }\tilde{E}% _{i}$. Similarly, if $\tilde{Q}_{i}=\tilde{E}_{i}/\tilde{E}_{i-1}$, then $\pi _{\ast }\tilde{Q}_{i}$ is equal to $Q_{i}$ away from $\limfunc{Sing}Q_{i}$ so again we have a birational map $\left( Q_{i}\right) ^{\ast \ast }\dashrightarrow (\pi _{\ast }\tilde{Q}_{i})^{\ast \ast }$. Since the double dual is always reflexive, these sheaves are normal, so the map extends to an isomorphism. To summarise: \[Prop13\]Let $$0=E_{0}\subset E_{1}\subset \cdots \subset E_{l-1}\subset E_{l}=E$$be a filtration of a holomorphic vector bundle $E\rightarrow X$ by saturated subsheaves and let $Q_{i}=E_{i}/E_{i-1}$. Then there is a finite sequence of blowups along complex submanifolds whose composition $\pi :\tilde{X}% \rightarrow X$ enjoys the following properties. There is a filtration $$0=\tilde{E}_{0}\subset \tilde{E}_{1}\subset \cdots \subset \tilde{E}% _{l-1}\subset \tilde{E}_{l}=\tilde{E}=\pi ^{\ast }E$$by subbundles. If we write $\limfunc{Im}\pi ^{\ast }E_{i}$ for the image of $% \pi ^{\ast }E_{i}\hookrightarrow \pi ^{\ast }E_{i}$, then $\tilde{E}_{i}=% \limfunc{Sat}_{\pi ^{\ast }E}\left( \limfunc{Im}\pi ^{\ast }E_{i}\right) $. If $\tilde{Q}_{i}=\tilde{E}_{i}/\tilde{E}_{i-1}$ then we have $\pi _{\ast }% \tilde{E}_{i}=E_{i}$ and $Q_{i}^{\ast \ast }=(\pi _{\ast }\tilde{Q}% _{i})^{\ast \ast }$. We will also have occasion to consider ideal sheaves $\mathcal{I}\subset \mathcal{O}_{X}$ whose vanishing set is a closed complex subspace $Y\subset X $. If $Y$ is smooth for example then we may blowup along $Y$ to obtain a smooth manifold $\pi :\tilde{X}\longrightarrow X$. Denote by $\pi ^{\ast }% \mathcal{I}$ is the ideal sheaf generated by pulling back local sections of $% \mathcal{I}$, in other words the ideal sheaf in $\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{X}}$ generated by the image of $\pi ^{-1}\mathcal{I}$ under the map $\pi ^{-1}% \mathcal{O}_{X}\longrightarrow \mathcal{O}_{\tilde{X}}$ where $\pi ^{-1}% \mathcal{I}$ and $\pi ^{-1}\mathcal{O}_{X}$ are the inverse image sheaves. Note that this is not necessarily equal to the usual sheaf theoretic pullback of $\mathcal{I}$ which is given by $\pi ^{-1}\mathcal{I\otimes }% _{\pi ^{-1}\mathcal{O}_{X}}\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{X}}$ and may for example have torsion. The sheaf $\pi ^{\ast }\mathcal{I}$ is sometimes called the inverse image ideal sheaf. If the order of vanishing of $\mathcal{I}$ along $Y$ is $m$, then $\pi ^{\ast }\mathcal{% I\subset }$ $\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{X}}(-m\mathbf{E)}$, that is, every element of $\pi ^{\ast }\mathcal{I}$ vanishes to order at least $m$ along the smooth divisor $\mathbf{E}$. In this situation we will use this notation without further comment. In general $Y$ is not smooth, so we appeal to the following resolution of singularities theorem, which is sometimes referred to as principalisation of $\mathcal{I}$ or more specifically monomialisation of $\mathcal{I}$ , and results of this type are usually used to prove resolution of singularities. \[Thm7\]Let $X$ be a complex manifold and $Y$ a closed complex subspace. Then there is a finite sequence of blowups along smooth centres whose composition yields a map $\pi :\tilde{X}\rightarrow X$ such that $\pi :% \tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}\rightarrow X-W$ is biholomorphic, $\mathbf{E=\pi }% ^{-1}(W)$ is a normal crossings divisor, and $\pi ^{\ast }\mathcal{I=O}_{% \tilde{X}}(-\sum_{i}m_{i}\mathbf{E}_{i})$ where the $\mathbf{E}_{i}$ are the irreducible components of $\mathbf{E}$. Moreover, $\pi ^{\ast }\mathcal{I}$ is locally principal (monomial) in the following sense: for any $x\in X$ there is a local coordinate neighbourhood $U\subset X$ containing $x$ and a local section $f_{0}$ of $\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{X}}(-\sum_{i}m_{i}\mathbf{E}% _{i})$ over $\mathbf{\pi }^{-1}(U),$ such that if $f_{j}$ is any local section of $\mathcal{I}$ over $U$, then $\pi ^{\ast }f_{j}=f_{0}f_{j}^{^{\prime }}$ where $f_{j}^{^{\prime }}$ is a non-vanishing holomorphic function on $\mathbf{\pi }^{-1}(U)$. Furthermore, if $\xi _{k}$ are local normal crossings coordinates for $\mathbf{E}$, then there is a factorisation:$$f_{0}=\tprod_{k}\xi _{k}^{m_{k}}$$so that we may write:$$\pi ^{\ast }f_{j}=\tprod_{k}\xi _{k}^{m_{k}}\cdot f_{j}^{^{\prime }}.$$ For the proof, see for example Kollár [@KO]. Metrics on Blowups and Uniform Bounds on the Degree --------------------------------------------------- Now we consider the case that the original manifold is Kähler. The following proposition says that this property is preserved under blowing up and is standard in Kähler geometry. \[Prop14\]Let $(X,\omega )$ be a Kähler manifold, and $Y$ a compact, complex submanifold. Then the blowup $\tilde{X}=Bl_{Y}X$ along $Y$ is also Kähler. Moreover $\tilde{X}$ possesses a one-parameter family of Kähler metrics given by $\omega _{\varepsilon }=\pi ^{\ast }\omega +\varepsilon \eta $ where $\varepsilon >0$, $\pi :\tilde{X}\rightarrow X$ is the blowup map and $\eta $ is itself a Kähler form on $\tilde{X}$. For the proof see for example [@VO]. We will need a bound on the $\omega _{\varepsilon }$ degree of an arbitrary subsheaf of a holomorphic vector bundle $E$ that depends on $\varepsilon $ in such a way that as $\varepsilon \to 0$ the degree converges to the degree of a subsheaf on the base (namely the pushforward). This will be a consequence of the following lemma. \[Lemma10\]Let $X$ be a compact complex manifold of dimension $n$ and let $\tau $ and $\eta $ be closed $(1,1)$-forms with $\tau $ semi-positve and $\eta $ a Kähler form. Let $E\rightarrow X$ a holomorphic vector bundle. Then there is a constant $M$ such that for any subsheaf $S\subset E$ with torsion free quotient and any $0<k\leq n-1$:$$\deg _{k}(S,\tau ,\eta )\equiv \int_{X}c_{1}(S)\wedge \tau ^{n-k-1}\wedge \eta ^{k}\leq M.$$ Note that when $k=n-1$, $\deg _{k}(S,\tau ,\eta )$ is the ordinary $\eta $ degree of $S$. We follow Kobayashi’s proof that the degree of an arbitrary subsheaf is bounded above. Fix an hermitian metric $h$ on $E$. The general case will follow from the case when $S$ is a line subbundle $L$. In this case we can use the formula: $F_{L}=\pi F_{E}\pi +\beta \wedge \beta ^{\ast } $, where $\pi $ is the orthogonal projection to $L$ and $\beta $ is the second fundamental form. Since $c_{1}(L)=\frac{i}{2\pi }F_{L}$ we have that:$$\deg _{k}(L,\tau ,\eta )=\frac{i}{2\pi }\int_{X}\pi F_{E}\pi \wedge \tau ^{n-k-1}\wedge \eta ^{k}+\frac{i}{2\pi }\int_{X}\beta \wedge \beta ^{\ast }\wedge \tau ^{n-k-1}\wedge \eta ^{k}.$$Since $\left\Vert \pi \right\Vert _{L^{\infty }(X)}\leq 1$, the first term is clearly bounded from above. Therefore we only need to check that the second term is non-positive. This is the case since $\beta $ is a $(0,1)$ form, and therefore $i\beta \wedge \beta ^{\ast }\leq 0$. Therefore $\deg _{k}(L,\tau ,\eta )\leq M$, for a constant independent of $L$. To extend the result to all subbundles $F\subset E$, simply find such an $M$ as above for each exterior power $\Lambda ^{p}E$ for $p=1,\cdots ,\limfunc{rk}E$, and take the maximum. Then apply the above argument to the line bundle $L=\det F\hookrightarrow \Lambda ^{p}E$. In general $S\overset{\imath }{\hookrightarrow }E$ is not a subbundle but there is an inclusion of sheaves $\det S\hookrightarrow \Lambda ^{p}E$ where $p$ is the rank of $S$. If $V$ is the singular set of $S$, then $S$ is a subbundle away from $V$, and so the inclusion $\det S\overset{\imath }{% \hookrightarrow }\Lambda ^{p}E$ is a line subbundle away from $V$. Let $% \sigma $ be any local holomorphic frame for $\det S$. Now consider the set:$% \ W=\{x\in X\mid \imath (\sigma )(x)=0\}$. Since $\det S$ is a line bundle this is clearly independent of $\sigma $. Furthermore because $\imath $ is an injective bundle map away from $V$, any $x\in W$ must be in $V$; that is, $W\subset V$. Now write $H=$ $\imath ^{\ast }\left( \Lambda ^{p}h\right) $. This is an hermitian metric on $\det S$ over $X-W$. On the other hand there is some hermitian metric $G$ on $\det S$ over all of $X$. We would like to show that:$$\deg _{k}(S,\tau ,\eta )=\int_{X}c_{1}(\det S,G)\wedge \tau ^{n-k-1}\wedge \eta ^{k}=\int_{X-W}c_{1}(\det S,H)\wedge \tau ^{n-k-1}\wedge \eta ^{k}$$Then applying the above reasoning, the last integral is bounded since just as before $$\int_{X-W}c_{1}(\det S,H)\wedge \tau ^{n-k-1}\wedge \eta ^{k}=\int_{X-V}c_{1}(S,h_{S})\wedge \tau ^{n-k-1}\wedge \eta ^{k}\leq \frac{i% }{2\pi }\int_{X-V}\pi F_{E}\pi \wedge \tau ^{n-k-1}\wedge \eta ^{k}$$where $h_{S}$ is the metric on $S_{\mid X-V}$ induced by $h$. Again this is bounded independently of $\pi $. We will construct a $C^{\infty }$ function $f$ on $X$ such that $H=fG$ on $% X-W$. Then the usual formula for the curvature of the associated Chern connections implies:$$\begin{aligned} c_{1}(\det S,H) &=&\frac{i}{2\pi }\bar{\partial}\partial \log H=\frac{i}{% 2\pi }\bar{\partial}\partial \log f+c_{1}(\det S,G) \\ &\Longrightarrow &c_{1}(\det S,G)=c_{1}(\det S,H)-\frac{i}{2\pi }\bar{% \partial}\partial \log f\text{ }on\text{ }X-W.\end{aligned}$$Finally we will show:$$\int_{X-W}\frac{i}{2\pi }\bar{\partial}\partial \log f\wedge \tau ^{n-k-1}\wedge \eta ^{k}=0.$$ To construct $f$, let $\sigma $ be any local holomorphic frame for $\det S$. If $(e_{1,}\cdots ,e_{r})$ is a local holomorphic frame for $E$, then define: $\imath (\sigma )=\sum_{I}\sigma ^{I}e_{I}$, where $% e_{I}=e_{i_{1}}\wedge \cdots \wedge e_{i_{p}}$, with $i_{1}<\cdots <i_{p}$. Then let $$f=H(\sigma ,\sigma )/G(\sigma ,\sigma )=\sum_{I,J}H_{IJ}\sigma ^{I}\bar{% \sigma}^{J}$$where $H_{IJ}=\Lambda ^{p}h(e_{I},e_{J})/G(\sigma ,\sigma )$. Then one may check that $f$ is well-defined independently of $\sigma $. It is a smooth non-negative function vanishing exactly on $W$. Since the matrix $(H_{IJ})$ is positive definite, $f$ vanishes exactly where all the $\sigma _{I}$ vanish. It is also clear that we have the equality $H=fG$. To complete the argument we will show that $\frac{i}{2\pi }\bar{\partial}% \partial \log f$ integrates to zero. Let $\mathcal{I}$ be the sheaf of ideals in $\mathcal{O}_{X}$ generated by $\{\sigma _{I}\}$. By Theorem [Thm7]{} there is a sequence of smooth blowups $\pi :\tilde{X}\rightarrow X$ such that $\pi ^{\ast }\mathcal{I}$, the inverse image ideal sheaf of $% \mathcal{I}$, is the ideal sheaf of a divisor $\mathbf{E}=\sum_{i}m_{i}% \mathbf{E}_{i}$ where the $\mathbf{E}_{i}$ are the irreducible components of the support of the exceptional divisor $\limfunc{supp}\mathbf{E=\cup }_{i}$ $% \mathbf{E}_{i}$. In other words $\pi ^{\ast }\mathcal{I}=\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{% X}}(-\sum_{i}m_{i}\mathbf{E}_{i})$ for some natural numbers $m_{i}$. Furthermore, we have: $\pi ^{\ast }\sigma ^{I}=\rho ^{I}\cdot \xi _{i_{1}}^{m_{i_{1}}}\cdots \xi _{i_{s}}^{m_{i_{s}}}$, where $\{\xi _{i_{j}}\} $ are normal crossings coordinates for $\mathbf{E}$ on an open set where $\pi ^{\ast }\sigma ^{I}$ is defined, and $\rho ^{I}$ is a non-vanishing holomorphic function. Therefore we may locally write: $\pi ^{\ast }f=\chi \cdot \left\vert \xi _{i_{1}}\right\vert ^{2m_{i_{1}}}\cdots \left\vert \xi _{i_{s}}\right\vert ^{2m_{i_{s}}}$, where $\chi $ is a strictly positive $C^{\infty }$ function defined on $\tilde{X}$. If we write $\Phi =\frac{i}{2\pi }\partial \log \chi $, and $T_{d\Phi }$ for the current defined by $d\Phi =\frac{i}{2\pi }\bar{\partial}\partial \log \chi $, then since by definition:$$\begin{aligned} T_{d\Phi }\left( \pi ^{\ast }(\tau ^{n-k-1}\wedge \eta ^{k})\right) &=&-dT_{\Phi }(\pi ^{\ast }(\tau ^{n-k-1}\wedge \eta ^{k})) \\ T_{\Phi }(d(\pi ^{\ast }(\tau ^{n-k-1}\wedge \eta ^{k})) &=&0\end{aligned}$$since $\pi ^{\ast }(\tau ^{n-k-1}\wedge \eta ^{k})$ is closed. Away from the exceptional set we may write locally: $$\begin{aligned} \frac{i}{2\pi }\partial \log \pi ^{\ast }f &=&\frac{i}{2\pi }\left( \partial \log \chi +2m_{i_{1}}\partial \log \left\vert \xi _{i_{1}}\right\vert +\cdots +2m_{i_{s}}\partial \log \left\vert \xi _{i_{s}}\right\vert \right) \\ &=&\Phi +\frac{i}{2\pi }\left( \frac{m_{i_{1}}d\xi _{i_{1}}}{\xi _{i_{1}}}% +\cdots +\frac{m_{i_{s}}d\xi _{i_{s}}}{\xi _{i_{s}}}\right) \text{.}\end{aligned}$$The second term is integrable on its domain of definition and so $\frac{i}{% 2\pi }\bar{\partial}\partial \log \pi ^{\ast }f$ is a $(1,1)$ form with $% L_{loc}^{1}(\tilde{X})$ coefficients, and so defines a current. On the other hand by the Poincaré-Lelong formula, $\bar{\partial}$ applied to the second term is equal to $\displaystyle\sum_{i_{j}}m_{i_{j}}T_{\mathbf{E}% _{i_{j}}}$, in the sense of currents, where $T_{\mathbf{E}_{i_{j}}}$ is the current defined by the smooth hypersurface $\mathbf{E}_{i_{j}}$. Finally then:$$\begin{aligned} & \qquad \qquad \int_{X-W}\frac{i}{2\pi }\bar{\partial}\partial \log f\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\tau ^{n-k-1}\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\eta ^{k}=\int_{\tilde{X}-% \mathbf{E}}\frac{i}{2\pi }\bar{\partial}\partial \log \pi ^{\ast }f\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\tau ^{n-k-1}\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\eta ^{k} \\ & =T_{\frac{i}{2\pi }\bar{\partial}\partial \log \pi ^{\ast }f}(\pi ^{\ast }\tau ^{n-k-1}\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\eta ^{k})=\left( \sum_{i}m_{i}T_{\mathbf{E}% _{i}}\right) (\pi ^{\ast }\tau ^{n-k-1}\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\eta ^{k})=\sum_{i}m_{i}\int_{\mathbf{E}_{i}}\pi ^{\ast }\tau ^{n-k-1}\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\eta ^{k}=0\end{aligned}$$since the image of $\mathbf{E}_{i}$ under $\pi $ has codimension at least two. This completes the proof. \[Rmk4\]If $0\to S\to E\to Q\to 0 $ is an exact sequence, where $E$ is a vector bundle and $Q$ is torsion free, then the dualised sequence $0\to Q^{\ast }\to E^{\ast }\to S^{\ast } $ is exact, and so as in the above lemma there is a constant $M$ associated to $E$ independent of $Q$ so that $$-\int_{X}c_{1}(Q)\wedge \tau ^{n-k-1}\wedge \eta ^{k}=\int_{X}c_{1}(Q^{\ast })\wedge \tau ^{n-k-1}\wedge \eta ^{k}\leq M.$$In other words there is a uniform constant $M$ so that: $-M\leq \int_{X}c_{1}(Q)\wedge \tau ^{n-k-1}\wedge \eta ^{k} $, where $Q$ is any torsion-free quotient of $E$. In the case that $k=n-1$, $\deg _{k}(S,\tau ,\eta )=\deg (S,\eta )$ and the above constitutes a proof of Simpson’s degree formula. We note that if $\tilde{X}\rightarrow X$ is a composition of finitely many blowups then we also have a family of Kähler metrics on $\tilde{X}$ by iteratively applying $\limfunc{Proposition}$ \[Prop14\]. We would now like to compute the degree of an arbitrary torsion-free sheaf $\tilde{S}$ on $% \tilde{X}$ with respect to each metric $\omega _{\varepsilon }$ on $\tilde{X} $. \[THM\]Let $\tilde{S}$ be a subsheaf (with torsion free quotient $\tilde{% Q}$) of a holomorphic vector bundle $\tilde{E}$ on $\tilde{X}$, where $\pi :% \tilde{X}\rightarrow X$ is given by a sequence of blowups along complex submanifolds of $\limfunc{codim}\geq 2$. Then there is a uniform constant $M$ independent of $\tilde{S}$ such that the degrees of $\tilde{S}$ and $\tilde{Q% }$ with respect to $\omega _{\varepsilon }$ satisfy: $\deg (\tilde{S},\omega _{\varepsilon })\leq \deg (\pi _{\ast }\tilde{S})+\varepsilon M$, and $\deg (% \tilde{Q},\omega _{\varepsilon })\geq \deg (\pi _{\ast }\tilde{Q}% )-\varepsilon M$. The general case will follow from the case when $\tilde{S}$ is a line bundle $\tilde{L}$ (perhaps not a line subbundle). Recall that the Picard group of the blowup $Pic(\tilde{X})=Pic(X)\oplus \mathbb{Z}\mathcal{O}(\mathbf{E}% _{1})\oplus \cdots \oplus \mathbb{Z}\mathcal{O}(\mathbf{E}_{m})$ where the $% \mathbf{E}_{i}$ are the irreducible components of the exceptional divisor. That is, we may write an arbitrary line bundle as $\tilde{L}=\pi ^{\ast }L\otimes \mathcal{O}_{\tilde{X}}(\sum_{i}m_{i}\mathbf{E}_{i})$ where $L$ is a line bundle on $X$. Then by definition:$$\deg (\tilde{L},\omega _{\varepsilon })=\int_{\tilde{X}}c_{1}(\tilde{L}% )\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}=\int_{\tilde{X}}c_{1}(\tilde{L})\wedge \left( \pi ^{\ast }\omega +\varepsilon \eta \right) ^{n-1}.$$Then we have an expansion:$$\left( \pi ^{\ast }\omega +\varepsilon \eta \right) ^{n-1}=\pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{n-1}+\varepsilon (n-1)\pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{n-2}\wedge \eta +\cdots +\varepsilon ^{n-2}(n-1)\pi ^{\ast }\omega \wedge \eta ^{n-2}+\varepsilon ^{n-1}\eta ^{n-1}.$$Note that $\displaystyle\int_{\tilde{X}}c_{1}(\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{X}}% \mathcal{(}\mathbf{E}_{i}))\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{n-1}=\int_{\mathbf{E}% _{i}}\left( \pi ^{\ast }\omega \right) ^{n-1}=0$, since the image in $X$ of each $\mathbf{E}_{i}$ lives in codimension at least $2$. Therefore we are left with$$\begin{aligned} \deg (\tilde{L},\omega _{\varepsilon }) &=&\int_{\tilde{X}}c_{1}(\tilde{L}% )\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{n-1}+\sum_{k}\varepsilon ^{k}\binom{n-1}{k}% \left( \int_{\tilde{X}}c_{1}(\tilde{L})\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{n-k-1}\wedge \eta ^{k}\right) \\ &=&\int_{\tilde{X}}\pi ^{\ast }c_{1}(L)\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{n-1}+\sum_{i}m_{i}\int_{\tilde{X}}c_{1}(\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{X}}\mathcal{(}% \mathbf{E}_{i}))\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{n-1} \\ &&+\sum_{k}\varepsilon ^{k}\binom{n-1}{k}\int_{\tilde{X}}c_{1}(\tilde{L}% )\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{n-k-1}\wedge \eta ^{k} \\ &=&\deg (L,\omega )+\sum_{k}\varepsilon ^{k}\binom{n-1}{k}\int_{\tilde{X}% }c_{1}(\tilde{L})\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{n-k-1}\wedge \eta ^{k}\end{aligned}$$By the previous lemma the terms $\displaystyle\int_{\tilde{X}}c_{1}(\tilde{L}% )\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{n-k-1}\wedge \eta ^{k}$, are all bounded uniformly independently of $\varepsilon $ since $\pi ^{\ast }\omega $ is semi-positive and $\eta $ is a Kähler form. Therefore we have: $\deg (% \tilde{L},\omega _{\varepsilon })\leq \deg (L,\omega )+\varepsilon M$. Now note that if $\tilde{X}=Bl_{Y}X$ then $\pi _{\ast }\mathcal{O}(m\mathbf{E% })=\mathcal{O}_{X}$ if $m\geq 0$ and $\pi _{\ast }\mathcal{O}(m\mathbf{E}% )=I_{Y}^{\otimes m}$ if $m<0$, where $I_{Y}$ is the ideal sheaf of holomorphic functions on $X$ vanishing on $Y$. The determinant of an ideal sheaf is trivial if $Y$ has codimension at least $2$, so we have $\det (\pi _{\ast }\tilde{L})=\det (L)$ so finally: $\deg (\tilde{L},\omega _{\varepsilon })\leq \deg (\pi _{\ast }\tilde{L})+\varepsilon M$. Now for an arbitrary subsheaf $\tilde{S}\subset \tilde{E}$, by definition $% \deg (\tilde{S},\omega _{\varepsilon })=\deg (\det (\tilde{S}),\omega _{\varepsilon })$. When $\pi _{\ast }\tilde{S}$ is a vector bundle, that is, away from its algebraic singular set, we have an isomorphism $\det (\pi _{\ast }\tilde{S})=\pi _{\ast }\det \tilde{S}$. Their determinants are therefore isomorphic away from this set, and so by Hartogs’ theorem there is an isomorphism of line bundles: $\det (\pi _{\ast }\tilde{S})=\det (\pi _{\ast }\det \tilde{S})$ on $X$. Therefore by the previous argument: $$\deg (\tilde{S},\omega _{\varepsilon })=\deg (\det (\tilde{S}),\omega _{\varepsilon })\leq \deg (\pi _{\ast }\det \tilde{S})+\varepsilon M=\deg (\pi _{\ast }\tilde{S})+\varepsilon M\ .$$The exact same argument together with the previous remark proves the second inequality as well. Stability on Blowups and Convergence of the $HN$ Type ----------------------------------------------------- \[Prop16\]Let $\tilde{E}\rightarrow \tilde{X}$ a holomorphic vector bundle where $\tilde{X}\rightarrow X$ is a sequence of blowups. If $\pi _{\ast }\tilde{E}$ is $\omega $-stable, then there is an $\varepsilon _{2}$ such that $\tilde{E}$ is $\omega _{\varepsilon }$-stable for all $% 0<\varepsilon \leq \varepsilon _{2}$. Suppose there is a destabilising subsheaf $\tilde{S}_{\varepsilon }\subset \tilde{E}$, i.e. $\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(\tilde{S}_{\varepsilon })\geq \mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(\tilde{E})$ for each $\varepsilon $. Now among all proper subsheaves of $\pi _{\ast }\tilde{E}$, the maximal slope is realised by some subsheaf $\mathcal{F}$, in other words:$$\mu _{\omega }(\mathcal{F})=\sup \{\mu _{\omega }(S)\mid S\subset \pi _{\ast }\tilde{E}\}.$$ Then by the previous theorem we have:$$\mu _{\omega }(\pi _{\ast }\tilde{E})-\varepsilon M\leq \mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(\tilde{E})\leq \mu _{\omega }(\pi _{\ast }\tilde{S}% _{\varepsilon })+\varepsilon M\leq \mu _{\omega }(\mathcal{F})+\varepsilon M.$$In other words:$$\mu _{\omega }(\pi _{\ast }\tilde{E})\leq \mu _{\omega }(\mathcal{F}% )+2\varepsilon M$$ Since $\pi _{\ast }\tilde{E}$ is $\omega $-stable, $\mu _{\omega }(\mathcal{F% })<\mu _{\omega }(\pi _{\ast }\tilde{E})$. Since the constant $M$ is independent of $\varepsilon $, when $\varepsilon $ is sufficiently small (more specifically, when $\varepsilon <(\mu _{\omega }(\pi _{\ast }\tilde{E}% )-\mu _{\omega }(\mathcal{F}))/2M$), we have $$\mu _{\omega }(\pi _{\ast }\tilde{E})\leq \mu _{\omega }(\mathcal{F}% )+2\varepsilon M<\mu _{\omega }(\pi _{\ast }\tilde{E}),$$which is a contradiction. \[Rmk5\]This shows in particular that for any resolution of a $HNS$ filtration, the quotients $\tilde{Q}_{i}=\tilde{E}_{i}/\tilde{E}_{i-1}$ are stable with respect to $\omega _{\varepsilon }$ for $\varepsilon $ sufficiently small, since the double dual of the pushforward is the double dual of $Q_{i}$ which is stable by construction. This fact will be important in Section$\ 5$. For each of the metrics $\omega _{\varepsilon }$ there is also an $HNS$ filtration of the pullback $\pi ^{\ast }E$. We will need information about what happens to the corresponding $HN$ types as $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$. Namely we have: \[Prop17\]Let $E\rightarrow X$ be a holomorphic vector bundle and $\pi :% \tilde{X}\rightarrow X$ be a finite sequence of blowups resolving the $HNS$ filtration. Then the $HN$ type $\left( \mu _{1}^{\varepsilon },\cdots ,\mu _{K}^{\varepsilon }\right) $ of $\pi ^{\ast }E$ with respect to $\omega _{\varepsilon }$ converges to the $HN$ type $\left( \mu _{1},\cdots ,\mu _{K}\right) $ of $E$ with respect to $\omega $ as $\varepsilon \longrightarrow 0$. Let $$0=\tilde{E}_{0}\subset \tilde{E}_{1}\subset \tilde{E}_{2}\subset \cdots \subset \tilde{E}_{l-1}\subset \tilde{E}_{l}=\pi ^{\ast }E$$be a resolution of the $HNS$ filtration. Since all the information about the $HN$ type is contained in the $HN$ filtration$$0=\mathbb{F}_{0}^{HN}\subset \mathbb{F}_{1}^{HN}(E)\subset \mathbb{F}% _{2}^{HN}(E)\subset \cdots \subset \mathbb{F}_{l}^{HN}(E)=E,$$we will just regard this as a resolution of singularities of the $HN$ filtration and forget about Seshadri filtrations for the rest of this proof. We would like to relate the resolution of the $HN$ filtration of $(E,\omega ) $, to the $HN$ filtration of $(\pi ^{\ast }E,\omega _{\varepsilon })$ for small $\varepsilon $. We claim that for all $\varepsilon $ in a sufficient range we may arrange that $\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}^{\min }(\tilde{E}% _{i})>\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}^{\max }(\pi ^{\ast }E/\tilde{E}_{i})$. Let $\mathcal{F}_{1}\subset \tilde{E}_{i}\subset \mathcal{F}_{2}\subset \pi ^{\ast }E$ be any subsheaves such that $\tilde{E}_{i}/\mathcal{F}_{1}$ is torsion free. Note that for $\tilde{x}\in \tilde{X}$ with $\pi (\tilde{x})=x$, we always have maps on the stalks $\left( \pi _{\ast }\mathcal{F}% _{i}\right) _{x}\rightarrow \left( \mathcal{F}_{i}\right) _{\tilde{x}}$. Since $\pi $ is in particular a biholomorphism away from $\mathbf{E}$, when $% \tilde{x}\in \tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$ these maps are isomorphisms. In other words the sequences:$$0\longrightarrow \pi _{\ast }\mathcal{F}_{1}\longrightarrow E_{i}\longrightarrow \pi _{\ast }\left( \tilde{E}_{i}/\mathcal{F}_{1}\right) \longrightarrow 0$$and$$0\longrightarrow E_{i}\longrightarrow \pi _{\ast }\mathcal{F}% _{2}\longrightarrow \pi _{\ast }\left( \mathcal{F}_{2}/\tilde{E}_{i}\right) \longrightarrow 0$$are exact away from the singular set $Z_{\limfunc{alg}}$. In particular this means $E_{i}/\pi _{\ast }\mathcal{F}_{1}\hookrightarrow \pi _{\ast }(\tilde{E% }_{i}/\mathcal{F}_{1})$ and $\pi _{\ast }\mathcal{F}_{2}/E_{i}% \hookrightarrow \pi _{\ast }(\mathcal{F}_{2}/\tilde{E}_{i})$ with torsion quotients, which implies $(E_{i}/\pi _{\ast }\mathcal{F}_{1})^{\ast \ast }=(\pi _{\ast }(\tilde{E}_{i}/\mathcal{F}_{1}))^{\ast \ast }$ and $(\pi _{\ast }\mathcal{F}_{2}/E_{i})^{\ast \ast }=(\pi _{\ast }(\mathcal{F}_{2}/% \tilde{E}_{i}))^{\ast \ast }$. Then finally we have $\mu _{\omega }(E_{i}/\pi _{\ast }\mathcal{F}_{1})=$ $\mu _{\omega }(\pi _{\ast }(\tilde{E}% _{i}/\mathcal{F}_{1}))$ and $\mu _{\omega }(\pi _{\ast }\mathcal{F}% _{2}/E_{i})=$ $\mu _{\omega }(\pi _{\ast }(\mathcal{F}_{2}/\tilde{E}_{i}))$. The above argument together with Theorem \[THM\] now implies that $\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(\tilde{E}_{i}/\mathcal{F}_{1})\geq \mu _{\omega }(E_{i}/\pi _{\ast }\mathcal{F}_{1})-\varepsilon M$ and $\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(\mathcal{F}_{2}/\tilde{E}_{i})\leq \mu _{\omega }(\pi _{\ast }\mathcal{F}_{2}/E_{i})+\varepsilon M$. On the other hand: $\mu _{\omega }(E_{i}/\pi _{\ast }\mathcal{F}_{1})\geq \mu _{\omega }(Q_{i})>\mu _{\omega }(Q_{i+1})\geq \mu _{\omega }(\pi _{\ast }\mathcal{F}_{2}/E_{i})$, where we have used the facts that $\mu _{\omega }(Q_{i})=\mu _{\omega }^{\min }(E_{i})$ and $\mu _{\omega }(Q_{i+1})=\mu _{\omega }^{\max }(E/E_{i})$. Therefore we have:$$\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(\tilde{E}_{i}/\mathcal{F}_{1})-\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(\mathcal{F}_{2}/\tilde{E}_{i})\geq \left( \mu _{\omega }(E_{i}/\pi _{\ast }\mathcal{F}_{1})-\mu _{\omega }(\pi _{\ast }\mathcal{F}% _{2}/E_{i})\right) -2\varepsilon M.$$As we have shown, the first term on the right hand side is strictly positive, so when $\varepsilon $ is sufficiently small the entire right hand side is strictly positive. Since $\mathcal{F}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{F}_{2}$ were arbitrary, for $\varepsilon $ small $\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}^{\min }(\tilde{E}_{i})$ must be strictly bigger than $\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}^{\max }(\pi ^{\ast }E/\tilde{E}_{i})$. Now it follows from $\limfunc{Proposition}$ \[Prop4\] that the $HN$ filtration of $(\pi ^{\ast }E,\omega _{\varepsilon })$ is:$$\begin{aligned} 0 &\subset &\mathbb{F}_{1}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}_{1})\subset \cdots \subset \mathbb{F}_{k_{1}}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}_{1})=\tilde{E}% _{1}\subset \cdots \subset \mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{l-1}}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}_{l-1})=\tilde{E}_{l-1} \\ &\subset &\mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{l-1}+1}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}% _{l})\subset \cdots \subset \mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{l}}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}_{l})=\pi ^{\ast }E.\end{aligned}$$ That is, the resolution appears within the $HN$ filtration with respect to $% \omega _{\varepsilon }$, and two successive subbundles in the resolution are separated by the $HN$ filtration of the larger bundle. Then for any $i$ we consider the following part of the above filtration:$$\begin{aligned} \tilde{E}_{i-1} &=&\mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i-1}}^{HN,\varepsilon }(% \tilde{E}_{i-1})\subset \mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i-1}+1}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}_{i})\subset \\ \cdots &\subset &\mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i}-1}^{HN,\varepsilon }(% \tilde{E}_{i})\subset \mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i}}^{HN,\varepsilon }(% \tilde{E}_{i})=\tilde{E}_{i}.\end{aligned}$$We claim that:$$\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\left( \mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i-1}+j}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}_{i})/\mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i-1}+j-1}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}_{i})\right) \longrightarrow \mu _{\omega }(E_{i}/E_{i-1})=\mu _{\omega }(Q_{i})$$for each $1\leq j\leq k_{i}$. Then the proposition will follow immediately. The slopes of the quotients in the $HN$ filtration are strictly decreasing so we have:$$\begin{aligned} \mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\left( \tilde{E}_{i}/\mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i}-1}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}_{i})\right) &<&\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\left( \mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i-1}+j}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}_{i})/\mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i-1}+j-1}^{HN,\varepsilon }(% \tilde{E}_{i})\right) \\ &<&\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\left( \mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i-1}+1}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}_{i-1})/\tilde{E}_{i-1}\right) .\end{aligned}$$Therefore it suffices to prove convergence of $$\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\left( \tilde{E}_{i}/\mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i}-1}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}_{i})\right) \text{ }and\text{ }\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\left( \mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i-1}+1}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}_{i-1})/\tilde{E}_{i-1}\right)$$to $\mu _{\omega }(Q_{i})$ as $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$. Note that just as before we may argue that$$\mu _{\omega }\left( \pi _{\ast }\left( \tilde{E}_{i}/\mathbb{F}% _{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i}-1}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}_{i})\right) \right) =\mu _{\omega }\left( E_{i}/\pi _{\ast }\mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i}-1}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}_{i})\right)$$and$$\mu _{\omega }\left( \pi _{\ast }\left( \mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i-1}+1}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}_{i-1})/\tilde{E}_{i-1}\right) \right) =\mu _{\omega }\left( \pi _{\ast }\mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i-1}+1}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}_{i-1})/E_{i-1}\right) .$$ By Theorem \[THM\] we have:$$\begin{aligned} \mu _{\omega }(Q_{i})-\varepsilon M &=&\mu _{\omega }(\pi _{\ast }\tilde{Q}% _{i})-\varepsilon M\leq \mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(\tilde{Q}_{i})\leq \mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\left( \mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i-1}+1}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}_{i-1})/\tilde{E}_{i-1}\right) \\ &\leq &\mu _{\omega }\left( \pi _{\ast }\mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i-1}+1}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}_{i-1})/E_{i-1}\right) +\varepsilon M\leq \mu _{\omega }\left( E_{i}/E_{i-1}\right) +\varepsilon M \\ &=&\mu _{\omega }(Q_{i})+\varepsilon M\end{aligned}$$where we have used that $F_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i-1}+1}^{HN,\varepsilon }(% \tilde{E}_{i-1})$ is maximally destabilising in $\pi ^{\ast }E/\tilde{E}% _{i-1}$ and $E_{i}/E_{i-1}$ is maximally destabilising in $E/E_{i-1}$. So $$\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\left( \mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i-1}+1}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}_{i-1})/\tilde{E}_{i-1}\right) \longrightarrow \mu _{\omega }(Q_{i})\text{.}$$ Similiarly we have:$$\begin{aligned} \mu _{\omega }\left( Q_{i}\right) -\varepsilon M &=&\mu _{\omega }\left( E_{i}/E_{i-1}\right) -\varepsilon M\leq \mu _{\omega }\left( E_{i}/\pi _{\ast }\mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i}-1}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}% _{i})\right) -\varepsilon M \\ &\leq &\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\left( \tilde{E}_{i}/\mathbb{F}% _{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i}-1}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}_{i})\right) \leq \mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(\tilde{Q}_{i})\leq \mu _{\omega }\left( \pi _{\ast }\tilde{Q}_{i}\right) +\varepsilon M \\ &=&\mu _{\omega }\left( Q_{i}\right) +\varepsilon M\end{aligned}$$where we have used that $\mu _{\omega }\left( E_{i}/E_{i-1}\right) =\mu _{\omega }^{\min }\left( E_{i}\right) $ and $\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\left( \tilde{E}_{i}/\mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i}-1}^{HN,\varepsilon }(% \tilde{E}_{i})\right) =\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}^{\min }(\tilde{E}_{i})$. Then taking limits implies $\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\left( \tilde{E}% _{i}/\mathbb{F}_{k_{1}+\cdots +k_{i}-1}^{HN,\varepsilon }(\tilde{E}% _{i})\right) \rightarrow \mu _{\omega }(Q_{i})$. This completes the proof. \[R6\]Note that the argument of the above proof also shows that we have convergence:$$\left( \mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(\tilde{Q}_{1}),\cdots ,\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(\tilde{Q}_{l})\right) \longrightarrow \left( \mu _{\omega }(Q_{1}),\cdots ,\mu _{\omega }(Q_{l})\right) ,$$where as usual $\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(\tilde{Q}_{i})$ is repeated $% \limfunc{rk}(\tilde{Q}_{i})$ times. We will use this fact in the following section. Approximate Critical Hermitian Structures/$HN$ Type of the Limit ================================================================ In this section we accomplish two important aims. One is the construction of a certain canonical type of metric on a holomorphic vector bundle over a Kähler manifold called an $L^{p}$-approximate critical hermitian structure. The other is identifying the Harder-Narasimhan type of the limiting vector bundle $E_{\infty }$ along the flow, namely we prove that this is the same as the type of the original bundle $E$. This latter fact will be a crucial element in the proof of the main theorem, whereas the former will play no role in the remainder of the proof. However we remark that these two theorems are, due to certain technical considerations to be discussed below, very much intertwined. If we fix a holomorphic structure on $E$, then a critical point of the $HYM$ functional, thought of as a function $h\mapsto HYM(\bar{\partial}_{E},h)$ on the space of metrics, is called (see Kobayashi [@KOB]) a critical hermitian structure. The Kähler identities imply that this happens exactly when the corresponding connection $(\bar{\partial}_{E},h)$ is Yang-Mills, and hence in this case the Hermitian-Einstein tensor splits: $% \sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega }F_{(\bar{\partial}_{E},h)}=\mu _{1}Id_{Q_{1}}\oplus \cdots \oplus \mu _{l}Id_{Q_{l}}$. Here the holomorphic structure $\bar{\partial}_{E}$ splits into the direct sum $\oplus _{i}Q_{i}$ and the metric induced on each summand is Hermitian-Einstein with constant factor $\mu _{i}$. In general, the holomorphic structure on $E$ is not split, and of course the $Q_{i}$ may not be subbundles as at all, so it is not the case that we always have a critical hermitian structure. We therefore need to define a correct approximate notion of a critical point. In the subsequent discussion we follow Daskalopoulos-Wentworth [@DW1]. Let $h$ be a smooth metric on $E$ and $\mathcal{F}=\{F_{i}\}_{i=0}^{l}$ a filtration of $E$ by saturated subsheaves. For every $F_{i}$ we have the corresponding weakly holomorphic projection $\pi _{i}^{h}$. These are bounded, $L_{1}^{2}$ hermitian endomorphisms of $E$. Here $F_{0}=0$, and so $% \pi _{0}^{h}=0$. Given real numbers $\mu _{1},\cdots ,\mu _{l}$, define the following $L_{1}^{2}$ hermitian endomorphism of $E:$$$\Psi (\mathcal{F},(\mu _{1},\cdots ,\mu _{l}),h)=\sum_{i=1}^{l}\mu _{i}\left( \pi _{i}^{h}-\pi _{i-1}^{h}\right) .$$Notice that away from the singular set of the filtration (points where it is given by sub-bundles), the bundle $E$ splits smoothly as $\oplus Q_{i}=\oplus _{i}E_{i}/E_{i-1}$, and with respect to the splitting, the endomorphism $\Psi (\mathcal{F},(\mu _{1},\cdots ,\mu _{l}),h)$ is just the diagonal map $\mu _{1}Id_{Q_{1}}\oplus \cdots \oplus \mu _{l}Id_{Q_{l}}$. In the special case where $E$ is a holomorphic vector bundle over a Kähler manifold $(X,\omega )$, we will write $\Psi _{\omega }^{HNS}(\bar{% \partial}_{E},h)$ when the filtration of $E$ is the $HNS$ filtration $F_{i}=% \mathbb{F}_{i}^{HNS}(E)$ and$\ \mu _{1},\cdots ,\mu _{l}$ are the distinct slopes appearing the $HN$ type. \[Def6\]Fix $\delta >0$ and $1\leq p\leq \infty $. An $L^{p}$ $\delta $-approximate critical hermitian structure on a holomorphic bundle $E$ is a smooth metric $h$ such that:$$\left\Vert \sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega }F_{(\bar{\partial}_{E},h)}-\Psi _{\omega }^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}_{E},h)\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega )}\leq \delta .$$ The following theorem first appeared in [@DW1]. \[Thm8\]If the $HNS$ filtration of $E$ is given by subbundles, then for any $\delta >0$, $E$ has an $L^{\infty }$ $\delta $-approximate critical hermitian structure. We begin by giving a (very simple) proof of this theorem in the case that the $HNS$ filtration has length two (the general case follows from an inductive argument). Namely we assume that there is an exact sequence of the form:$$0\longrightarrow S\longrightarrow E\longrightarrow Q\longrightarrow 0$$where $S$ and $Q$ are stable vector bundles. Then fix Hermitian-Einstein metrics $h_{S}$ and $h_{Q}$ on $S$ and $Q$. There is a smooth splitting $% E\simeq S\oplus Q$ and so we may fix the metric $h_{E}=$ $h_{S}\oplus h_{Q}$ on $E$. Of course in general we there is no holomorphic splitting. The failure of the sequence to split holomorphically is determined by the second fundamental form $\beta \in \Omega ^{0,1}(\limfunc{Hom}(Q,S))$, and the holomorphic structure of $E$ may be written as:$$\bar{\partial}_{E}=% \begin{pmatrix} \bar{\partial}_{S} & \beta \\ 0 & \bar{\partial}_{Q}% \end{pmatrix}%$$and similarly$$\partial _{E}=% \begin{pmatrix} \partial _{S} & 0 \\ -\beta ^{\ast } & \partial _{Q}% \end{pmatrix}% .$$Now the curvature of the connection $(\bar{\partial}_{E},h_{E})$ is $F_{(% \bar{\partial}_{E},h_{E})}=(\bar{\partial}_{E},h_{E})\circ (\bar{\partial}% _{E},h_{E})=\bar{\partial}_{E}\circ \partial _{E}+\partial _{E}\circ \bar{% \partial}_{E}$. Therefore we have:$$F_{(\bar{\partial}_{E},h_{E})}=% \begin{pmatrix} F_{(\bar{\partial}_{S},h_{S})}-\beta \wedge \beta ^{\ast } & \partial _{E}\beta \\ -\bar{\partial}_{E}\beta ^{\ast } & F_{(\bar{\partial}_{Q},h_{Q})}-\beta ^{\ast }\wedge \beta \end{pmatrix}% .$$Now applying $\sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega }$ and using the Kähler identities we have:$$\sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega }F_{(\bar{\partial}_{E},h_{E})}=% \begin{pmatrix} \sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega }F_{(\bar{\partial}_{S},h_{S})}-\sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega }\left( \beta \wedge \beta ^{\ast }\right) & -\left( \bar{\partial}% _{E}\right) ^{\ast }\beta \\ -\left( \left( \bar{\partial}_{E}\right) ^{\ast }\beta \right) ^{\ast } & \sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega }F_{(\bar{\partial}_{Q},h_{Q})}-\sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega }\left( \beta ^{\ast }\wedge \beta \right) \end{pmatrix}% .$$Therefore we have:$$\begin{aligned} &&\left\Vert \sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega }F_{(\bar{\partial}_{E},h_{E})}-\mu _{\omega }(S)Id_{S}\oplus \mu _{\omega }(Q)Id_{Q}\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }(X,\omega )} \\ &\leq &\left\Vert \sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega }F_{(\bar{\partial}% _{S},h_{S})}-\mu _{\omega }(S)Id_{S}\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }(X,\omega )}+\left\Vert \sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega }F_{(\bar{\partial}_{Q},h_{Q})}-\mu _{\omega }(Q)Id_{Q}\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }(X,\omega )} \\ &&+2C\sup \left( \left\vert \beta \right\vert ^{2}+\left\vert \left( \bar{% \partial}_{E}\right) ^{\ast }\beta \right\vert ^{2}\right) \\ &=&2C\sup \left( \left\vert \beta \right\vert ^{2}+\left\vert \left( \bar{% \partial}_{E}\right) ^{\ast }\beta \right\vert ^{2}\right) ,\end{aligned}$$where we have used that $h_{S}$ and $h_{Q}$ are Hermitian-Einstein as well as the fact that $\limfunc{Tr}-\sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega }\left( \beta \wedge \beta ^{\ast }\right) =\left\vert \beta \right\vert ^{2}$. Now change the holomorphic structure on $E$ by applying the complex gauge transformation $g_{t}=t^{-1}Id_{S}\oplus tId_{Q}$, so that:$$g_{t}(\bar{\partial}_{E})=% \begin{pmatrix} \bar{\partial}_{S} & t^{2}\beta \\ 0 & \bar{\partial}_{Q}% \end{pmatrix}% .$$Then we have:$$\left\Vert \sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega }F_{(g_{t}(\bar{\partial}% _{E}),h_{E})}-\mu _{\omega }(S)Id_{S}\oplus \mu _{\omega }(Q)Id_{Q}\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }(X,\omega )}\leq 2Ct^{4}\sup \left( \left\vert \beta \right\vert ^{2}+\left\vert \left( \bar{\partial}% _{E}\right) ^{\ast }\beta \right\vert ^{2}\right)$$which goes to $0$ as $t$ goes to $0$. In general, we will not obtain an $L^{\infty }$ approximate structure. In the remainder of this section we show that for an arbitrary holomorphic bundle we have such a metric for $1\leq p<\infty $. We must modify the above approach in the general case, since the filtration is not given by subbundles. A simple example of where this can happen is as follows. It can be shown (see [@OSS] page $103$) that for $k<3$ there is a locally free representative of rank $2$ in $Ext_{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}^{1}(% \mathcal{I}_{p},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}(-k))$, where $\mathcal{I}_{p}$ is the ideal sheaf of a point. In other words there is a short exact sequence:$$0\longrightarrow \mathcal{O}\longrightarrow E\longrightarrow \mathcal{I}% _{p}\otimes \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}(k)\longrightarrow 0$$where $\mathcal{O}$ is the trivial line bundle. Moreover, one can compute that $c_{1}(E)=k$. Therefore, if we take $k<0$, then $\mu (E)<0$. Since $\mu (\mathcal{O})=0$, the section given by $\mathcal{O}\longrightarrow E$ vanishing at $p$, is a destabilising subsheaf of $E$, so $E$ is unstable in this case. Since $\mathcal{O}$ and $\mathcal{I}_{p}\otimes \mathcal{O}_{% \mathbb{CP}^{2}}(k)$ are rank one and hence are stable, and the slopes are strictly decreasing ($0=$ $\mu (\mathcal{O})>\mu (\mathcal{I}_{p}\otimes \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}(k))=k$) this sequence is precisely the Harder-Narasimhan filtration for $E$. On the other hand the quotient $% \mathcal{I}_{p}\otimes \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}(k)$ fails to be locally free at the point $p$, since the ideal sheaf of a point on a complex surface is not locally free. Generalisations of this example are given by replacing the point $p$ in $\mathbb{CP}^{2}$ by a locally complete intersection in $% \mathbb{CP}^{n}$ with $n>2$, or replacing $\mathbb{CP}^{2}$ by a a Kähler surface $X$ with $\dim H^{2}(X,\mathcal{O}_{X})=0$ for instance. In the above example, the only singular point of the filtration is the point $p$. If we blowup the point $p$, and consider $Bl_{p}$ $\mathbb{CP}^{2}=% \widetilde{\mathbb{CP}}^{2}\overset{\pi }{\longrightarrow }\mathbb{CP}^{2}$, then the exceptional divisor $\mathbf{E}$ in this case is just a copy of $% \mathbb{CP}^{1}$. By construction $\pi ^{\ast }E$ is trivial over this $% \mathbb{CP}^{1}$ and is equal to $E$ away from it. Therefore, since $E$ contains the trivial line bundle $\mathcal{O}$ as a subsheaf, $\pi ^{\ast }E$ contains as a subbundle a copy of the line bundle $\mathcal{O}(\mathbf{E})$. Since $\mathcal{O}(\mathbf{E})=\mathcal{O}$ away from $\mathbf{E}$ and $\pi ^{\ast }\mathcal{O}=$ $\mathcal{O}$, there is an inclusion of sheaves $% \mathcal{O}\hookrightarrow \mathcal{O}(\mathbf{E})$. Indeed, since the quotient is supported on $\mathbf{E}$ and therefore torsion, by Lemma [Lemma1]{}, $\limfunc{Sat}_{\pi ^{\ast }E}\mathcal{O=O}(\mathbf{E})$. In other words, a single blowup of the point $p$, gives a resolution of singularities in this case, and the filtration by subbundles of $\pi ^{\ast }E$ is given by $\mathcal{O}(\mathbf{E})\subset \pi ^{\ast }E$. Therefore on $\widetilde{% \mathbb{CP}}^{2}$we have an exact sequence: $$0\longrightarrow \mathcal{O}(\mathbf{E})\longrightarrow \pi ^{\ast }E\longrightarrow \mathcal{O}(-\mathbf{E})\otimes \pi ^{\ast }\mathcal{O}_{% \mathbb{CP}^{2}}(k)\longrightarrow 0.$$ Therefore, in the general case we will need a more sophisticated argument to deal with the fact that the subsheaf $S$ (and the quotient $Q$) can have singularities. We outline our argument as follows. First we pass to a resolution of singularities $\pi :\tilde{X}\longrightarrow X$ for the $HNS$ filtration. The blowup $\tilde{X}$ is equipped with a family of Kähler metrics $\omega _{\varepsilon }$ as described in the previous section. Therefore, if we fix some value $\varepsilon _{1}$, then with respect to the metric $\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}$ on the blowup $\tilde{X}$, we will be in the same situation as above, when the filtration is given by subbundles. Just as in that case, by scaling the extension classes we can produce a metric $\tilde{h}$ with the desired property on the pullback bundle $\pi ^{\ast }E\longrightarrow \bar{X}$. Of course this is not what we want, but we may use this metric to produce a metric on $E$ via a cut-off argument. Namely, we first assume that the singular set is a complex submanifold, and that the resolution of singularities is achieved by performing one blowup operation. Then we choose a cut-off function $\psi $ in a tubular neighbourhood of the singular set, and fix any smooth background metric $H$ on this tubular neighbourhood. We define the metric on $E\longrightarrow X$ by $h=\psi H+(1-\psi )\tilde{h}$. Now we can break the estimate up into three estimates on three different regions. We define $\psi $ so that on a smaller neighbourhood of the singular set $h$ is equal to $H$. The desired estimate will follow on this region by taking the radius of the neighbourhood to be arbitrarily small. Outside of the tubular neighbourhood, $h$ is equal to $\tilde{h}$ and we can estimate as in the case of subbundles. Finally we must also estimate in the annulus defined by these two open sets. This can be achieved by defining $% \psi $ to have bounds on its first and second derivatives that depend on the reciprocal of the radius of the tubular neighbourhood and its square respectively. The Hermitian-Einstein tensor will depend on two derivatives of $\psi $ on the annulus, so a pointwise estimate on this quantity will depend on this radius, but a simple argument using the fact that the Hausdorff codimension of the singular set is a least $4$, shows we can also obtain the appropriate estimate in this region. Strictly speaking, we need to estimate the difference of the Hermitian-Einstein tensor $\Lambda _{\omega }F_{h}$ of this metric with the endomorphism $\Psi ^{HNS}(\mu _{1},\cdots ,\mu _{l})$ constructed from the slopes obtained from the $HNS$ filtration on $E\longrightarrow X$. On the other hand, $h$ has been constructed from $\tilde{h}$, which has been defined so that the difference between its Hermitian-Einstein tensor $% \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}F_{\tilde{h}}$ and the corresponding endomorphism coming from the filtration (by subbundles) of $\pi ^{\ast }E\longrightarrow \bar{X}$ can be estimated on $\tilde{X}$. Because $\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}$ is a perfectly defined Kähler metric on $X$ away from the singular set (which is where this estimate must be performed), one could try to do the estimate on this region directly, as described in the preceding paragraph, by first estimating $\Lambda _{\omega }F_{\tilde{h}}$ in terms of $\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}F_{\tilde{h}}$ uniformly in $\varepsilon _{1}$ and the size of the neighbourhood, but attempts to do this were unsuccessful. Therefore, in order to perform the estimate properly, we will need to work on the blowup. Namely, we estimate the Hermitian-Einstein tensor for $\pi ^{\ast }h$ with respect to the family of Kähler metrics $\omega _{\varepsilon }$. Since this metric is a pullback, it suffices to show that we obtain estimates on the blowup that are uniform in $\varepsilon $. Then taking the limit as $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$ will yield an estimate with respect to the metric $\omega $ on $X$. However, note again that the metric $% \tilde{h}$ must be chosen at some point, and this requires fixing a value $% \varepsilon _{1}$. Therefore, to imitate our argument above, we need to estimate the $L^{p}$ norm of $\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{h}}$ uniformly in $\varepsilon $ in terms of $\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}F_{\tilde{h}}$. Here we crucially use the fact that we are working on the blowup. Namely, all that is required is an estimate close to the exceptional divisor (since it is trivial on the complement of such a neighbourhood). The fact that the exceptional divisor has only normal crossings singularities is the key to proving that such an estimate holds. Something very similar was done in [@DW1]. The author has noticed an error in [@DW1] on this point. In particular, Lemma $3.14$ is slightly incorrect. Instead, the right hand side should have an additional term involving the $L^{2}$ norm of the full curvature. This does not essentially disrupt the proof, because the Yang-Mills and Hermitian-Yang-Mills functionals differ only by a topological term, but it has the effect of changing the logic of the argument somewhat, as well as increasing the technical complexity. This is the reason behind most of the work done in this section. The precise proof, given below, is a delicate balancing act between the scaling parameter $t$, the parameter $\varepsilon _{1}$ used to define $\tilde{h}$, the radius $R$ of the tubular neighbourhood, and the parameter $% 0<\varepsilon \leq \varepsilon _{1}$ defining the family of Kähler metrics on $\tilde{X}$. Furthermore, the scheme explained above will only give the correct estimate in $L^{p}$ for $p$ sufficiently close to $1$. On the other hand, such a metric is all that is required to prove that the Harder-Narasimhan type of the limiting sheaf $E_{\infty }$ is the same as that of $E$. With this knowledge, it is in fact very easy to prove in turn that $E$ has an $L^{p}$ $\delta $-approximate structure for all $1\leq p<\infty $. This new metric depends on the value of $p$, and is in fact given by running the Yang-Mills flow for some finite time. We begin with a preliminary technical lemma, which will be used repeatedly throughout this section. It will be used in conjunction with Hölder’s inequality to show that certain quantities depending a priori on $% \varepsilon $ can in fact be estimated independently of $\varepsilon $ in certain $L^{p}$ spaces with $p$ very close to $1$. It is the use of this lemma that limits this particular method of constructing a $\delta $-approximate structure to these particular values of $p$. We use this to prove the $L^{p}$ bound on $\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F$ in terms of $% \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}F$ for any $(1,1)$-form $F$. The construction of the metric together with the estimate in $L^{p}$ for $p$ close to $1$ is the substance of Proposition \[Prop18\]. We use this and the material in Section $3.2$ to prove the statement concerning the $HN$ type of the limit. Then we quote a result about convergence of the $HN$ filtration along the flow from [@DW1], and use this to prove the existence of an $L^{p}$ structure for each $1\leq p<\infty $. Finally, at the end of this section we do an inductive argument on the number of blowups required to resolve singularities in order to remove the restriction we put on the singular set. This argument actually uses the existence of an $L^{p}$ structure for $p=2$ (in the special case in which it has been proven). \[Lemma11\]Let $X$ be a compact Kähler manifold of dimension $n$, and let $\pi :\tilde{X}\rightarrow X$ be a blowup along a complex submanifold $Y$ of complex codimension $k$ where $k\geq 2$. Consider the natural family $\omega _{\varepsilon }=\pi ^{\ast }\omega +\varepsilon \eta $ where $0<\varepsilon \leq \varepsilon _{1}$ and $\eta $ is a Kähler form on $\tilde{X}$. Then given any $\alpha $ and $\tilde{\alpha}$ such that $% 1<\alpha <1+\frac{1}{2(k-1)},$and $\frac{\alpha }{1-2(k-1)(\alpha -1)}<% \tilde{\alpha}<\infty $, and if we let $s=\frac{\tilde{\alpha}}{\tilde{\alpha% }-\alpha }$ then if we write $g_{\varepsilon }$ for the Kähler metric associated to $\omega _{\varepsilon }$, and $g_{\varpi }$ for the hermitian metric associated to a fixed Kähler form $\varpi $ on $\tilde{X},$ we have: $\det \left( g_{\varepsilon }^{-1}g_{\varpi }\right) \in L^{2(\alpha -1)s}(\tilde{X},\varpi )$, and the value of the $L^{2(\alpha -1)s}$ norm is uniformly bounded in $\varepsilon $. Since $g_{\varepsilon }$ converges to the Kähler metric $\pi ^{\ast }\omega $ away from the exceptional divisor $\mathbf{E}$, on the complement of a neighbourhood of $\mathbf{E}$ there is always such a uniform bound (and on this set $\left( \det g_{\varepsilon }/\det g_{\varpi }\right) ^{2(1-\alpha )s}$ is clearly integrable). It therefore suffices to prove the result in a neighbourhood of the exceptional divisor. Let $y\in Y$ and $U$ be a local coordinate chart containing $y$ consisting of coordinates $% (z_{1},\cdots ,z_{n}).$ Now $Y$ has codimension $k$ so that locally $Y$ is given by the slice coordinates $\{z_{1}=z_{2}=\cdots =z_{k}=0\}$. Recall that on the blow-up $\tilde{X}$ we have explicit coordinate charts $\tilde{U}% _{m}\subset \tilde{U}=\pi ^{-1}(U)$ where $\tilde{U}_{m}=\{z\in U-Y\mid z_{m}\neq 0\}\cup \{(z,\left[ \nu \right] )\in \mathbb{P}(\mathbf{\zeta }% )_{\mid Y\cap U}\mid \nu _{m}\neq 0\}$, where $\mathbb{P}(\mathbf{\zeta })$ is the projectivisation of the normal bundle of $Y$. Let $(\xi _{1},\cdots ,\xi _{n})$ denote local coordinates on $\tilde{U}_{m}$. In these coordinates the map $\pi :\tilde{X}\rightarrow X$ is given by:$$(\xi _{1},\cdots ,\xi _{n})\longrightarrow (\xi _{1}\xi _{m},\cdots ,\xi _{s-1}\xi _{m},\xi _{m},\xi _{m+1}\xi _{m},\cdots ,\xi _{k}\xi _{m},\xi _{k+1},\cdots ,\xi _{n}).$$Now locally, we may write the Kähler form on $X$ in terms of the associated metric $g$, as $\omega =\frac{i}{2}g_{ij}dz^{i}\wedge d\bar{z}% ^{j} $. Then the top power has the form: $\omega ^{n}=n!(i/2)^{n}\det g_{ij}\ dz_{1}\wedge d\bar{z}_{1}\wedge \cdots \wedge dz_{n}\wedge d\bar{z}% _{n}$, and using this coordinate description we may compute: $\pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{n}=n!(i/2)^{n}\left( \pi ^{\ast }\det g_{ij}\right) \left\vert \xi _{m}\right\vert ^{2k-2}\ d\xi _{1}\wedge d\bar{\xi}_{1}\wedge \cdots \wedge d\xi _{n}\wedge d\bar{\xi}_{n}$. Note that $\pi ^{\ast }\det g_{ij}$ is non-vanishing since $\det g_{ij}$ is non-vanishing, and so degeneracy of the pullback occurs only along the hypersurface defined by $\xi _{m}=0$. In other words, $(\xi _{1,}\cdots ,\xi _{n})$ are normal crossings coordinates on the blow-up for the exceptional divisor $\mathbf{E}$, and locally $\mathbf{E}$ takes the form $\{\xi _{m}=0\} $. The top power of the Kähler form $\omega _{\varepsilon }$ is:$$\omega _{\varepsilon }^{n}=\pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{n}+\varepsilon n\pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{n-1}\wedge \eta +..+\varepsilon ^{l}\binom{n}{l}\pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{n-l}\wedge \eta ^{l}+\cdots +\varepsilon ^{n-1}n\pi ^{\ast }\omega \wedge \eta ^{n-1}+\varepsilon ^{n}\eta ^{n}.$$In the local coordinates $(\xi _{1},\cdots ,\xi _{n})$ we have: $\omega _{\varepsilon }^{n}=n!(i/2)^{n}\det g_{ij}^{\varepsilon }d\xi _{1}\wedge d% \bar{\xi}_{1}\wedge \cdots \wedge d\xi _{n}\wedge d\bar{\xi}_{n}$. We may therefore obtain a lower bound (not depending on $\varepsilon $) on $\det g_{ij}^{\varepsilon }$ as follows. Note that $\eta >0$. On the other hand, the only degeneracy of $\pi ^{\ast }\omega $ is only on vectors tangent to the exceptional divisor (in other words, the restriction of $\pi ^{\ast }\omega $ vanishes on $\mathbf{E}$), so $\pi ^{\ast }\omega \geq 0$. Therefore $\pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{l}\wedge \eta ^{n-l}$ is non-negative for every $l$. Then comparing the two expressions for $\omega _{\varepsilon }^{n}$, this implies that we have the lower bound: $\det g_{ij}^{\varepsilon }\geq C\left\vert \xi _{m}\right\vert ^{2k-2}$, where $C=\inf \pi ^{\ast }\det g_{ij}$ on $\tilde{U}_{m}$ for each $0<\varepsilon \leq \varepsilon _{1}$. Taking the $2(1-\alpha )s$ power of both sides we see that$$\int_{\tilde{U}_{m}}(\det g_{\varepsilon }/\det g_{\varpi })^{2(1-\alpha )s}\varpi ^{n}\leq C\int_{\tilde{U}_{m}}(\det g_{ij}^{\varepsilon })^{2(1-\alpha )s}\leq C\int_{\tilde{U}_{m}}\left\vert \xi _{m}\right\vert ^{4(1-\alpha )(k-1)s},$$where the last two integrals are with respect to the standard Euclidean measure. Using the condition on $\tilde{\alpha}$ one computes that $% 4(1-\alpha )(k-1)s>-2$ and so the functions $\left\vert \xi _{m}\right\vert ^{4(1-\alpha )s(k-1)}$, are integrable (as can be seen by computing the integral in polar coordinates), and the result follows. \[Lemma12\]Let $\pi :\tilde{X}\rightarrow X$, the codimension $k$, and the family of metrics $\omega _{\varepsilon }$ be the same as in the previous lemma. Let $\tilde{B}$ be a holomorphic vector bundle on $\tilde{X}$ and $F$ a $(1,1)$- form with values in the auxiliary vector bundle $End(% \tilde{B})$. Let $1<\alpha <1+\frac{1}{4k(k-1)}$and $\frac{\alpha }{% 1-2(k-1)(\alpha -1)}<\tilde{\alpha}<1+\frac{1}{2(k-1)}$. Then there is a number $\kappa _{0}$ such that for any $0<\kappa \leq \kappa _{0}$, there exists a constant $C$ independent of $\varepsilon $, $\varepsilon _{1}$, and $\kappa $, and a constant $C(\kappa )$ such that:$$\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F\right\Vert _{L^{\alpha }(% \tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon })}\leq C\left( \left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}F\right\Vert _{L^{\tilde{\alpha}}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}+\kappa \left\Vert F\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X}% ,\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}\right) +\varepsilon _{1}C(\kappa )\left\Vert F\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}$$ In the following argument, out of convenience, we will engage in the slight (and quite orthodox) abuse of notation of dividing a top degree form by the volume form. Since the determinant line bundle of $T^{\ast }X$ is trivial, any such form may be written as the product of some smooth function (or in this case endomorphism) with the volume form, and so dividing by the volume form simply returns this function (endomorphism). Recall that $\left( \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F\right) \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n}=F\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}$ and $\left( \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}F\right) \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}=F\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n-1}$ so that:$$\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F=\frac{F\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}% }{\omega _{\varepsilon }^{n}},\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}F=\frac{% F\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n-1}}{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}}.$$Note also that $$\omega _{\varepsilon }^{n}=\frac{\det g^{\varepsilon }}{\det g^{\varepsilon _{1}}}\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}$$Now we write:$$\begin{aligned} \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F &=&\frac{F\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}}{\omega _{\varepsilon }^{n}}=\frac{F\wedge (\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n-1}+\omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}-\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n-1})}{% \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n}} \\ &=&\left( \frac{F\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n-1}+\sum_{l=1}^{n-1}(\varepsilon ^{l}-\varepsilon _{1}^{l})\binom{n-1% }{l}F\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{(n-1)-l}\wedge \eta ^{l}}{\omega _{\varepsilon }^{n}}\right) . \\ &=&\frac{\det g_{\varepsilon _{1}}}{\det g_{\varepsilon }}\left( \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}F+\frac{\sum_{l=1}^{n-1}(\varepsilon ^{l}-\varepsilon _{1}^{l})\binom{n-1}{l}F\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{(n-1)-l}\wedge \eta ^{l}}{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}}\right) .\end{aligned}$$Therefore:$$\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F\right\vert ^{\alpha }\leq C\left\vert \frac{\det g_{\varepsilon _{1}}}{\det g_{\varepsilon }}% \right\vert ^{\alpha }\left( \left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}F\right\vert ^{\alpha }+\sum_{l=1}^{n-1}\left\vert \varepsilon ^{l}-\varepsilon _{1}^{l}\right\vert ^{\alpha }\left\vert \frac{F\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{(n-1)-l}\wedge \eta ^{l}}{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}}% \right\vert ^{\alpha }\right)$$(by convexity of the function $\left\vert \cdot \right\vert ^{\alpha }$ when $\alpha >1$). Again, we set $s=\frac{\tilde{\alpha}}{\tilde{\alpha}-\alpha }$ (note again that $s$ is a conjugate variable to $\frac{\tilde{\alpha}}{% \alpha })$. By the above expression and Hölder’s inequality with respect to the metric $\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}$:$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F\right\Vert _{L^{\alpha }(% \tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon })} &=&\left( \int_{\tilde{X}}\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F\right\vert ^{\alpha }\omega _{\varepsilon }^{n}\right) ^{\frac{1}{\alpha }}\leq \\ &&\hskip-1.4inC\left( \int_{\tilde{X}}\left( \frac{\det g_{\varepsilon }}{% \det g_{\varepsilon _{1}}}\right) ^{(1-\alpha )s}\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}\right) ^{\frac{1}{\alpha s}}\left( \left( \int_{\tilde{X}% }\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}F\right\vert ^{\tilde{\alpha% }}\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}\right) ^{\frac{1}{^{\tilde{\alpha}}}% }+\left( \int_{\tilde{X}}\sum_{l=1}^{n-1}\left( \varepsilon _{1}^{l}\right) ^{\tilde{\alpha}}\left\vert \frac{F\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{(n-1)-l}\wedge \eta ^{l}}{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}}\right\vert ^{% \tilde{\alpha}}\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}\right) ^{\frac{1}{\tilde{\alpha% }}}\right) .\end{aligned}$$By the previous lemma the factor $$\left( \int_{\tilde{X}}\left( \frac{\det g_{\varepsilon }}{\det g_{\varepsilon _{1}}}\right) ^{(1-\alpha )s}\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}\right) ^{\frac{1}{\alpha s}}$$is uniformly bounded in $\varepsilon $. Now we need to control the second term of the second factor above. We divide $\tilde{X}$ into two pieces: an arbitrarily small neighbourhood $V_{\kappa }$ with $\limfunc{Vol}(V_{\kappa },\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})=\kappa ^{\frac{2% }{2-\tilde{\alpha}}}$ of the exceptional divisor $\mathbf{E}$ and its complement. We will perform two separate estimates, one for each piece. Write the components of $F$ in a local basis as $F_{\rho i\bar{j}}^{\gamma }. $ At any point we may choose an orthonormal basis for the tangent space so that $\eta $ is standard and $\pi ^{\ast }\omega $ is diagonal. Then if we call this basis $\{e_{i}\}$, we have$$\begin{aligned} \biggl\vert\frac{F\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{(n-1)-l}\wedge \eta ^{l}}{% \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}}\biggr\vert^{2\tilde{\alpha}} &=&\biggl\vert% \frac{\left( \sum_{i,j}F_{i\bar{j}}e_{i}\wedge \bar{e}_{j}\right) \wedge \left( \sum_{i}\pi ^{\ast }g_{ii}e^{i}\wedge \bar{e}^{i}\right) ^{(n-1)-l}\wedge \left( \sum_{i}e^{i}\wedge \bar{e}^{i}\right) ^{l}}{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}}\biggr\vert^{2\tilde{\alpha}} \\ &\leq &\frac{C}{\left\vert \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}\right\vert ^{2% \tilde{\alpha}}}\left( \sum_{i.j,\gamma ,\rho }\left\vert F_{\rho i\bar{j}% }^{\gamma }\right\vert ^{2}\right) ^{\tilde{\alpha}}=C\frac{\left\vert F\right\vert _{\eta }^{2\tilde{\alpha}}}{\left\vert \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}\right\vert ^{2\tilde{\alpha}}}.\end{aligned}$$Now note that on $\tilde{X}-V_{\kappa }$ the pullback $\pi ^{\ast }\omega $ determines a metric, in other words $(\pi ^{\ast }\omega )^{n}$ is non-vanishing, so since $\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}\longrightarrow (\pi ^{\ast }\omega )^{n}$, the quantity $\left\vert \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}\right\vert ^{2\tilde{\alpha}}$ is uniformly bounded away from $0$. Therefore $$\left\vert \frac{F\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{(n-1)-l}\wedge \eta ^{l}}{% \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}}\right\vert ^{\tilde{\alpha}}\leq C\left\vert F\right\vert _{\eta }^{\tilde{\alpha}}.$$On the other hand, if we again choose a basis for which $\eta $ is standard and such that $\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}$ is diagonal, we have: $$\left\vert F\right\vert _{\eta }^{2\tilde{\alpha}}=\left\vert \left( \sum_{i.j,\gamma ,\rho }\left\vert F_{\rho ij}^{\gamma }\right\vert ^{2}\right) \right\vert ^{\tilde{\alpha}}\leq C\left\vert \left( \sum_{i.j,\gamma ,\rho }\frac{1}{g_{ii}^{\varepsilon _{1}}g_{jj}^{\varepsilon _{1}}}\left\vert F_{\rho ij}^{\gamma }\right\vert ^{2}\right) \right\vert ^{\tilde{\alpha}}=C\left\vert F\right\vert _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{2\tilde{\alpha}}$$since the product of the eigenvalues $g_{ii}^{\varepsilon _{1}}g_{jj}^{\varepsilon _{1}}$ is again uniformly bounded ($% g_{ii}^{\varepsilon _{1}}g_{jj}^{\varepsilon _{1}}\rightarrow \pi ^{\ast }g_{ii}\pi ^{\ast }g_{jj}$ as $\varepsilon _{1}\rightarrow 0$). Thus, on $% \tilde{X}-V_{\kappa }$ we have the further pointwise bound: $\left\vert F\right\vert _{\eta }^{\tilde{\alpha}}\leq C\left\vert F\right\vert _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{\tilde{\alpha}}$. Therefore the integral on $\tilde{X}% -V_{\kappa }$ is:$$\begin{aligned} \left( \int_{\tilde{X}-V_{\kappa }}\left( \varepsilon _{1}^{l}\right) ^{% \tilde{\alpha}}\left\vert \frac{F\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{(n-1)-l}\wedge \eta ^{l}}{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}}\right\vert ^{\tilde{\alpha}% }\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}\right) ^{\frac{1}{\tilde{\alpha}}} &\leq &C\varepsilon _{1}\left( \int_{\tilde{X}-V_{\kappa }}\left\vert F\right\vert _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{\tilde{\alpha}}\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}\right) ^{\frac{1}{\tilde{\alpha}}} \\ &\leq &C\varepsilon _{1}\left\Vert F\right\Vert _{L^{\tilde{\alpha}}(\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}\leq C(\kappa )\varepsilon _{1}\left\Vert F\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}\end{aligned}$$since by assumption $\tilde{\alpha}<2.$ Now we estimate this term on $V_{\kappa }$. Choose an orthonormal basis for the tangent space at a point in $V_{\kappa }$ such that $\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}$ is standard and $\eta $ is diagonal. Then we have $% g_{ij}^{\varepsilon _{1}}=\pi ^{\ast }g_{ij}+\varepsilon _{1}\eta _{ij}$, so if $i\neq j$, $\pi ^{\ast }g_{ij}=0$, and if $i=j$, $\eta _{ii}=$ $\frac{1-% \tilde{g}_{ii}}{\varepsilon _{1}}$. Note also that $0\leq \tilde{g}_{ii}<1$ since $0<\eta _{ii}$. If we write $\Omega $ for the standard Euclidean volume form then:$$\begin{aligned} &&\sum_{l=1}^{n-1}\left( \varepsilon _{1}^{l}\right) ^{\tilde{\alpha}% }\left\vert \frac{F\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{(n-1)-l}\wedge \eta ^{l}}{% \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}}\right\vert ^{\tilde{\alpha}} \\ &=&\sum_{l=1}^{n-1}\left\vert \frac{\left( \sum_{i,j}F_{i\bar{j}}e_{i}\wedge \bar{e}_{j}\right) \wedge \left( \sum_{i}\pi ^{\ast }g_{i\overline{i}% }e^{i}\wedge \bar{e}^{i}\right) ^{(n-1)-l}\wedge \left( \sum_{i}\left( 1-\pi ^{\ast }g_{ii}\right) e^{i}\wedge \bar{e}^{i}\right) ^{l}}{\Omega }% \right\vert ^{\tilde{\alpha}} \\ &\leq &C\left( \sum_{i.j,\gamma ,\rho }\left\vert F_{\rho i\bar{j}}^{\gamma }\right\vert \right) ^{\tilde{\alpha}}\leq C\left\vert F\right\vert _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{\tilde{\alpha}}.\end{aligned}$$Therefore:$$\begin{aligned} &&\left( \int_{V_{\kappa }}\sum_{l=1}^{n-1}\left( \varepsilon _{1}^{l}\right) ^{\tilde{\alpha}}\left\vert \frac{F\wedge \pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{(n-1)-l}\wedge \eta ^{l}}{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}}\right\vert ^{% \tilde{\alpha}}\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}\right) ^{\frac{1}{\tilde{\alpha% }}} \\ &\leq &C\left( \int_{V_{\kappa }}\left\vert F\right\vert _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{\tilde{\alpha}}\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}\right) ^{% \frac{1}{\tilde{\alpha}}}\leq C\limfunc{Vol}(V_{\kappa },\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})^{1-\frac{\tilde{\alpha}}{2}}\left\Vert F\right\Vert _{L^{2}(V_{\kappa },\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}\leq C\kappa \left\Vert F\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}\text{ }(H\ddot{o}% lder).\end{aligned}$$Now we obtain the desired estimate:$$\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F\right\Vert _{L^{\alpha }(% \tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon })}\leq C\left( \left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}F\right\Vert _{L^{\tilde{\alpha}}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}+\kappa \left\Vert F\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X}% ,\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}\right) +\varepsilon _{1}C(\kappa )\left\Vert F\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}.$$ \[Prop18\]Let $E\rightarrow X$ be a holomorphic vector bundle of rank $K$ over a compact Kähler manifold with Kähler form $\omega $. Assume that $E$ has Harder-Narasimhan type $\mu =(\mu _{1},\cdots ,\mu _{K})$ that the singular set $Z_{\limfunc{alg}}$ of the $HNS$ filtration is smooth, and furthermore that blowing up along the singular set resolves the singularities of the HNS filtration. There is an $\alpha _{0}>1$ such that the following holds: given any $\delta >0$ and any $N$, there is an hermitian metric $h$ on $E$ such that $HYM_{\alpha ,N}^{\omega }(\bar{% \partial}_{E},h)\leq HYM_{\alpha ,N}(\mu )+\delta $, for all $1\leq \alpha <\alpha _{0}$. As before, let $\pi :\tilde{X}\rightarrow X$ be a blow-up along a smooth, complex submanifold $Y$, and we assume that this resolves the singularities of the $HNS$ filtration. In other words there is a filtration of $\tilde{E}% =\pi ^{\ast }E$ on $\tilde{X}$ that is given by sub-bundles and is equal to the $HNS$ filtration of $E$ away from the divisor $\mathbf{E}$. Let $\omega _{\varepsilon }$ denote the aforementioned family of Kähler metrics on $% \tilde{X}$ given by $\omega _{\varepsilon }=\pi ^{\ast }\omega +\varepsilon \eta $ where $0<\varepsilon \leq 1$ and $\eta $ is a fixed Kähler metric on $\tilde{X}$. We will construct the metric $h$ on $E$ from an hermitian metric $\tilde{h}$ on $\pi ^{\ast }E$ to be specified later. Since $Z_{\limfunc{alg}}$ is a complex submanifold, we consider its normal bundle $\boldsymbol{\zeta }$, or more particularly the open subset: $\mathbf{% \zeta }_{R}=\{(x,\nu )\in \mathbf{\zeta }\mid \left\vert \nu \right\vert <R\} $. By the tubular neighbourhood theorem, for $R$ sufficiently small this set is diffeomorphic to an open neighbourhood $U_{R}$ of $Z_{\limfunc{% alg}}$. We choose a background metric $H$ on this open set. Let $\psi $ be a smooth cut-off function supported in $U_{1}$ and and identically $1$ on $U_{1/2}$ and such that $0\leq \psi \leq 1$ everywhere. Then if we define $\psi _{R}(x,\nu )=\psi (x,\frac{\nu }{R})$, $\psi _{R}$ is identically $1$ on $U_{R/2}$ and supported in $U_{R}$ with $0\leq \psi _{R}\leq 1$ and furthermore there are bounds on the derivatives: $$\left\vert \frac{\partial \psi _{R}}{\partial z_{i}}\right\vert \leq \frac{C% }{R}\qquad ,\qquad \left\vert \frac{\partial }{\partial \bar{z}_{i}}\frac{% \partial \psi _{R}}{\partial z_{i}}\right\vert \leq \frac{C}{R^{2}}$$where the constant $C$ does not depend on $R$. Suppose for the moment that we have constructed an hermitian metric $\tilde{h}$ on $\pi ^{\ast }E$. If we continue to denote by $H$ and $\psi _{R}$ their pullbacks to $\tilde{X}$, then we may define the following metric on $\pi ^{\ast }E:$$$h_{\psi _{R}}:=\psi _{R}H+(1-\psi _{R})\tilde{h}$$ Observe that on $X-U_{R}$ we have $h_{\psi _{R}}=\tilde{h}$ and on $U_{R/2}$, $h_{\psi _{R}}=H$. Now we need to estimate the difference:$$\begin{aligned} &&\left\vert HYM_{\alpha ,N}^{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{% E}},h_{\psi _{R}})-HYM_{\alpha ,N}(\mu )\right\vert \\ &=&\left\vert \int_{\tilde{X}}\Phi _{\alpha }(\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{h_{\psi _{R}}}+\sqrt{-1}N\mathbf{I}_{\tilde{E}})-\Phi _{\alpha }\left( \sqrt{-1}(\mu _{1}+N),\cdots ,\sqrt{-1}(\mu _{K}+N)\right) \right\vert \end{aligned}$$where $\Phi _{\alpha }$ is the convex functional on $\mathfrak{u}(\tilde{E})$ given as in Section $3.2$ by $\Phi _{\alpha }(a)=\sum_{j=1}^{k}\left\vert \lambda _{j}\right\vert ^{\alpha }$, where the $\sqrt{-1}\lambda _{j}$ are the eigenvalues of $a$. From here on out we will write $\sqrt{-1}(\mu +N)$ in place of $(\sqrt{-1}(\mu _{1}+N),\cdots ,\sqrt{-1}(\mu _{K}+N))$. Therefore we have:$$\begin{aligned} & \qquad \qquad \bigl\vert HYM_{\alpha ,N}^{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(\bar{% \partial}_{\tilde{E}},h_{\psi _{R}})-HYM_{\alpha ,N}(\mu )\bigr\vert \\ & \leq \biggl\vert\int_{\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2})}\hskip-.25in\Phi _{\alpha }(\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{h_{\psi _{R}}}+\sqrt{-1}N% \mathbf{I}_{\tilde{E}})-\Phi _{\alpha }(\sqrt{-1}(\mu +N))\biggr\vert \\ & +\biggl\vert\int_{\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2})}\hskip-.25in\Phi _{\alpha }(\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{h_{\psi _{R}}}+\sqrt{-1}N\mathbf{I}_{\tilde{E}% })-\Phi _{\alpha }(\sqrt{-1}(\mu +N))\biggr\vert \\ & =\left\vert \int_{\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2})}\hskip-.25in\Phi _{\alpha }(\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{h_{\psi _{R}}}+\sqrt{-1}N\mathbf{I}_{% \tilde{E}})-\Phi _{\alpha }(\sqrt{-1}(\mu +N))\right\vert \\ & +\left\vert \int_{\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2})}\hskip-.25in\Phi _{\alpha }(\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{H}+\sqrt{-1}N\mathbf{I}_{\tilde{E}})-\Phi _{\alpha }(\sqrt{-1}(\mu +N))\right\vert \end{aligned}$$where the last equality comes from the fact that $h_{\psi _{R}}$ is equal to $H$ on $U_{R/2}$. Dividing the first integral further we have:$$\begin{aligned} &&\left\vert HYM_{\alpha ,N}^{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(\bar{\partial}% _{E},h_{\psi _{R}})-HYM_{\alpha ,N}(\mu )\right\vert \\ &\leq &\left\vert \int_{\pi ^{-1}(U_{R}-U_{R/2})}\Phi _{\alpha }(\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{h_{\psi _{R}}}+\sqrt{-1}N\mathbf{I}_{\tilde{E}% })-\Phi _{\alpha }(\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{h}}+\sqrt{-1}N% \mathbf{I}_{\tilde{E}})\right\vert \\ &&+\left\vert \int_{\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2})}\Phi _{\alpha }(\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{h}}+\sqrt{-1}N\mathbf{I}_{\tilde{E}% })-\Phi _{\alpha }(\sqrt{-1}(\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}+N))\right\vert \\ &&+\left\vert \int_{\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2})}\Phi _{\alpha }(\sqrt{-1}% (\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}+N))-\Phi _{\alpha }(\sqrt{-1}(\mu +N))\right\vert \\ &&+\left\vert \int_{\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2})}\Phi _{\alpha }(\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{H}+\sqrt{-1}N\mathbf{I}_{\tilde{E}})-\Phi _{\alpha }(% \sqrt{-1}(\mu +N))\right\vert \end{aligned}$$where in the first integral on the right hand side we have used the fact that outside of $U_{R}$ the metrics $h_{\psi _{R}}$ and $\tilde{h}$ agree. Here, $\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}$ denotes the usual $K$-tuple of rational numbers made from the $\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}$ slopes of the quotients of the resolution. Recall that the norm on $L^{\alpha }(\mathfrak{u}(\tilde{E}))$, $a\mapsto % \bigl(\int_{M}\Phi _{\alpha }(a)\bigr)^{1/\alpha }$ is equivalent to the $% L^{\alpha }$ norm and so there is a universal constant $C$ independent of $R$ and $\varepsilon $ such that:$$\begin{aligned} &&\left\vert \int_{\pi ^{-1}(U_{R}-U_{R/2})}\Phi _{\alpha }(\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{h_{\psi _{R}}}+\sqrt{-1}N\mathbf{I}_{\tilde{E}})-\Phi _{\alpha }(\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{h}}+\sqrt{-1}N\mathbf{I% }_{E})\right\vert \\ &&+\left\vert \int_{\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2})}\Phi _{\alpha }(\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{h}}+\sqrt{-1}N\mathbf{I}_{E})-\Phi _{\alpha }(\sqrt{-1}(\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}+N))\right\vert \\ &\leq &C\left( \left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{h_{\psi _{R}}}-\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{h}}\right\Vert _{L^{\alpha }(\pi ^{-1}(U_{R}-U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })}^{\alpha }+\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{h}}-\sqrt{-1}\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}\right\Vert _{L^{\alpha }(\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })}^{\alpha }\right) .\end{aligned}$$ First we dispose of$$\left\vert \int_{\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2})}\Phi _{\alpha }(\sqrt{-1}(\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}+N))-\Phi _{\alpha }(\sqrt{-1}(\mu +N))\right\vert$$by choosing $\varepsilon _{1}$ close to zero and using $\limfunc{Remark}\ref% {R6}$. That is, we may choose $\varepsilon _{1}$ small enough so that$$\left\vert \int_{\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2})}\Phi _{\alpha }(\sqrt{-1}(\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}+N))-\Phi _{\alpha }(\sqrt{-1}(\mu +N))\right\vert <\frac{\delta }{2}$$Next will will bound: $$\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{h}}-\sqrt{-1}\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}Id_{\tilde{E}}\right\Vert _{L^{\alpha }(\tilde{X% }-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })}^{\alpha }.$$ Note that at this point we have not specified the metric $\tilde{h}$ on $\pi ^{\ast }E$. We will do so now. Each of the $\omega $-stable quotients $Q_{i}$ of the Harder-Narasimhan-Seshadri filtration remains stable on the blowup with respect to the metrics $\omega _{\varepsilon }$ with $\varepsilon $ sufficiently small (see $\limfunc{Remark}\ref{Rmk5}$), so that the quotients $\tilde{Q}_{i}$ are also $\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}$-stable and admit a unique Hermitian-Einstein metric $\tilde{G}_{i}^{\varepsilon _{1}}$. The prototype for our metric $\tilde{h}$ will be the metric $\tilde{G}% _{\varepsilon _{1}}={\LARGE \oplus }_{i}\tilde{G}_{i}^{\varepsilon _{1}}$. Just as in the beginning of this section, we need to modify $\tilde{G}% _{\varepsilon _{1}}$ by a gauge transformation in order to obtain the appropriate bound. More precisely, since holomorphic structures on the bundle $\tilde{E}$ are equivalent to integrable unitary connections, this is the same as showing that if we fix the metric $\tilde{G}_{\varepsilon _{1}}$, there is a complex gauge transformation $\tilde{g}$ of $\tilde{E}$ such that $\bigl\Vert\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\tilde{g}(\bar{\partial}% _{\tilde{E}}),\tilde{G}_{\varepsilon _{1}})}-\sqrt{-1}\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}Id_{\tilde{E}}\bigr\Vert_{L^{\alpha }(\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })}$ is small. When we take the direct sum, the second fundamental form enters into the curvature and so we ask that there is a gauge transformation making this contribution small. We will do this iteratively. If we write $\tilde{S}=\tilde{E}_{1}=\tilde{Q}% _{1}\subset \pi ^{\ast }E$ for the first sub-bundle in the filtration of $% \pi ^{\ast }E$ $\ $on $\tilde{X}$, then the discussion at the beginning of this section applies in exactly the same way to the exact sequence:$$0\longrightarrow \tilde{S}\longrightarrow \pi ^{\ast }E\longrightarrow \tilde{Q}\longrightarrow 0$$where $\tilde{Q}=\oplus _{i=2}^{l}\tilde{Q}_{i}$. Therefore if we apply the gauge transformation $g_{t}=$ $t^{-1}Id_{\tilde{S}}\oplus tId_{\tilde{Q}}$ to the operator $\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}}$ as before, the curvature may be written as:$$F_{\left( g_{t}(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}}),\tilde{G}_{\varepsilon _{1}}\right) }=% \begin{pmatrix} F_{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{S}},\tilde{G}_{1}^{\varepsilon _{1}})}-t^{4}\beta \wedge \beta _{\tilde{S}}^{\ast } & t^{2}\partial _{E}\beta _{\tilde{S}} \\ -t^{2}\bar{\partial}_{E}\beta _{\tilde{S}}^{\ast } & F_{(\bar{\partial}_{Q},% {\LARGE \oplus }_{i=2}^{l}\tilde{G}_{i}^{\varepsilon _{1}})}-t^{4}\beta _{% \tilde{S}}^{\ast }\wedge \beta _{\tilde{S}}% \end{pmatrix}% .$$Taking $\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}$, we obtain terms involving:$$\begin{aligned} t^{4}\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\beta \wedge \beta _{\tilde{S}}^{\ast } &=&t^{4}\frac{\beta \wedge \beta _{\tilde{S}}^{\ast }\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}}{\omega _{\varepsilon }^{n}},t^{2}\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\partial _{E}\beta _{\tilde{S}}=t^{2}\frac{\partial _{E}\beta _{\tilde{S}}\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}}{\omega _{\varepsilon }^{n}}, \\ t^{2}\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\bar{\partial}_{E}\beta _{\tilde{S}% }^{\ast } &=&t^{2}\frac{\bar{\partial}_{E}\beta _{\tilde{S}}^{\ast }\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}}{\omega _{\varepsilon }^{n}},t^{4}\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\beta _{\tilde{S}}^{\ast }\wedge \beta _{\tilde{S}% }=t^{4}\frac{\beta _{\tilde{S}}^{\ast }\wedge \beta _{\tilde{S}}\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}}{\omega _{\varepsilon }^{n}}.\end{aligned}$$Recalling also that $$\omega _{\varepsilon }^{n}=\left\vert \frac{\det g_{\varepsilon }}{\det g_{\eta }}\right\vert \eta ^{n},$$and applying Hölder’s inequality we see that$$\begin{aligned} &&\bigl\Vert\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\tilde{g}_{t}(\bar{\partial}% _{\tilde{E}}),\tilde{G}_{\varepsilon _{1}})}-\sqrt{-1}\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}Id_{\tilde{E}}\bigr\Vert_{L^{\alpha }(\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })} \\ &\leq &\bigl\Vert\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{_{\tilde{G}% _{1}^{\varepsilon _{1}}}}-\sqrt{-1}\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(\tilde{S% })Id_{\tilde{Q}_{1}}\bigr\Vert_{L^{\alpha }(\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })} \\ &&+\bigl\Vert\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{_{{\LARGE \oplus }_{i=2}^{l}% \tilde{G}_{i}^{\varepsilon _{1}}}}-\sqrt{-1}\oplus _{i=2}^{l}\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(\tilde{Q}_{i})Id_{\tilde{Q}i}\bigr\Vert_{L^{\alpha }(% \tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })} \\ &&\hskip-.25in+\left( \int_{\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2})}\left\vert \frac{% \det g_{\varepsilon }}{\det g_{\eta }}\right\vert ^{(1-\alpha )s}\eta ^{n}\right) ^{\frac{1}{\alpha s}}\left( \int_{\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2})}\left( \left\vert t^{4}\frac{\beta \wedge \beta _{\tilde{S}% }^{\ast }\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}}{\eta ^{n}}\right\vert ^{\tilde{% \alpha}}+\left\vert t^{2}\frac{\partial _{E}\beta _{\tilde{S}}\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}}{\eta ^{n}}\right\vert ^{\tilde{\alpha}}\right) \eta ^{n}\right) ^{\frac{1}{\tilde{\alpha}}} \\ &&\hskip-.25in+\left( \int_{\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2})}\left\vert \frac{% \det g_{\varepsilon }}{\det g_{\eta }}\right\vert ^{(1-\alpha )s}\eta ^{n}\right) ^{\frac{1}{\alpha s}}\left( \int_{\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2})}\left( \left\vert t^{2}\frac{\bar{\partial}_{E}\beta _{\tilde{% S}}^{\ast }\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}}{\eta ^{n}}\right\vert ^{% \tilde{\alpha}}+\left\vert t^{4}\frac{\beta _{\tilde{S}}^{\ast }\wedge \beta _{\tilde{S}}\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}}{\eta ^{n}}\right\vert ^{% \tilde{\alpha}}\right) \eta ^{n}\right) ^{\frac{1}{\tilde{\alpha}}}\end{aligned}$$where $\tilde{\alpha}$ and $s$ are as in Lemma \[Lemma11\] (recall that $s$ and $\frac{\tilde{\alpha}}{\alpha }$ are a conjugate pair). By the lemma, the last two terms above are bounded uniformly in $\varepsilon $. Therefore, the contribution of these terms can be made small by making $t$ sufficiently small. Similarly, we can apply the same argument to the extensions:$$0\longrightarrow \tilde{E}_{i}/\tilde{E}_{i-1}=\tilde{Q}_{i}\longrightarrow \pi ^{\ast }E/\tilde{E}_{i-1}\longrightarrow \pi ^{\ast }E/\tilde{E}% _{i}=\oplus _{j=i+1}^{l}\tilde{Q}_{j}\longrightarrow 0$$using the gauge transformation $g_{t}=Id_{\tilde{Q}_{1}}\oplus \cdots \oplus Id_{\tilde{Q}_{l-1}}\oplus t^{-1}Id_{\tilde{Q}_{i}}\oplus _{j=i+1}^{l}tId_{% \tilde{Q}_{j}}$. Such an extension will give a further second fundamental form $\beta _{\tilde{Q}_{i}}$, and its contribution can be estimated in exactly the same way as above. Continuing in this way, we see that there is a complex gauge transformation $% g$ of $\pi ^{\ast }E$ such that: $$\begin{aligned} \bigl\Vert\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\tilde{g}(\bar{\partial}_{% \tilde{E}}),\tilde{G}_{\varepsilon _{1}})}-\sqrt{-1}\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}& Id_{\tilde{E}}\bigr\Vert_{L^{\alpha }(\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })}\leq \bigl\Vert\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{_{\tilde{G}_{1}^{\varepsilon _{1}}}}-\sqrt{-1}\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(\tilde{Q}_{1})Id_{\tilde{Q}_{1}}\bigr\Vert% _{L^{\alpha }(\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })} \\ & +\cdots +\bigl\Vert\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{_{\tilde{G}% _{l}^{\varepsilon _{1}}}}-\sqrt{-1}\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(\tilde{Q% }_{l})Id_{\tilde{Q}_{l}}\bigr\Vert_{_{L^{\alpha }(\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })}}+\Theta (t,\beta _{\tilde{Q}% _{1}},\cdots ,\beta _{\tilde{Q}_{l}})\end{aligned}$$where $\Theta (t,\beta _{\tilde{Q}_{1}},\cdots ,\beta _{\tilde{Q}% _{l}})\rightarrow 0$ as $t\rightarrow 0$. Therefore we have reduced this estimate to an estimate on each of the terms:$$\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{_{\tilde{G}_{i}^{\varepsilon _{1}}}}-\sqrt{-1}\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(\tilde{Q}_{i})Id_{\tilde{Q% }_{i}}\right\Vert _{_{L^{\alpha }(\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })}}.$$On the other hand we have:$$\begin{aligned} & \left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{G}_{i}^{\varepsilon _{1}}}-\sqrt{-1}\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(\tilde{Q}_{i})Id_{\tilde{Q}% _{i}}\right\Vert _{L^{\alpha }(\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })} \\ & \leq \left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\left( F_{\tilde{G}% _{i}^{\varepsilon _{1}}}-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{n}\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(\tilde{Q}_{i})Id_{\tilde{Q}_{i}}\right) \right\Vert _{L^{\alpha }(\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })} \\ & +\left\Vert \frac{\sqrt{-1}}{n}\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}-\omega _{\varepsilon })\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(% \tilde{Q}_{i})Id_{\tilde{Q}_{i}}\right\Vert _{L^{\alpha }(\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })}\end{aligned}$$where we have used the fact that $\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\omega _{\varepsilon }=n$. Now by Lemma \[Lemma12\] we have: $$\begin{aligned} \biggl\Vert\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\bigl(F_{_{\tilde{G}% _{i}^{\varepsilon _{1}}}}-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{n}\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(\tilde{Q}_{i})Id_{\tilde{Q}_{i}}\bigr)& % \biggr\Vert_{L^{\alpha }(\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })} \\ & \leq C\left( \left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}F_{\tilde{G}% _{i}^{\varepsilon _{1}}}-\sqrt{-1}\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(\tilde{Q}% )Id_{\tilde{Q}_{i}}\right\Vert _{L^{\tilde{\alpha}}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}\right) \\ & +\kappa C\left( \left\Vert F_{\tilde{G}_{i}^{\varepsilon _{1}}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}+\frac{1}{n}\left\Vert \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(\tilde{Q}_{i})Id_{% \tilde{Q}_{i}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}\right) \\ & +\varepsilon _{1}C(\kappa )\left( \left\Vert F_{\tilde{G}_{i}^{\varepsilon _{1}}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}+\frac{1}{n}% \left\Vert \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(% \tilde{Q}_{i})Id_{\tilde{Q}_{i}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}\right) \end{aligned}$$and$$\begin{aligned} &&\left\Vert \frac{\sqrt{-1}}{n}\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}-\omega _{\varepsilon })\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(% \tilde{Q}_{i})Id_{\tilde{Q}_{i}}\right\Vert _{L^{\alpha }(\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })} \\ &\leq &\frac{\varepsilon _{1}}{n}C\left( \left\Vert \left( \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}\eta \right) \mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(\tilde{Q}% _{i})Id_{\tilde{Q}_{i}}\right\Vert _{L^{\tilde{\alpha}}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}+\kappa \left\Vert \eta \mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(\tilde{Q}_{i})Id_{\tilde{Q}_{i}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}\right) \\ &&+\frac{\varepsilon _{1}^{2}}{n}C(\kappa )\left\Vert \eta \mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(\tilde{Q}_{i})Id_{\tilde{Q}_{i}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(% \tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}\end{aligned}$$again using Lemma \[Lemma12\]. Here we have used the fact that $\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}-\omega _{\varepsilon }=(\varepsilon _{1}-\varepsilon )\eta $ in the second inequality. Of course, $\bigl\Vert\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}F_{\tilde{G}_{i}^{\varepsilon _{1}}}-\sqrt{-1}\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(\tilde{Q}_{i})id_{\tilde{Q}_{i}}\bigr\Vert_{L^{% \tilde{\alpha}}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}=0$, by the construction of $G_{i}^{\varepsilon _{1}}$. On the other hand:$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert F_{\tilde{G}_{i}^{\varepsilon _{1}}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X}% ,\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}& =\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}F_{\tilde{G}_{i}^{\varepsilon _{1}}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X}% ,\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}+\pi ^{2}n(n-1)\int_{\tilde{X}}\left( 2c_{2}(% \tilde{Q}_{i})-c_{1}^{2}(\tilde{Q}_{i})\right) \wedge \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n-2} \\ & =\left\Vert \mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(\tilde{Q}_{i})Id_{\tilde{Q}% _{i}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}+\pi ^{2}n(n-1)\int_{\tilde{X}}\left( 2c_{2}(\tilde{Q}_{i})-c_{1}^{2}(\tilde{Q}% _{i})\right) \wedge \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n-2}\end{aligned}$$which is bounded. Likewise the terms $\left\Vert \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(\tilde{Q}_{i})Id_{\tilde{Q}% _{i}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}$ and $% \left\Vert \eta \mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(\tilde{Q}_{i})Id_{\tilde{Q}% _{i}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}$ are bounded. The only remaining issue is: $\left\Vert \left( \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}\eta \right) \mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(\tilde{Q}% _{i})Id_{\tilde{Q}_{i}}\right\Vert _{L^{\tilde{\alpha}}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}$. But writing $$\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}\eta \right\vert ^{^{\tilde{% \alpha}}}=\left\vert \frac{\eta \wedge \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n-1}}{% \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}}\right\vert ^{^{\tilde{\alpha}}}=\left\vert \frac{\eta \wedge \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n-1}}{\eta ^{n}}\right\vert ^{^{\tilde{\alpha}}}\left\vert \frac{\det g_{\eta }}{\det g_{\varepsilon _{1}}}\right\vert ^{^{\tilde{\alpha}}}$$and$$\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}=\left\vert \frac{\det g_{\varepsilon _{1}}}{% \det g_{\eta }}\right\vert \eta ^{n}$$$$\begin{aligned} &&\left\Vert \left( \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}\eta \right) \mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(\tilde{Q}_{i})Id_{\tilde{Q}_{i}}\right\Vert _{L^{\tilde{\alpha}}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})} \\ &\leq &C\left( \int_{\tilde{X}}\left\vert \frac{\det g_{\varepsilon _{1}}}{% \det g_{\eta }}\right\vert ^{(1-\tilde{\alpha})\tilde{s}}\eta ^{n}\right) ^{% \frac{1}{\tilde{\alpha}\tilde{s}}}\left( \int_{\tilde{X}}\left\vert \frac{% \eta \wedge \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n-1}}{\eta ^{n}}\right\vert ^{^{\beta }}\left\vert \mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(\tilde{Q}_{i})Id_{% \tilde{Q}_{i}}\right\vert ^{\beta }\eta ^{n}\right) ^{\frac{1}{^{\beta }}}\end{aligned}$$by Hölder’s inequality with respect to the metric $\eta $. Here again $% \tilde{\alpha}$ is as in Lemma \[Lemma12\] and $\tilde{s}=\frac{\beta }{% \beta -\tilde{\alpha}}$ where $\frac{\tilde{\alpha}}{1-2(k-1)(\tilde{\alpha}% -1)}<\beta <\infty $. By Lemma \[Lemma11\] this is uniformly bounded in $% \varepsilon _{1}$ since we also have $\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n-1}\longrightarrow \pi ^{\ast }\omega ^{n-1}$. Therefore we may choose $t,\kappa ,$ and $\varepsilon _{1}$ so that$$\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{_{\tilde{G}_{\varepsilon _{1}}}}-\sqrt{-1}\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}(\tilde{Q}_{i})Id_{\tilde{G% }_{\varepsilon _{1}}}\right\Vert _{_{L^{\alpha }(\tilde{X}-\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })}}<\frac{\delta }{4}$$for all $\varepsilon $ and all $\alpha $ sufficiently close to $1$. We will now fix these values of $t$,$\kappa $, and $\varepsilon _{1}$. The term $$\left\vert \int_{\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2})}\Phi _{\alpha }(\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{H}+\sqrt{-1}N\mathbf{I}_{E})-\Phi _{\alpha }(\sqrt{-1}% (\mu +N))\right\vert$$is bounded by:$$C\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{H}-\sqrt{-1}\mu \right\Vert _{L^{\alpha }(\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })}.$$Now write$$\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{H}\right\vert ^{\alpha }=\left\vert \frac{F_{H}\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}}{\omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}}\right\vert ^{^{\alpha }}=\left\vert \frac{F_{H}\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}}{\eta ^{n}}\right\vert ^{^{\tilde{\alpha}% }}\left\vert \frac{\det g_{\eta }}{\det g_{\varepsilon }}\right\vert ^{^{% \tilde{\alpha}}}$$and$$\omega _{\varepsilon }^{n}=\left\vert \frac{\det g_{\varepsilon }}{\det g_{\eta }}\right\vert \eta ^{n},$$we have$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert (\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{H}-\sqrt{-1}\mu \right\Vert _{L^{\alpha }(\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })} &\leq &C_{1}\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{H}\right\Vert _{L^{\alpha }(\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })}+C_{2}\limfunc{Vol}% (U_{R/2},\omega )\leq \\ &&\hskip-1.5inC_{1}\left( \int_{\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2})}\left\vert \frac{\det g_{\varepsilon }}{\det g_{\eta }}\right\vert ^{(1-\alpha )s}\eta ^{n}\right) ^{\frac{1}{s\tilde{\alpha}}}\left( \int_{\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2})}\left\vert \frac{% F_{H}\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}}{\eta ^{n}}\right\vert ^{^{\tilde{% \alpha}}}\eta ^{n}\right) ^{\frac{1}{^{^{\tilde{\alpha}}}}}+C_{2}\limfunc{Vol% }(U_{R/2},\omega ),\end{aligned}$$where $\alpha $ and $s$ are as in Lemma \[Lemma11\]. By that lemma, the factor$$\left( \int_{\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2})}\left\vert \frac{\det g_{\varepsilon }}{\det g_{\eta }}\right\vert ^{(1-\alpha )s}\eta ^{n}\right)$$is uniformly bounded, and so the result is that there is an $R$ such that$$\left\vert \int_{\pi ^{-1}(U_{R/2})}\Phi _{\alpha }(\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{H}+\sqrt{-1}N\mathbf{I}_{E})-\Phi _{\alpha }(\sqrt{-1}% (\mu +N))\right\vert <\frac{\delta }{8}.$$Therefore the only remaining estimates required are on: $\bigl\Vert\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{h}_{\psi _{R}}}-\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{h}}\bigr\Vert_{L^{\alpha }(\pi ^{-1}(U_{R}-U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })}$. If we let $k_{\psi _{R}}$ be an endomorphism such that $\tilde{h}=k_{\psi _{R}}h_{\psi _{R}}$. Then $$F_{h_{\psi _{R}}}-F_{\tilde{h}}=\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}}(k_{\psi _{R}}^{-1}\partial _{\tilde{h}}k_{\psi _{R}})$$where $\partial _{\tilde{h}}$ is the $(1,0)$ part of the Chern connection for $\tilde{h}$. The expression on the right hand side involves only two derivatives of $\psi _{R}$, and so, using the bound on the derivatives of $% \psi _{R}$, there is a bound of the form:$$\left\vert F_{h_{\psi _{R}}}-F_{\tilde{h}}\right\vert \leq C_{1}+\frac{C_{2}% }{R^{2}}.$$ where $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$ are independent of both $\varepsilon $ and $R$. Now as usual we have:$$\begin{aligned} \left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\left( F_{\tilde{h}_{\psi _{R}}}-F_{\tilde{h}}\right) \right\vert ^{\alpha } &=&\left\vert \frac{% \left( F_{\tilde{h}_{\psi _{R}}}-F_{\tilde{h}}\right) \wedge \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}}{\omega _{\varepsilon }^{n}}\right\vert ^{\alpha }=\left\vert \frac{\left( F_{\tilde{h}_{\psi _{R}}}-F_{\tilde{h}}\right) \wedge \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}}{\eta ^{n}}\right\vert ^{\alpha }\left\vert \frac{\det g_{\eta }}{\det g_{\varepsilon }}\right\vert ^{\alpha } \\ \text{and}\ \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n} &=&\frac{\det g_{\varepsilon }}{\det g_{\eta }}\eta ^{n}.\end{aligned}$$Then we compute:$$\begin{aligned} &&\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{h_{\psi _{R}}}-\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{h}}\right\Vert _{L^{\alpha }(\pi ^{-1}(U_{R}-U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })} \\ &=&\left( \int_{\pi ^{-1}(U_{R}-U_{R/2})}\left\vert \frac{\left( F_{\tilde{h}% _{\psi _{R}}}-F_{\tilde{h}}\right) \wedge \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}}{\eta ^{n}}\right\vert ^{\alpha }\left\vert \frac{\det g_{\eta }}{\det g_{\varepsilon }}\right\vert ^{\alpha }\frac{\det g_{\varepsilon }}{\det g_{\eta }}\eta ^{n}\right) ^{\frac{1}{\alpha }} \\ &\leq &\left( \int_{\pi ^{-1}(U_{R}-U_{R/2})}\left( \frac{\det g_{\varepsilon }}{\det g_{\eta }}\right) ^{\left( 1-\alpha \right) s}\eta ^{n}\right) ^{\frac{1}{\alpha s}}\left( \int_{\pi ^{-1}(U_{R}-U_{R/2})}\left( C_{1}+\frac{C_{2}}{R^{2\tilde{\alpha}}}\right) \eta ^{n}\right) ^{\frac{1}{\tilde{\alpha}}}.\end{aligned}$$Here $s$ and $\tilde{\alpha}$ are as in Lemma \[Lemma11\] and we have applied Hölder’s inequality to the conjugate pair $s$ and $\frac{\tilde{% \alpha}}{\alpha }$. By that lemma, the first factor is uniformly bounded in $% \varepsilon $. We must therefore show that as $R\rightarrow 0$, the first factor can be made arbitrarily small. To do this we note that the open set $% U_{R}$ may be covered by a union of balls ${\LARGE \cup }_{j}B_{r}^{j}$. Therefore:$$\int_{\pi ^{-1}(U_{R}-U_{R/2})}C_{1}+C_{2}R^{-2\tilde{\alpha}}\leq \sum_{j}(C_{1}+C_{2}R^{-2\tilde{\alpha}})vol(B_{r}^{j})$$and up to a constant $vol(B_{r}^{j})=r^{2n}$ where $n$ is the complex dimension of $X$. The key observation is now that the singular set $Z_{\limfunc{alg}}$ is a complex submanifold of $X$ and has complex codimension at least $2$, in other words it is of real dimension at most $2n-4$. This implies that $Z_{% \limfunc{alg}}$ has Hausdorff dimension at most $2n-4$, i.e. it has zero $d$-dimensional Hausdorff measure for $d<2n-4$. In other words, for each $0\leq d<4$, and a given $\delta >0$, there is a cover of $Z_{\limfunc{alg}}$ and an $r>0$ such that $\sum_{j}r^{2n-d}<\delta $. Now assume that we have chosen $R=r$. Then then the cover described above is also a cover for $U_{R}$ so $$\int_{\pi ^{-1}(U_{R}-U_{R/2})}C_{1}+C_{2}R^{-2\tilde{\alpha}}\leq \sum_{j}(C_{1}r^{2n}+C_{2}r^{2n-2\tilde{\alpha}}).$$Note that by assumption $\tilde{\alpha}<2$. In other words, we may select $R$ so that: $$\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{h}_{\psi _{R}}}-\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{h}}\right\Vert _{L^{\alpha }(\pi ^{-1}(U_{R}-U_{R/2}),\omega _{\varepsilon })}<\frac{\delta }{16}.$$Thus choosing $\varepsilon _{1}$ and $R$ in the manner specified above gives us for each $\varepsilon $ a bound on the difference of the $HYM$ functionals: $\left\vert HYM_{\alpha ,N}^{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(\bar{% \partial}_{E},\tilde{h}_{\psi _{R}})-HYM_{\alpha ,N}(\mu )\right\vert \leq \delta $. Now sending $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$ we finally see that there exists a metric $h$ with $\left\vert HYM_{\alpha ,N}^{\omega }(\bar{\partial}% _{E},h)-HYM_{\alpha ,N}(\mu )\right\vert <\delta $, for all $N$ and all $% \alpha $ sufficiently close to $1$. \[Lemma13\]Let $E\rightarrow X$ and $\alpha _{0}$ be the same as in the proposition. Let $h$ be any smooth hermitian metric on $E$ and $A_{t}$ a solution of the Yang-Mills flow whose initial condition is $(\bar{\partial}% _{E},h)$. Let $\mu _{0}$ denote the Harder-Narasimhan type of $E$. Then $% \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty }HYM_{\alpha ,N}(A_{t})=HYM_{\alpha ,N}(\mu _{0})$, for all $1\leq \alpha \leq \alpha _{0}$ and all $N$. As a consequence, if $A_{\infty }$ is an Uhlenbeck limit along the flow: $% HYM_{\alpha ,N}(A_{\infty })=HYM_{\alpha ,N}(\mu _{0})$, since $HYM_{\alpha ,N}(A_{\infty })=\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty }HYM_{\alpha ,N}(A_{t})$. The proof of Lemma \[Lemma13\] is exactly the same as in [@DW1]. It uses $% \limfunc{Proposition}$ \[Prop18\]. One easily shows that for any initial metric such that the conclusion of $\limfunc{Proposition}$ \[Prop18\] holds, the property $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty }HYM_{\alpha ,N}(A_{t})=HYM_{\alpha ,N}(\mu _{0})$ holds. The fact that this is true for any metric then follows from a distance decreasing argument. We can now identify the Harder-Narasimhan type of the limit. \[Prop19\]Let $E\rightarrow X$ have the same properties as before. Let $% A_{t}$ be a solution to the $YM$ flow with initial condition $A_{0}$ whose limit along the flow is $A_{\infty }$. Let $E_{\infty }$ be the corresponding holomorphic vector bundle defined away from $Z_{\limfunc{an}}$. Then the $HN$ type of $(E_{\infty },A_{\infty })$ is the same as that of $% (E_{0},A_{0})$. Let $\mu _{0}=(\mu _{1},\cdots ,\mu _{K})$ and $\mu _{\infty }=(\mu _{1}^{\infty },\cdots ,\mu _{K}^{\infty })$ be the $HN$ types of $% (E_{0},A_{0})$ and $(E_{\infty },A_{\infty })$. A restatement of the above lemma is that $\Phi _{\alpha }(\mu _{0}+N)=\Phi _{\alpha }(\mu _{\infty }+N)$ for all $1\leq \alpha \leq \alpha _{0}$ and all $N$. Choose $N$ to be large enough so that $\mu _{K}+N\geq 0$. Then we also have $\mu _{K}^{\infty }+N\geq 0$ by $\limfunc{Proposition}$ \[Prop9\], and therefore $\mu _{K}+N=\mu _{K}^{\infty }+N$ by $\limfunc{Proposition}$ \[Prop10\], so $% \mu _{K}=\mu _{K}^{\infty }$. Let $(E,\bar{\partial}_{A_{0}})$ be a holomorphic bundle, and $A_{0}$ an initial connection, and $A_{t_{j}}$ its evolution along the flow for a sequence of times $t_{j}$. Then we have the following. \[Lemma14\]$(1)$ Let $\bigl\{\pi _{j}^{(i)}\bigr\}$ be the $HN$ filtration of $(E$,$\bar{\partial}_{A_{t_{j}}})$ and $\bigl\{\pi _{\infty }^{(i)}\bigr\}$ the $HN$ filtration of $(E_{\infty }$,$\partial _{A_{\infty }})$. Then after passing to a subsequence, $\pi _{j}^{(i)}\rightarrow \pi _{\infty }^{(i)}$ strongly $L^{p}\cap L_{1,loc}^{2}$ for all $1\leq p<\infty $ and all $i$. $(2)$ Assume the original bundle $(E,\bar{\partial}_{A_{0}})$ is semi-stable and $\bigl\{\pi _{ss,j}^{(i)}\bigr\}$ are Seshadri filtrations of $(E,\bar{\partial}_{A_{t_{j}j}})$. Without loss of generality assume the ranks of the subsheaves $\pi _{ss,j}^{(i)}$ are constant in $j$. Then there is a filtration $\bigl\{\pi _{ss,\infty }^{(i)}\bigr\}$ of $(E$,$\bar{% \partial}_{A_{\infty }})$ such that after passing to a subsequence $\bigl\{% \pi _{ss,j}^{(i)}\bigr\}\rightarrow $ $\bigl\{\pi _{ss,\infty }^{(i)}\bigr\}$ strongly in $L^{p}\cap L_{1,loc}^{2}$ for all $1\leq p<\infty $ and all $i$. The rank and degree of $\pi _{ss,\infty }^{(i)}$ is equal to the rank and degree of $\pi _{ss,j}^{(i)}$ for all $i$ and $j$. For the proof see [@DW1] Lemma $4.5$. It uses $\limfunc{Proposition}$ \[Prop19\]. \[Prop20\]Assume as before that $E\rightarrow X$ is a holomorphic vector bundle such that $Z_{\limfunc{an}}$ is smooth and that blowing up once resolves the singularities of the $HNS$ filtration. Then given $\delta >0$ and any $1\leq p<\infty $, $E$ has an $L^{p}$ $\delta $-approximate critical hermitian structure. Let $A_{t}$ be a solution to the $YM$ flow with initial condition $A_{0}=(% \bar{\partial}_{E},h)$, and let $A_{\infty }$ be the limit along the flow for some sequence $A_{t_{j}}$. Then we may apply the previous lemma to conclude that $\Psi _{\omega }^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}_{A_{t_{j}}},h)\overset{% L^{p}}{\rightarrow }\Psi _{\omega }^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}_{A_{\infty }},h_{\infty })$ after passing to another subsequence if necessary. Since $% A_{\infty }$ is a Yang-Mills connection, $\sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{\infty }}=\Psi _{\omega }^{HN}(\bar{\partial}_{A_{\infty }},h_{\infty })$. Therefore:$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert \sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{t_{j}}}-\Psi _{\omega }^{HNS}(% \bar{\partial}_{A_{t_{j}}},h)\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega )} &\leq & \\ \left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{t_{j}}}-\Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{\infty }}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega )}+\left\Vert \Psi _{\omega }^{HNS}(\bar{% \partial}_{A_{t_{j}}},h)-\Psi _{\omega }^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}_{A_{\infty }},h_{\infty })\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\omega )} &\longrightarrow &0\end{aligned}$$where we have also used Lemma \[Lemma6\]$.$ Now we would like to eliminate the assumptions that $Z_{\limfunc{an}}$ is smooth and that blowing up once resolves the singularities of the $HNS$ filtration. \[Thm9\]Let $E\rightarrow X$ be a holomorphic vector bundle over a Kähler manifold with Kähler form $\omega $. Then given $\delta >0$ and any $1\leq p<\infty $, $E$ has an $L^{p}\ \delta $-approximate critical hermitian structure. By \[Prop13\], we know that we can resolve the singularities of the $HNS$ filtration by blowing up finitely many times. Moreover, the $i^{th}$ blowup is obtained by blowing up along a complex submanifold contained in the singular set associated to the pullback bundle over the manifold produced at the $(i-1)st$ stage of the process. In other words there is a tower of blow-ups:$$\tilde{X}=X_{m}\overset{\pi _{m}}{\longrightarrow }X_{m-1}\overset{\pi _{m-1}% }{\longrightarrow }\cdots \overset{\pi _{2}}{\longrightarrow }X_{1}\overset{% \pi _{1}}{\longrightarrow }X_{0}=X$$such that if $E=E_{0}$ is the original bundle, and $E_{i}=\pi _{i}^{\ast }(E_{i-1})$, then there is a filtration of $\tilde{E}=\pi _{m}^{\ast }(E_{m-1})$ that is given by sub-bundles and isomorphic to the $HNS$ filtration of $E$ away from $\mathbf{E}$. Note that on each blowup $X_{i}$ we have a family of Kähler metrics defined iteratively by $\omega _{\varepsilon _{1},\cdots ,\varepsilon _{i}}=\pi ^{\ast }\omega _{\varepsilon _{1},\cdots ,\varepsilon _{i-1}}+\varepsilon _{i}\eta _{i}$, where $\eta _{i}$ is any Kähler form on $X_{i}$. Then consider $\omega _{\varepsilon _{1},\cdots ,\varepsilon _{m}}$ on $\tilde{X}$ to be a fixed metric for specified values of $\varepsilon _{1},\cdots ,\varepsilon _{m}<1$, and fix $\delta >0$. Fix $\delta _{0}$ to be a number that is very small with respect to $\delta $. By the previous proposition, for every $p$ there is a $\delta _{0}$-approximate critical hermitian structure on $E_{n-1}$. In particular there is such a metric for $p=2$. In other words there is a metric $h_{m-1}$ so that: $$\left\Vert \sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1},\cdots \varepsilon _{m-1}}}F_{\left( \bar{\partial}_{E_{m-1}},h_{m-1}\right) }-\Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1},\cdots \varepsilon _{m-1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}% _{E_{m-1}},h_{m-1})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\omega _{\varepsilon _{1},\cdots \varepsilon _{m-1}})}<\delta _{0}.$$By construction this metric depends on the values of $\varepsilon _{1},\cdots ,\varepsilon _{m}$, since it is constructed from a metric on the blowup which itself is constructed using the notion of stability with respect to $\omega _{\varepsilon _{1},\cdots ,\varepsilon _{m}}$. We prove the result by induction on the number of blowups. Assume that we have an $L^{2}$ $\delta _{0}$-approximate critical hermitian structure for each of the bundles $E_{i}\rightarrow X_{i}\,$ for $1\leq i\leq m-2$. Then in particular, with respect to the metric $\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}$ on $% X_{1}$, we have a metric $h_{1}$ on $E_{1}\rightarrow X_{1}$ such that: $$\left\Vert \sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}F_{(\bar{\partial}% _{E_{1}},h_{1})}-\Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}% _{E_{1}},h_{1})\right\Vert _{_{L^{2}(\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}}<\delta _{0}.$$Since $X_{1}$ is obtained from $X$ by blowing up along a smooth, complex submanifold, we may use the exact same cut-off argument, choosing a cutoff function with respect to a neighbourhood $U_{R}$ as in Proposition [Prop18]{} to construct a metric $h_{R}$ on the bundle $E\rightarrow X$ which depends on the value of $\varepsilon _{1}$. In the following we will continue to denote by $h_{R}$ its pullback to $X_{1}$. As in the proof of Proposition \[Prop18\] we have $h_{R}=h_{1}$ outside of the set $\pi _{1}^{-1}(U_{R})$. We divide the proof into two steps. (Step 1) There is an $L^{p}\ \delta $-approximate critical hermitian structure for p close to 1 First let us assume that $p$ satisfies the hypotheses of Lemma \[Lemma12\]. In other words, substitute $p$ for $\alpha $ in the statement. Similarly, substitute $\tilde{p}$ for $\tilde{\alpha}$. We will show that a single metric, namely $h_{R}$, gives an $L^{p}\ \delta $-approximate critical hermitian structure for all $p$ within this range. We need to estimate the difference$$\left\Vert \sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}% _{E_{1}},h_{R})}-\Psi _{\omega }^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}_{E},h_{R})\right\Vert _{_{L^{p}(\omega _{\varepsilon })}}$$where $\tilde{h}=\pi _{1}^{\ast }h$. Now:$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert \sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}% _{E_{1}},h_{R})}-\Psi _{\omega }^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}_{E},h_{R})\right\Vert _{_{L^{p}(\omega _{\varepsilon })}} &\leq & \\ &&\hskip-2.5in\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}% _{E_{1}},h_{R})}-\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}% _{E_{1}},h_{1})}\right\Vert _{_{L^{p}(\omega _{\varepsilon })}}+\left\Vert \Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}_{E},h_{1})-\Psi _{\omega }^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}_{E},h_{R})\right\Vert _{_{L^{p}(\omega _{\varepsilon })}} \\ &&+\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}% _{E_{1}},h_{1})}-\Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}% _{E},h_{1})\right\Vert _{_{L^{p}(\omega _{\varepsilon })}}.\end{aligned}$$We can make the second term smaller than $\frac{\delta }{3}$ by choosing $% \varepsilon _{1}$ small and using the convergence of the $HN$ types. The third term is bounded by two applications of Lemma$\ $\[Lemma12\] as follows: $$\begin{aligned} &&\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}% _{E_{1}},h_{1})}-\Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}% _{E},h_{1})\right\Vert _{_{L^{p}(\omega _{\varepsilon })}}\leq \\ &&\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\left( F_{(\bar{\partial}% _{E_{1}},h_{1})}-\frac{1}{n}\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}\Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}_{E},h_{1})\right) \right\Vert _{_{_{L^{p}(\omega _{\varepsilon })}}}+\left\Vert \frac{1}{n}\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\left( \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}-\omega _{\varepsilon }\right) \Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{\partial% }_{E},h_{1})\right\Vert _{_{_{L^{p}(\omega _{\varepsilon })}}} \\ &\leq &C\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}F_{(\bar{\partial}% _{E_{1}},h_{1})}-\Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}% _{E},h_{1})\right\Vert _{_{_{L^{\tilde{p}}(\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}}} \\ &&+\kappa C\left( \left\Vert F_{(\bar{\partial}_{E_{1}},h_{1})}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}+\frac{1}{n}\left\Vert \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}\Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}% _{E},h_{1})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}\right) \\ &&+\varepsilon _{1}C(\kappa )\left( \left\Vert F_{(\bar{\partial}% _{E_{1}},h_{1})}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}+% \frac{1}{n}\left\Vert \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}\Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}_{E},h_{1})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}\right) \\ &&+\frac{\varepsilon _{1}^{2}}{n}C(\kappa )\left\Vert \eta \Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}_{E},h_{1})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(% \tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})} \\ &&+\frac{\varepsilon _{1}}{n}C\left( \left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}\eta \Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{% \partial}_{E},h_{1})\right\Vert _{L^{\tilde{p}}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}+\kappa \left\Vert \eta \Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}_{E},h_{1})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}\right) .\end{aligned}$$Recall from the statement of Lemma $\ $\[Lemma12\] that none of the above constants depends on $\varepsilon _{1}$. All terms with a $\kappa $ in front and no $C(\kappa )$ can be made small by choosing $\kappa $ small, so these terms can be ignored. Clearly the terms $$\left\Vert \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}\Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}_{E},h_{1})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})},\left\Vert \eta \Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}_{E},h_{1})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}$$are bounded independently of $\varepsilon _{1}$ since the $HN$ type converges. Therefore we need only show that$$\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}F_{(\bar{\partial}% _{E_{1}},h_{1})}-\Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}% _{E},h_{1})\right\Vert _{_{_{L^{\tilde{p}}(\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}}},\left\Vert F_{(\bar{\partial}_{E_{1}},h_{1})}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(% \tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})},\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}\eta \Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{% \partial}_{E},h_{1})\right\Vert _{L^{\tilde{p}}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}$$are uniformly bounded in $\varepsilon _{1}$. Then we can choose $\kappa $ first and then $\varepsilon _{1}$ so that:$$\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}% _{E_{1}},h_{1})}-\Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}% _{E},h_{1})\right\Vert _{_{L^{p}(\omega _{\varepsilon })}}<\frac{\delta }{3}.$$Firstly we have:$$\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}F_{(\bar{\partial}% _{E_{1}},h_{1})}-\Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}% _{E},h_{1})\right\Vert _{_{_{L^{\tilde{p}}(\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}}}\leq C\bigl\Vert\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}F_{(\bar{% \partial}_{E_{1}},h_{1})}-\Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{% \partial}_{E},h_{1})\bigr\Vert_{_{_{L^{2}(\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}}}<\delta _{0}$$by Hölder’s inequality (since $\tilde{p}<2$), and the induction hypothesis. Note that the constant above is independent of $\varepsilon _{1}$ since the $\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}$ volume is bounded. Also, the following bound: $$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert F_{(\bar{\partial}_{E_{1}},h_{1})}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})} &=&\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}F_{(% \bar{\partial}_{E_{1}},h_{1})}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}+\pi ^{2}n(n-1)\int_{\tilde{X}}\left( 2c_{2}(E_{1})-c_{1}^{2}(E_{1}\right) )\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n-2} \\ &\leqslant &\left\Vert \Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{\partial% }_{E},h_{1})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}+\delta _{0}+\pi ^{2}n(n-1)\int_{\tilde{X}}\left( 2c_{2}(E_{1})-c_{1}^{2}(E_{1}\right) )\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n-2}\end{aligned}$$obtained from the usual relationship between the Hermitian-Einstein tensor and the full curvature in $L^{2}$, together with the induction hypothesis, shows that this term is bounded in $\varepsilon _{1}$ as well. Finally, writing$$\begin{aligned} \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}\eta &=&\frac{\eta \wedge \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n-1}}{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n}}=\frac{\eta \wedge \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n-1}}{\eta ^{n}}\frac{\det g_{\eta }}{\det g_{\varepsilon _{1}}} \\ \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n} &=&\frac{\det g_{\varepsilon _{1}}}{\det g_{\eta }}\eta ^{n}\end{aligned}$$then by Hölder’s inequality we have:$$\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}\eta \Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}_{E},h_{1})\right\Vert _{L^{\tilde{p% }}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}})}\leq \left( \int_{\tilde{X}% }\left\vert \frac{\det g_{\varepsilon _{1}}}{\det g_{\eta }}\right\vert ^{(1-% \tilde{p})(\tilde{s})}\eta ^{n}\right) ^{\frac{1}{\tilde{p}\tilde{s}}}\left( \int_{\tilde{X}}\left\vert \frac{\eta \wedge \omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}^{n-1}% }{\eta ^{n}}\right\vert ^{w}\left\vert \Psi _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{1}}}^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}_{E},h_{1})\right\vert ^{w}\eta ^{n}\right) ^{% \frac{1}{w}}$$where $\tilde{s}=\frac{w}{w-\tilde{p}}$ and $\frac{\tilde{p}}{1-2(k-1)(% \tilde{p}-1)}<w<\infty $. By Lemma \[Lemma11\] this is bounded in $% \varepsilon _{1}$. We have already seen that $$\bigl\Vert\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}% _{E_{1}},h_{R})}-\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}% _{E_{1}},h_{1})}\bigr\Vert_{_{L^{p}(\omega _{\varepsilon })}}$$can be estimated, since it is $0$ outside of $U_{R}$ and the same argument as in the proof of $\limfunc{Proposition}$ \[Prop18\], shows that by making $R$ sufficiently small, we can make the contribution from this term over $U_{R}$ less than $\frac{\delta }{3}$. Therefore the estimate on $% \bigl\Vert\sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega }F_{(\bar{\partial}_{E},h)}-\Psi _{\omega }^{HNS}(\bar{\partial}_{E},h)\bigr\Vert_{_{L^{p}(\omega )}}$ for these values of $p$ follows by sending $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$. Step 2 (Extending to all p) Repeating the arguments of Lemma \[Lemma13\], $\limfunc{Proposition}$ [Prop19]{}, Lemma \[Lemma14\], and $\limfunc{Proposition}$ \[Prop20\], now gives the existence of an $L^{p}$ $\delta $-approximate critical hermitian structure on $E$ for each $p$. This metric will depend on $p$. Notice that during the course of the above proof we have also proven the following: \[Thm11\]Let $E\rightarrow X$ be a holomorphic vector bundle over a Kähler manifold. Let $A_{t}$ be a solution to the $YM$ flow with initial condition $A_{0}$ whose limit along the flow is $A_{\infty }$. Let $% E_{\infty }$ be the corresponding holomorphic vector bundle defined away from $Z_{\limfunc{an}}$. Then the $HN$ type of $(E_{\infty },A_{\infty })$ is the same as $(E_{0},A_{0})$. The Degenerate Yang-Mills Flow ============================== In this section we introduce a version of the Yang-Mills flow with respect to the degenerate metric $\omega _{0}=\pi ^{\ast }\omega $ on a sequence of blowups $\pi :\tilde{X}\rightarrow X$ along complex submanifolds. This flow will solve the usual Hermitian-Yang-Mills flow equations on $\tilde{X}-% \mathbf{E}$ with respect the metric $\omega $. It will be useful in the proof of the main theorem, because we will again need to desingularise the $% HNS$ filtration, and consider a sequence of blowups. The discussion in this section is an extension of ideas in [@BS]. Let $\pi :\tilde{X}\to X$ be a sequence of smooth blowups, and let $\omega _{\varepsilon }$ be the usual family of Kähler metrics on $\tilde{X}$. We will write $L_{k}^{p}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon })$ for the corresponding Sobolev spaces. The following lemma is clear. \[Lemma15\]Fix a compact subset $W\subset \subset \tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$. Let $\tilde{E}$ be a vector bundle. Then there exists a family of constants $% C(\varepsilon )\rightarrow 0$ as $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$, such that for any $r$-form $F\in \Omega ^{r}(\tilde{X}-\mathbf{E},\tilde{E})$$$\left( 1-C(\varepsilon )\right) \left\Vert F\right\Vert _{L_{k}^{p}(W,\omega _{0})}\leq \left\Vert F\right\Vert _{L_{k}^{p}(W,\omega _{\varepsilon })}\leq \left( 1+C(\varepsilon )\right) \left\Vert F\right\Vert _{L_{k}^{p}(W,\omega _{0})}.$$ Throughout this section $\tilde{E}\rightarrow \tilde{X}$ will be a holomorphic vector bundle of rank $K$, equipped with a smooth hermitian metric $\tilde{h}_{0}$. Although later we will mainly be interested in the case where $\tilde{E}=\pi ^{\ast }E\,$, we do not assume this here. Note that $\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}_{% \tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{0})}\right\Vert _{L^{1}(\omega _{\varepsilon })}$ is uniformly bounded in $\varepsilon $, since for any fixed Kähler form $% \varpi $ on $\tilde{X}$ we have:$$\begin{aligned} \left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},% \tilde{h}_{0})}\right\vert &=&\left\vert \frac{F_{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}% },\tilde{h}_{0})}\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}}{\omega _{\varepsilon }^{n}}\right\vert =\left\vert \frac{F_{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}% _{0})}\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}}{\varpi ^{n}}\right\vert \left\vert \frac{\det g_{\varpi }}{\det g_{\varepsilon }}\right\vert , \\ \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n} &=&\frac{\det g_{\varepsilon }}{\det g_{\varpi }}% \varpi ^{n}\end{aligned}$$so $$\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},% \tilde{h}_{0})}\right\Vert _{L^{1}(\omega _{\varepsilon })}=\int_{\tilde{X}% }\left\vert \frac{F_{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{0})}\wedge \omega _{\varepsilon }^{n-1}}{\varpi ^{n}}\right\vert \varpi ^{n}$$which is clearly bounded uniformly in $\varepsilon $. Write $\tilde{h}% _{\varepsilon ,t}$ for the evolution of $\tilde{h}_{0}$ under the $HYM$ flow with respect to the metric $\omega _{\varepsilon }$. \[Lemma16\]$(1)$ Let $t_{0}>0.$ Then $\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})}\right\vert $ is uniformly bounded for all $t\geq t_{0}>0$ and all $% \varepsilon >0$. The bound depends only on $t_{0}$ and the uniform bound on $% \left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},% \tilde{h}_{0})}\right\Vert _{L^{1}(\omega _{\varepsilon })}$. $(2)$ $\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}_{% \tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})}\right\vert $ is bounded uniformly on compact subsets of $\tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$ for all $t\geq 0$ and all $% \varepsilon >0$. The bound depends only on the local bound on $\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}% _{0})}\right\vert $ and the uniform bound on $\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{0})}\right\Vert _{L^{1}(\omega _{\varepsilon })}$. By Lemma \[Lemm5\] $(2)$, the pointwise norm $\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})}\right\vert $ is a subsolution of the heat equation on $(\tilde{X}% ,\omega _{\varepsilon })$ (see also [@BS] equation $3.3$). If $% K_{t}^{\varepsilon }(x,y)$ is the heat kernel for the $\omega _{\varepsilon } $ Laplacian on $\tilde{X}$ then $$\int_{\tilde{X}}K_{t}^{\varepsilon }(x,y)\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{0})}\right\vert (y)dvol_{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(y)$$is a solution of the heat equation and therefore:$$\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},% \tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})}\right\vert (x)-\int_{\tilde{X}% }K_{t}^{\varepsilon }(x,y)\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(% \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{0})}\right\vert (y)dvol_{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(y)$$is also a subsolution. Because $$\int_{\tilde{X}}K_{0}^{\varepsilon }(x,y)\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{0})}\right\vert (y)dvol_{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(y)=\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{0})}\right\vert (x),$$the maximum principle for the heat equation now implies that $$\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}}% \tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})}\right\vert (x)\leq \int_{\tilde{X}% }K_{t}^{\varepsilon }(x,y)\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(% \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{0})}\right\vert (y)dvol_{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(y).$$By [@BS] Lemma $4$, there is a bound: $K_{t}^{\varepsilon }(x,y)\leq C\left( 1+1/t^{n}\right) $ for some constant $C$ independent of $\varepsilon $. Part $(1)$ now follows. For part $(2)$, let $\Omega _{1}\subset \subset \Omega \subset \subset \tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$, and let $\psi $ be a smooth cut-off function supported in $\Omega $ and identically $1$ in a neighbourhood of $\bar{\Omega% }_{1}$. Then just as in part $(1)$ we have:$$\begin{aligned} \left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}}% \tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})}\right\vert (x) &\leq &\int_{\tilde{X}% }K_{t}^{\varepsilon }(x,y)\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(% \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{0})}\right\vert (y)dvol_{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(y) \\ &=&\int_{\tilde{X}}\psi K_{t}^{\varepsilon }(x,y)\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{0})}\right\vert (y)dvol_{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(y) \\ &&+\int_{\tilde{X}}\left( 1-\psi \right) K_{t}^{\varepsilon }(x,y)\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}% _{0})}\right\vert (y)dvol_{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(y).\end{aligned}$$By the maximum principle, the first term on the right hand side is bounded from above by: $\sup \bigl\{\bigl\vert\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{0})}\bigr\vert(y)\mid y\in \Omega \bigr\}$. Since $\Omega \subset \subset \tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$, the function $1/\det g_{ij}^{\varepsilon }$ is uniformly bounded in $\varepsilon $, so this $\sup $ and hence the first integral above are uniformly bounded in $\varepsilon $. By [@GR] Theorem $3.1$, there are positive constants $% \delta $, $C_{1}$, $C_{2}$, independent of $t$ and $\varepsilon $, such that for $x\neq y$,$$K_{t}^{\varepsilon }(x,y)\leq C_{1}\left( 1+\frac{1}{\delta ^{2}t^{2}}% \right) \exp \left( -\frac{\left( d_{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(x,y)\right) ^{2}% }{C_{2}t}\right) .$$where $d_{\omega _{\varepsilon }}$ is the distance function on $\tilde{X}$ with respect to the Riemannian metric induced by $\omega _{\varepsilon }$. Of course $d_{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(x,y)$ is bounded from below for $x\in \Omega _{1}$ and $y\in \limfunc{supp}(1-\psi )$ uniformly in $\varepsilon $. Therefore, $K_{t}^{\varepsilon }(x,y)$ is uniformly bounded in $\varepsilon $ and $t$, for these values of $x$ and $y$. Then the second term on the right is uniformly bounded in terms of $\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{(\bar{% \partial}_{\tilde{E}}\tilde{h}_{0})}\right\Vert _{L^{1}(\omega _{\varepsilon })}$, so $\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}_{% \tilde{E}}\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})}\right\vert $ is uniformly bounded on $% \Omega _{1}$. If we write $\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t}=\tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}\tilde{h}% _{0}$, then it follows from the $HYM$ flow equations and the second part of the previous lemma that both $\tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}$ and $\tilde{k}% _{\varepsilon ,t}^{-1}$ are uniformly bounded on compact subsets of $\tilde{X% }-\mathbf{E}$ for $0\leq t\leq t_{0}$ (one sees easily that their determinant and trace are bounded, which is enough). The statement that $% \left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}}% \tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})}\right\vert $ is uniformly bounded on compact subsets of $\tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$ translates to the statement that there is a section $f_{\varepsilon ,t}\in \mathfrak{u}(\tilde{E})$, uniformly bounded on compact subsets of $\tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$, such that:$$\sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\bar{\partial}_{A_{0}}\left( \tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}^{-1}\partial _{A_{0}}\tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}\right) =f_{\varepsilon ,t},$$where $A_{0}$ is the connection $(\bar{\partial}_{E},\tilde{h}_{0})$. It therefore follows from [@BS] $\limfunc{Proposition}$ $1$, that $\tilde{k}% _{\varepsilon ,t}$ has a uniform $C^{1,\alpha }$ bound (for any $0<\alpha <1$) on compact subsets of $\left( \tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}\right) \times \left[ 0,\infty \right) $. Furthermore, we may write:$$\begin{aligned} \sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\bar{\partial}_{A_{0}}\left( \tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}^{-1}\partial _{A_{0}}\tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}\right) &=&\tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}^{-1}\sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\left( \bar{\partial}_{A_{0}}\partial _{A_{0}}\tilde{k}% _{\varepsilon ,t}\right) +\sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\left( \bar{\partial}_{A_{0}}\tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}^{-1}\right) \left( \partial _{A_{0}}\tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}\right) \\ &=&\tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}^{-1}\triangle _{(\bar{\partial}_{A_{0}},\omega _{\varepsilon })}\tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}-\tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}^{-1}% \sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\left( \bar{\partial}_{A_{0}}% \tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}\right) \tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}^{-1}\left( \partial _{A_{0}}\tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}\right) ,\end{aligned}$$where in the last equality we have used the Kähler identities and the expression for $\bar{\partial}_{A_{0}}\tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}^{-1}$. Therefore we have:$$\triangle _{(\bar{\partial}_{A_{0}},\omega _{\varepsilon })}\tilde{k}% _{\varepsilon ,t}-\sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\left( \bar{% \partial}_{A_{0}}\tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}\right) \tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}^{-1}\left( \partial _{A_{0}}\tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}\right) =\tilde{k}% _{\varepsilon ,t}f_{\varepsilon ,t}.$$By elliptic regularity, this yields a uniform $L_{2}^{p}$ bound (for $% 1<p<\infty $) on $\tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}$ on compact subsets of $\left( \tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}\right) \times \left[ 0,\infty \right) $. It now follows from the $HYM$ the flow equations, that $\frac{\partial \tilde{h}% _{\varepsilon ,t}}{\partial t}$ has a uniform $L^{p}$ bound on compact subsets of $\left( \tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}\right) \times \left[ 0,\infty \right) $, and so for any $W\subset \subset \left( \tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}% \right) $ and $T\geq 0$, there is a uniform $L_{2/1}^{p}(W\times \left[ 0,T\right) )$ bound on $\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t}$, where the $2/1$ in the previous notation refers to the fact that there is $1$ derivative in the time variable and $2$ derivatives in the space variables. By weak compactness, there is a subsequence $\varepsilon _{j}\rightarrow 0$, so that $\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t}\rightarrow \tilde{h}_{t}$ weakly in $% L_{2/1}^{p}$ on compact subsets. By the Sobolev imbedding theorem, $\tilde{h}% _{\varepsilon _{j},t}\rightarrow \tilde{h}_{t}$ in $C^{1/0}$ on compact subsets. By a further diagonalisation as $T\rightarrow \infty $, $\tilde{h}% _{\varepsilon _{j},t}\rightarrow \tilde{h}_{t}$ for all $t\geq 0$. \[Def7\]We will refer to the resulting limit $\tilde{h}_{t}$ corresponding to the initial metric $\tilde{h}_{0}$ and the degenerate metric $\omega _{0}$ as the degenerate Hermitian-Yang-Mills flow. Of course a priori $\tilde{h}_{t}$ may depend on the subsequence $% \varepsilon _{j}$. It is possible to show that under the assumption that $% \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{h}_{0}}$is uniformly bounded in $% L^{\infty }$, $\tilde{h}_{t}$ is unique. This assumption will not be satisfied in our case. We will show however that $\tilde{h}_{t}$ solves the $% HYM$ equations on $\tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$ with respect to the metric $\omega _{0}$ with initial condition $\tilde{h}_{0}$. \[Lemma17\]Let $\tilde{h}_{t}$ be defined as above. Then $\tilde{h}_{t}$ is an hermitan metric on $\tilde{E}$ $\rightarrow $ $\tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$ for all $t\geq 0$, and solves the $HYM$ equations on $\tilde{X}-\mathbf{E:}$$$\tilde{h}_{t}^{-1}\frac{\partial \tilde{h}_{t}}{\partial t}=-2\left( \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{h}_{t}}-\mu _{\omega _{0}}(E)\mathbf{Id}_{E}\right) .$$ Clearly $\tilde{h}_{t}$ is positive semi-definite since it is a limit of metrics. Therefore we only need to check that $\det \tilde{h}_{t}$ is positive. Taking the trace of both sides of the $HYM$ equations for the metric $\omega _{\varepsilon }$, we get:$$\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left( \log \det \tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t}\right) =-2\limfunc{Tr}\left( \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{h% }_{\varepsilon ,t}}-\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(E)\mathbf{Id}_{E}\right)$$integrating both sides:$$\left\vert \log \left( \frac{\det \tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,T}}{\det \tilde{h}% _{0}}\right) \right\vert =2\left\vert \int_{0}^{T}\limfunc{Tr}\left( \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t}}-\mu _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(E)\mathbf{Id}_{E}\right) \right\vert .$$By the previous lemma, the right hand side is bounded uniformly in $% \varepsilon $, so $\det \tilde{h}_{T}=\lim_{\varepsilon _{j\rightarrow 0}}\det \tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},T}$ must be positive. Since $\tilde{h}% _{\varepsilon _{j},t}\rightarrow \tilde{h}_{t}$ weakly in $L_{2/1}^{p}$ and $% C^{1/0}$ it follows that $\tilde{h}_{t}$ solves the $HYM$ equations on $% \tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$. For the remainder of this section, we will write $F(-)$ for the curvature of a metric in order to avoid a preponderance of subscripts. \[Lemma18\]$\left\Vert F(\tilde{h}_{t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X}% ,\omega _{0})}$ and $\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}% _{t})\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }(\tilde{X},\omega _{0})}$ are uniformly bounded for all $t\geq t_{0}>0$. The bound depends only on $t_{0}$ and the uniform bound on $\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F(\tilde{h}% _{0})\right\Vert _{L^{1}(\omega _{\varepsilon })}$. Let $W\subset \subset \tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$ be a compact subset. By construction $F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\rightarrow F(\tilde{h}_{t})$ weakly in $L^{2}(W,\omega _{0})$. Applying Lemma $\ref{Lemma15}$ and the relation between $F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})$ and $\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})$ in $L^{2}$ we have: $$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert F(\tilde{h}_{t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(W,\omega _{0})} &\leq &\lim \inf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\left\Vert F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(W,\omega _{0})}\leq C_{1}\lim \inf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\left\Vert F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(W,\omega _{\varepsilon })} \\ &\leq &C_{1}\lim \inf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\left\Vert F(\tilde{h}% _{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon })}\leq C_{1}\lim \inf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X}% ,\omega _{\varepsilon })}+C_{2} \\ &\leq &C_{3}\lim \inf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }(% \tilde{X})}+C_{2},\end{aligned}$$where $C_{3}$ is independent of $W$, and $C_{2}$ is the product of $C_{1}$ with a topological constant. The bound in $L^{2}$ now follows from Lemma $% \ref{Lemma16}$ $(1)$. For the second part again fix $W\subset \subset \tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$. We claim that for fixed $t$ and $W$, as $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$ there is a uniform bound $$\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(W,\omega _{0})}\leq \left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F(% \tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(W,\omega _{0})}+1.$$Otherwise, there is a sequence $\varepsilon _{j}$ such that:$$\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(W,\omega _{0})}\geq \left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{j}}}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(W,\omega _{0})}+1.$$Then$$\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}-\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{j}}}\right\vert \left\Vert F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(W,\omega _{0})}\geq \left\Vert \left( \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}-\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{j}}}\right) \left( F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})\right) \right\Vert _{L^{p}(W,\omega _{0})}\geq 1,$$where $\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}-\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{j}}}\right\vert $ denotes the operator norm. Now we have $\tilde{h}% _{\varepsilon _{j},t}\rightarrow \tilde{h}_{_{t}}$ weakly in $% L_{2}^{p}(\omega _{0},W)$, so $\left\Vert F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(W,\omega _{0})}$ is uniformly bounded. Since $% \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{j}}}\rightarrow \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}$ on $% W$, this is a contradiction, and so we have proved the claim. Therefore:$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{t})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(W,\omega _{0})} &\leq &\lim \inf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(W,\omega _{0})}\leq \lim \inf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{p}(W,\omega _{0})}+1 \\ &\leq &C\lim \inf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }(% \tilde{X})}+1.\end{aligned}$$Taking $p\rightarrow \infty $, the lemma now follows from Lemma $\ref% {Lemma16}$. \[Prop21\]For almost all $t\geq t_{0}>0$, we have:$$\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{0})}\leq \lim \inf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(% \tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon })}<\infty .$$As will be seen in the course of the proof, this implies that: $\displaystyle% \int_{t_{0}}^{\infty }\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},% \tilde{h}_{t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\omega _{0})}dt<\infty $. By Lemma \[Lemm5\] $(1)$ we have:$$\frac{d}{dt}\left\Vert F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(% \tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon })}^{2}=-2\left\Vert d_{\left( \bar{\partial}% _{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{t}\right) }^{\ast }F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon })}^{2}=-2\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\omega _{\varepsilon })}^{2}.$$Then:$$2\int_{t_{0}}^{\infty }\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},% \tilde{h}_{t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F(\tilde{h}% _{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon })}^{2}dt\leq \left\Vert F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t_{0}})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon })}^{2}\leq \left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t_{0}})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon })}^{2}+C.$$By Lemma \[Lemma16\] $(1)$ the right hand side is uniformly bounded as $% \varepsilon \rightarrow 0$. Then by Fatou’s lemma we have:$$\begin{aligned} 2\int_{t_{0}}^{\infty }\lim \inf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(% \tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon })}^{2}dt &\leq &2\lim \inf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\int_{t_{0}}^{\infty }\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}% _{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F(\tilde{% h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon })}^{2}dt \\ &\leq &\lim \inf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t_{0}})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X% },\omega _{\varepsilon })}^{2}+C<\infty .\end{aligned}$$Therefore, for almost all $t\geq t_{0}$, we have:$$\lim \inf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial% }_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F(% \tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon })}^{2}<\infty .$$Now we prove the first inequality:$$\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{0})}\leq \lim \inf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(% \tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon })}.$$It is enough to show this for an arbitrary compact subset $W\subset \subset \tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$. For almost all $t\geq t_{0}$, we may choose a sequence $\varepsilon _{j}\rightarrow 0$ such that $$\lim_{j\rightarrow \infty }\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{% E}},\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{j}}}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(W,\omega _{\varepsilon _{j}})}^{2}=\lim \inf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(W,\omega _{\varepsilon })}^{2}=b<\infty .$$Since $\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j,}t}\rightarrow \tilde{h}_{t}$ weakly in $% L_{2}^{p}(\tilde{W})$, we have $\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{h}% _{\varepsilon _{j},t}}\rightarrow \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{h}_{t}}$ weakly in $L^{p}(\tilde{W})$, and $\nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}% },\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t}\right) }\rightarrow \nabla _{\left( \bar{% \partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{t}\right) }$ in $C^{0}(W)$. It follows by the triangle inequality and Lemma \[Lemma15\], that $$\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(W,\omega _{0})}\leq \left( 1+C_{j}\right) \left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{j}}}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(W,\omega _{\varepsilon _{j}})}+c_{j}$$where $C_{j}$ and $c_{j}\rightarrow 0$. Then, $\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})\right\Vert _{L_{1}^{2}(W,h_{t},\omega _{0})}$ is uniformly bounded as $j\rightarrow \infty $. Choose a subsequence (still written $j$) such that $\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}% _{\varepsilon _{j},t})$ converges weakly in $L_{1}^{2}(W,\omega _{0})$. By Rellich compactness we also have strong convergence $\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(% \tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})\rightarrow \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}% _{t})$ in $L^{2}(W)$. By the choice of $\varepsilon _{j}$ and the previous inequality, we have $\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},% \tilde{h}_{t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(W,\omega _{0})}^{2}\rightarrow b$. Then finally:$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{t})\right\Vert _{L_{1}^{2}(W,h_{t},\omega _{0})}^{2} &\leq &\lim \inf_{j\rightarrow \infty }\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})\right\Vert _{L_{1}^{2}(W,h_{t},\omega _{0})}^{2} \\ &\leq &\lim \inf_{j\rightarrow \infty }\left( \left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(W,\omega _{0})}^{2}+\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}% _{t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(W,\omega _{0})}^{2}\right) \\ &\leq &\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{h}_{t}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(W,\omega _{0})}^{2}+b.\end{aligned}$$Since $\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{t})\right\Vert _{L_{1}^{2}(W,h_{t},\omega _{0})}^{2}=\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(% \tilde{h}_{t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(W,\omega _{0})}^{2}+\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(W,\omega _{0})}^{2}$, we have $$\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(W,\omega _{0})}^{2}\leq b=\lim \inf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(W,\omega _{\varepsilon })}^{2}.$$The second statement in the proposition now follows since:$$\begin{aligned} \int_{t_{0}}^{\infty }\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},% \tilde{h}_{t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{0})}^{2}dt &\leq &\int_{t_{0}}^{\infty }\lim \inf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{% \tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon })}dt \\ (Fatou^{\prime }s\text{ }lemma) &\leq &\lim \inf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\int_{t_{0}}^{\infty }\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}% },\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F(% \tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon })}dt \\ &\leq &\lim \inf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t_{0}})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X% },\omega _{\varepsilon })}^{2}+C<\infty .\end{aligned}$$ The following is an immediate consequence. \[Cor7\] There is a sequence $t_{j}\rightarrow \infty $ such that $% \displaystyle\bigl\Vert\nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}% _{t_{j}}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{t})\bigr\Vert_{L^{2}(% \tilde{X},\omega _{0})}\rightarrow 0$. One result of all this discussion is the following corollary, which follows from the previous corollary, Lemma \[Lemma18\], and Corollary \[Cor2\]. Although we will not use it in the sequel, we feel it is worth stating explicitly. Let $t_{j}\longrightarrow \infty $ as in the previous corollary. Consider the sequence $\tilde{A}_{t_{j}}=(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}% _{t_{j}})$ of connections defined over $\tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}=X-Z_{\limfunc{% alg}}$. Then there is a further subsequence (still denoted $t_{j}$) such that $\tilde{A}_{t_{j}}$ has an Uhlenbeck limit $\tilde{A}_{\infty }$ on a reflexive sheaf $\tilde{E}_{\infty }$, which is a vector bundle away from a set $\tilde{Z}_{\limfunc{an}}$ of Hausdorff codimension at least $4$. The connection $\tilde{A}_{\infty }$ is Yang-Mills. In the next section we will also need the following proposition. \[Prop22\]For almost all $t>0$, there is a sequence $\varepsilon _{j}(t)\rightarrow 0$ such that $\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{j}}}F(% \tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})\rightarrow \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}% _{t})$ in $L^{p}$ for all $1\leq p\leq \infty $. In particular: $HYM_{\alpha }^{\omega _{\varepsilon _{j}}}\bigl(\nabla _{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},% \tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j}},_{t})}\bigr)\rightarrow HYM_{\alpha }^{\omega _{0}}\bigl(\nabla _{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{t})}\bigr)$ for all $\alpha $. Fix $\delta >0$. Let $\tilde{U}$ be an open set containing $\mathbf{E}$ with $\limfunc{vol}(\tilde{U})<\frac{\delta }{3C}$ where $C$ is an upper bound on $\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t}}\right\vert $ which exists by Lemma \[Lemma16\]. Now let $t$, $% \varepsilon _{j}$ be such that$$\lim_{j\rightarrow \infty }\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{% E}},\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{j}}}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(W,\omega _{\varepsilon _{j}})}^{2}=\lim \inf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\left\Vert \nabla _{\left( \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t}\right) }\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon ,t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(W,\omega _{\varepsilon })}^{2}<\infty$$as in the proof of the previous proposition, where $W=\tilde{X}-\tilde{U}$. Therefore, by the same argument as in the above proof we have strong convergence $\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})\rightarrow \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{t})$ in $% L^{2}(W,\omega _{0})$. Therefore the same is true for $\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{j}}}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})$. In particular there exists a $J$ such that for $j,k\geq J$, we have:$$\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{j}}}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})-\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{k}}}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{k},t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(W,\omega _{0})}\leq \frac{\delta }{3}.$$By the choice of $\tilde{U}$, it follows that for $j,k\geq J$:$$\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{j}}}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})-\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{k}}}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{k},t})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{0})}\leq \delta .$$Since $\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{j}}}F_{\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j,t}}}$ is a Cauchy sequence it converges strongly in $L^{2}(\tilde{X}% ,\omega _{0})$. Since $\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{j}}}F(\tilde{h}% _{\varepsilon _{j},t})\rightarrow \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{t})$ weakly in $L_{loc}^{2}(\tilde{X}-\mathbf{E},\omega _{0})$, it follows that $% \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{j}}}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})\rightarrow \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{t})$ strongly in $% L^{2}(\tilde{X}-\mathbf{E},\omega _{0})$. Since both $\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{j}}}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})$ and $\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(\tilde{h}_{t})$ are bounded in $L^{\infty }$ (see Lemma \[Lemma16\] and Lemma \[Lemma18\]) it follows that $\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{j}}}F(\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j},t})\rightarrow \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F(% \tilde{h}_{t})$ strongly in $L^{p}(\tilde{X}-\mathbf{E},\omega _{0})$ for all $p$. By Lemma \[Lemma16\] and Lemma \[Lemma9\] we have:$$HYM_{\alpha }^{\omega _{\varepsilon _{j}}}\left( \nabla _{(\bar{\partial}_{% \tilde{E}},\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{j}},_{t})}\right) \longrightarrow HYM_{\alpha }^{\omega _{0}}\left( \nabla _{(\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{E}},% \tilde{h}_{t})}\right) .$$ Proof of the Main Theorem ========================= In this section we complete the proof of the main theorem. The result is a direct corollary of the following theorem. \[Thm12\]Let $A_{0}$ be an integrable, unitary connection on a holomorphic, hermitian vector bundle $E$ , $\mu _{0}$ the Harder-Narasimhan type of $(E,\bar{\partial}_{A_{0}})$, and $A\subset \lbrack 1,\infty )$ be any set containing an accumulation point. Let $A_{j}$ be a sequence of integrable, unitary connections on $E$ such that: $\bullet $ $(E,\bar{\partial}_{A_{j}})$ is holomorphically isomorphic to $(E,% \bar{\partial}_{A_{0}})$ for all $i$; $\bullet $ $HYM_{\alpha ,N}(A_{j})\longrightarrow HYM_{\alpha ,N}(\mu _{0})$ for all $\alpha \in A\cup \{2\}$ and all $N>0$. Then there is a Yang-Mills connection $A_{\infty }$ on a bundle $E_{\infty }$ defined outside a a closed subset of Hausdorff codimension at least $4$ such that: $(1)$ $(E_{\infty },\bar{\partial}_{A_{\infty }})$ is isomorphic to $% Gr^{HNS}(E,\bar{\partial}_{A_{0}})$ as a holomorphic bundle on $\ \ \ X-Z_{\limfunc{an}}$; $(2)$ After passing to a subsequence, $A_{j}\rightarrow A_{\infty }$ in $% L_{loc}^{2}(X-Z_{\limfunc{an}})$; $(3)$ There is an extension of the bundle $E_{\infty }$ to a reflexive sheaf (still denoted $E_{\infty }$) such that $E_{\infty }\approxeq Gr^{HNS}(E,\bar{\partial}_{A_{0}})^{\ast \ast }$. The proof will be a modification of Donaldson’s argument from [@DO1] that there is a non-zero holomorphic map $(E,\bar{\partial}% _{A_{0}})\rightarrow $ $(E_{\infty },\bar{\partial}_{A_{\infty }})$ in the case that $(E,\bar{\partial}_{A_{0}})$ is semi-stable. If the bundles in question are actually stable, we may then apply the elementary fact that a non-zero holomorphic map between stable bundles with the same slope is necessarily an isomorphism. Of course in our case $(E,\bar{\partial}% _{A_{0}}) $ is not necessarily semi-stable so the argument must be modified. We first construct such a map on the maximal destabilising subsheaf $% S\subset E$ (which is semi-stable). If we assume that $S$ is stable (in other words if we construct the map on the first piece of the $HNS$ filtration) this identifies $S$ with a subsheaf of the limiting sheaf $% E_{\infty }$. We then use an inductive argument to identify each the successive quotients with a direct summand of $E_{\infty }$. This is relatively straightforward in the case that the $HNS$ filtration is given by subbundles, but in the general case technical complications arise. Therefore, to clearly illustrate our technique, we will first present an exposition of the simpler case where there are no singularities, and then explain the modifications necessary to complete the argument. The Subbundles Case ------------------- We begin with the following proposition. \[Prop23\]Let $E$ be a holomorphic, hermitian vector bundle and $% A_{j}=g_{j}(A_{0})$ be a sequence of integrable, unitary connections on $E$. Let $A\subset \lbrack 1,\infty )$ be any set containing an accumulation point. Assume that $HYM_{\alpha ,N}(A_{j})\rightarrow HYM_{\alpha ,N}(\mu _{0})$ for all $N>0$ and all $\alpha \in A\cup \{2\}$. Let $S\subset (E,\bar{% \partial}_{A_{0}})$ be a holomorphic subbundle. Then there is closed subset $% Z_{\limfunc{an}}$ of Hausdorff codimension at least $4$, a reflexive sheaf $% E_{\infty }$ which is an hermitian vector bundle away from $Z_{\limfunc{an}}$ and a Yang-Mills connection $A_{\infty }$ on $E_{\infty }$ such that: $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ (1)$ After passing to a subsequence $A_{j}\rightarrow A_{\infty }$ in $L_{loc}^{2}(X-Z_{\limfunc{an}});$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ (2)$ The Harder-Narasimhan type of $(E_{\infty },\bar{\partial% }_{A_{\infty }})$ is the same as that of $(E,\bar{\partial}_{A_{0}});$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ (3)$ There is a non-zero holomorphic map $g_{\infty }^{S}:S\longrightarrow (E_{\infty },\bar{\partial}_{A_{\infty }})$. We first reduce to the case where the Hermitian-Einstein tensors $\Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{j}}$ are uniformly bounded. Write $A_{j,t}$ for the time $t$ solution to the $YM$ flow equations with initial condition $A_{j}$. By Lemma \[Lemm5\], $\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{j,t}}\right\vert ^{2}$ is a sub-solution of the heat equation. Then for each $t>0$ and each $x\in X:$$$\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{j,t}}\right\vert ^{2}(x)\leq \int_{X}K_{t}(x,y)\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{j,t}}\right\vert ^{2}(y)dvol_{\omega }(y).$$Here $K_{t}(x,y)$ is the heat kernel on $X$. By a theorem of Cheng and Li (see [@CHLI]) there is a bound:$$0<K_{t}(x,y)\leq C\left( 1+\frac{1}{t^{n}}\right) ,$$and so for any fixed $t_{0}>0$, $\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{j,t_{0}}}\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }(X,\omega )}$ is uniformly bounded in terms of $\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{j}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(X,\omega )}$. Since we assume in particular that $% HYM(A_{j})\rightarrow HYM(\mu _{0})$ we know that $\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{j}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(X,\omega )}$ is uniformly bounded independently of $j,$ and therefore $\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{j,t_{0}}}\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }(X,\omega )}$ is uniformly bounded. For the remainder of the argument we would like to replace $A_{j}$ with $% A_{j,t_{0}}$, so that we may assume in the sequel that we have the above bound. In order to do this we must know that the Uhlenbeck limit of the new sequence $A_{j,t_{0}}$ is the same as that of $A_{j}$. We argue as follows:$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert A_{j,t_{o}}-A_{j}\right\Vert _{L^{2}}& \overset{Minkowski}{\leq }% \int_{0}^{t_{0}}\left\Vert \frac{\partial A_{j,s}}{\partial s}\right\Vert _{L^{2}}ds\leq \sqrt{t_{0}}\left( \int_{0}^{t_{0}}\left\Vert d_{A_{j,s}}^{\ast }F_{A_{j,s}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{2}ds\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}% } \\ & =\sqrt{t_{0}}\left( \int_{0}^{t_{0}}-\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{ds}\left\Vert F_{A_{j,s}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{2}ds\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}=\sqrt{\frac{t_{0}% }{2}}\left( YM(A_{j})-YM(A_{j,t_{0}})\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}\longrightarrow 0\end{aligned}$$because $A_{j}$ is minimising for the $YM\ $functional and $YM$ is non-increasing along the flow. This shows that the two limits are equal, and moreover the proof also shows that $\bigl\Vert d_{A_{j,s}}^{\ast }F_{D_{j,s}}% \bigr\Vert_{L^{2}}\rightarrow 0$ for almost all $s$, so this limit is a Yang-Mills connection. Since we have assumed additionally that $HYM_{\alpha ,N}(A_{j})$ (and hence $HYM_{\alpha ,N}(A_{j,t_{0}})$) is minimising for $% \alpha \in A$, it follows from $\limfunc{Propositions}$ \[Prop10\] $(2)$ and \[Prop12\] that the $HN$ type of $(E_{\infty },A_{\infty })$ is the same as that of $(E_{0},A_{0})$. We may therefore assume from here on out that the Hermitian-Einstein tensors $\Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{j}}$ are uniformly bounded independently of $j$. Note that we have already proven both $(1)$ and $(2)$ above. It remains to construct the non-zero holomorphic map. Observe that for any holomorphic section $\sigma $ of a holomorphic vector bundle $V\longrightarrow (X,\omega )$ equipped with an hermitian metric $% \left\langle -,-\right\rangle $, and whose Chern connection is $A$, we have that $$\begin{aligned} \sqrt{-1}\bar{\partial}\partial \left\vert \sigma \right\vert ^{2} &=&\sqrt{% -1}\bar{\partial}\partial \left\langle \sigma ,\sigma \right\rangle =\sqrt{-1% }\left( \left\langle \partial _{A}\sigma ,\partial _{A}\sigma \right\rangle +\left\langle \sigma ,\bar{\partial}_{A}\partial _{A}\sigma \right\rangle \right) \\ &=&\sqrt{-1}\left( \left\langle \partial _{A}\sigma ,\partial _{A}\sigma \right\rangle +\left\langle \sigma ,F_{A}\sigma \right\rangle \right)\end{aligned}$$since $\sigma $ is holomorphic. Applying $\Lambda _{\omega }$ and using the Kähler identities, we have:$$\triangle _{\partial }\left\vert \sigma \right\vert ^{2}=\sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega }\bar{\partial}\partial \left\vert \sigma \right\vert ^{2}=-\left\vert \partial _{A}\sigma \right\vert ^{2}+\left\langle \sigma ,% \sqrt{-1}\left( \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A}\right) \sigma \right\rangle .$$ Now let $g_{j}^{S}:S\rightarrow (E,\bar{\partial}_{A_{j}})$ be given by the restriction of $g_{j}$ to $S$. By definition, this is a holomorphic section of $\limfunc{Hom}(S,E)$, whose Chern connection is $A_{0}^{\ast }\otimes A_{j}$. Then applying the above formula to $g_{j}^{S}$ and writing $% k_{j}^{S}=(g_{j}^{S})^{\ast }(g_{j}{}^{S})$, and $h^{S}$ and $h_{j}$ for the metrics corresponding to $A_{0\mid S}$ and $A_{j}$, we have$$\triangle _{\partial }\limfunc{Tr}k_{j}^{S}+\left\vert \partial _{A_{0}^{\ast }\otimes A_{j}}g_{j}^{S}\right\vert ^{2}=\left\langle g_{j}^{S},\sqrt{-1}\left( \Lambda _{\omega }F_{h_{j}}g_{j}^{S}-g_{j}^{S}\Lambda _{\omega }F_{h^{S}}\right) \right\rangle ,$$and so$$\triangle _{\partial }(\limfunc{Tr}k_{j}^{S})\leq (\limfunc{Tr}% k_{j}^{S})\left( \left\vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{h_{j}}\right\vert +\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{h^{S}}\right\vert \right) .$$Now we use the bound on $\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{h_{j}}\right\vert $. Let $C_{1}=\sup_{j}\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{h_{j}}\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }(X,\omega )}$ and $C_{2}=\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{h^{S}}\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }(X)}$. Multiplying both sides of the above inequality by $\limfunc{Tr}k_{j}^{S}$ and integrating by parts shows:$$\int_{X}\left\vert \nabla \limfunc{Tr}k_{j}^{S}\right\vert ^{2}dvol_{\omega }\leq (C_{1}+C_{2})\int_{X}\left\vert \limfunc{Tr}k_{j}^{S}\right\vert ^{2}dvol_{\omega }.$$By the Sobolev imbedding $L_{1}^{2}\hookrightarrow L^{\frac{^{2n}}{n-1}}$ the previous inequality gives a bound $$\left\Vert \limfunc{Tr}k_{j}^{S}\right\Vert _{L^{\frac{^{2n}}{n-1}}(X,\omega )}\leq C\left\Vert \limfunc{Tr}k_{j}^{S}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(X,\omega )}$$where $C$ depends only on $C_{1}$,$C_{2}$ and the Sobolev constant of $% (X,\omega )$. A standard Moser iteration gives a bound: $\left\Vert \limfunc{% Tr}k_{j}^{S}\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }(X,\omega )}\leq C\left\Vert \limfunc{Tr% }k_{j}^{S}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(X,\omega )}$. At this point we may repeat Donaldson’s argument (appropriately modified for higher dimensions). For the reader’s convenience we reproduce it here. By definition $\limfunc{Tr}(k_{j}^{S})=\left\vert g_{j}^{S}\right\vert ^{2}$. Since non-zero constants act trivially on $\mathcal{A}^{1,1}$ we may normalise the $g_{j}^{S}$ so that $\left\Vert g_{j}^{S}\right\Vert _{L^{4}(X)}=\left\Vert \limfunc{Tr}(k_{j}^{S})\right\Vert _{L^{2}(X)}=1$. The above bound implies that there is a subsequence of the $g_{j}^{S}$ that converges to a limiting gauge transformation $g_{\infty }^{S}$ weakly in every $L_{2}^{p}$ for example. Since $Z_{\limfunc{an}}$ has Hausdorff codimension at least $4$, we may of course find a covering of $Z_{\limfunc{an% }}$ by balls $\{B_{i}^{r}\}_{i}$ of radius $r$ such that: $C\left( \sum_{i}Vol(B_{i}^{r})\right) <1/2$. If we write $K_{r}=X-\cup _{i}B_{i}^{r}\cup \limfunc{Sing}(E_{\infty })$, then our $L^{\infty }$ bound implies that: $\left\Vert g_{j}^{S}\right\Vert _{L^{4}(K_{r})}\geq 1/2$ for all $j$. This implies that $g_{\infty }^{S}$ is non-zero. We now show $% g_{\infty }^{S}$ is holomorphic. If we denote by $\bar{\partial}_{A_{0}\otimes A_{\infty }}$ the $(0,1)$ part of the connection on $E^{\ast }\otimes E_{\infty }=Hom(E,E_{\infty })$ induced by the connections $A_{0}$ and $A_{\infty }$. We will identify $E$ and $E_{\infty }$ on $K_{r}$. Then by definition we have:$$\bar{\partial}_{A_{0}^{\ast }\otimes A_{\infty }}g_{j}^{S}=\left( g_{j}^{S}A_{0}-A_{\infty }g_{j}^{S}\right) =(g_{j}^{S}A_{0}(g_{j}^{S})^{-1}-A_{\infty })g_{j}^{S}=(A_{j}-A_{\infty })g_{j}^{S}.$$Since $A_{0}\rightarrow A_{\infty }$ in $L^{2}(K_{r})$ this implies $\bar{% \partial}_{A_{0}\otimes A_{\infty }}g_{\infty }^{S}=0$, in other words $% g_{\infty }^{S}$ is holomorphic on $K_{r}$. Since this argument works for any choice of $r$, and the $K_{r}$ give an exhaustion of $X-Z_{\limfunc{an}% }\cup \limfunc{Sing}(E_{\infty })$, $g_{\infty }^{S}$ is holomorphic on $% X-Z_{\limfunc{an}}\cup \limfunc{Sing}(E_{\infty })$. By a version of Hartogs theorem (see [@SHI] Lemma $3$) there is an extension of $g_{\infty }^{S}$ to $X-\limfunc{Sing}(E_{\infty })$. Finally, by normality of these sheaves (both are reflexive) there is an extension to a non-zero map $g_{\infty }^{S}:S\rightarrow E_{\infty }$. We are now ready to perform the induction, and therefore prove the main theorem in the case when the $HNS$ filtration is given by subbundles. We first assume the quotients $Q_{i}=E_{i}/E_{i-1}$ in the Harder-Narasimhan filtration $0=E_{0}\subset E_{1}\subset \cdots \subset E_{l}=(E,\bar{\partial% }_{A_{0}})$ are stable (so the $HN$ and $HNS$ filtrations are the same). From $\limfunc{Proposition}$ \[Prop7\], $E_{\infty }$ has a holomorphic splitting $E_{\infty }=\oplus _{i=1}^{l^{^{\prime }}}Q_{\infty ,i}$. By Theorem \[Thm11\] the $HN$ types of $E$ and $E_{\infty }$ are the same, so $l=l^{^{\prime }}$ and $\mu (E_{1})=\mu (Q_{\infty ,1})>\mu (Q_{\infty ,i})$ for $i=2,\cdots ,l$. By the above proposition there is a non-zero holomorphic map $g_{\infty }:E_{1}\rightarrow E_{\infty }$. Since we are assuming $E_{1}$ is stable, and the $Q_{\infty ,i}$ ($i>1$) have slope strictly smaller than $E_{1}$, the induced map onto these summands is $0$ and hence $g_{\infty }:E_{1}\rightarrow Q_{\infty ,1}$. Again by stability of $E_{1}$ and $Q_{\infty ,1}$ and the fact that $E_{1}$ and $Q_{\infty ,1}$ have the same rank and degree, this map is an isomorphism. This is the first step in the induction. The inductive hypothesis will be that the connections $A_{j}$ restricted to $% E_{i-1}$ converge to connections on the bundle $Gr(E_{i-1})$, in other words $Gr(E_{i-1})\subset E_{\infty }$. Let $E_{\infty ,i}=\oplus _{j\leq i}Q_{\infty ,j}$ and set: $E_{\infty }=Gr(E_{i-1})\oplus R$, and consider the short exact sequence of bundles: $0\rightarrow E_{i-1}\rightarrow E_{i}\rightarrow Q_{i}\rightarrow 0$. Since $Gr(E_{i})=Gr(E_{i-1})\oplus Q_{i}$, to complete the induction we need only show that $Q_{i}$ is a direct summand of $R$. The sequence of connections on $E_{i}^{\ast }$ induced by $% A_{j}$ satisfy the hypotheses of the proposition, so we may apply this result to the dual exact sequence: $0\rightarrow Q_{i}^{\ast }\rightarrow E_{i}^{\ast }\rightarrow E_{i-1}^{\ast }\rightarrow 0$, and therefore obtain a holomorphic map $Q_{i}^{\ast }\rightarrow (E_{\infty ,i})^{\ast }$. Because $Q_{i}^{\ast }$ is the maximal destabilising subsheaf of $(E_{\infty ,i})^{\ast }$ this implies that $Q_{i}^{\ast }$ is isomorphic to a summand of $R^{\ast }$. This completes the proof under the assumption that the quotients are stable. To extend this to the general case, it suffices to consider the case that the original bundle $(E_{,}\bar{\partial}_{A_{0}})$ is semi-stable. In other words the filtration is a Seshadri filtration of $E$. Then as in the above argument we may conclude that $E_{1}$ is isomorphic to a factor of $% E_{\infty }$ we also again obtain a non-zero holomorphic map $g_{\infty }:Q_{i}^{\ast }\rightarrow (E_{\infty ,i})^{\ast }$. However, the Seshadri quotients all have the same slope, so we do not know via slope considerations that $Q_{i}^{\ast }$ maps into $R^{\ast }$. On the other hand we know that the weakly holomorphic projections converge. If $\pi _{j}^{(i-1)}$ denotes the sequence of projections to $g_{j}(E_{i-1})$ and $% \pi _{\infty }^{(i-1)}$ the projection onto $E_{\infty ,i-1}$, then $\pi _{j}^{(i-1)}\rightarrow $ $\pi _{\infty }^{(i-1)}$ by the proof of Lemma $% 4.5 $ of [@DW1]. If we denote by $\check{\pi}_{j}^{(i-1)}$ the dual projection, then for each $j$, the image of $Q_{i}^{\ast }$ is in the kernel of $\check{\pi}_{j}^{(i-1)}$. In other words the image $g_{\infty }(Q_{i}^{\ast })$ lies in the kernel of $\check{\pi}_{j}^{(i-1)}$. Therefore since we have convergence, the image of $g_{\infty }(Q_{i}^{\ast })$ lies in the kernel of $\check{\pi}_{\infty }^{(i-1)}$ which is in $R^{\ast }$. Therefore $Q_{i}^{\ast }$ is isomorphic to a factor of $R^{\ast }$ and this completes the proof. The General Case ---------------- In general the $HNS$ filtration is not given by subbundles. The argument we have given in $\limfunc{Proposition}$ \[Prop23\] for the construction of the holomorphic map $S\rightarrow E_{\infty }$ remains valid if $S$ is an arbitrary torsion free subsheaf since the connections in question are all defined a priori on the ambient bundle $E$, and since the second fundamental form $\beta $ of $S$ drops out of the estimates, there is no problem obtaining a uniform bound on the Hermitian-Einstein tensors. On the other hand, when we try to run the inductive argument, the restrictions of the connections $A_{j}$ to the pieces $E_{i}$ of the $HNS$ filtration only make sense on the locally free part of these subsheaves. This prevents us from applying the argument of $\limfunc{Proposition}\ $\[Prop23\] in the inductive step because to do so requires global $L^{\infty }$ bounds on the appropriate Hermitian-Einstein tensors, which we do not have, since the restrictions of the $A_{j}$ do not extend over the singular set $Z_{\limfunc{% alg}}$. The strategy for proving the main theorem in the general case mirrors our method in Section $4$. Roughly speaking we proceed as follows. Let $% A_{j}=g_{j}(A_{0})$ be a sequence of connections. First we pass to an arbitrary resolution $\pi :\tilde{X}\rightarrow X$ of singularities of the $% HNS$ filtration. Then we construct an isomorphism from the associated graded object of the filtration for the pullback bundle $\pi ^{\ast }E$ (away from the exceptional set $\mathbf{E}$) to the Uhlenbeck limit of the sequence $% \pi ^{\ast }A_{j}$ on the Kähler manifold $(\tilde{X}-\mathbf{E},\omega _{0})=(X-Z_{\limfunc{alg}},\omega )$ where $\omega _{0}=\pi ^{\ast }\omega $. Then we will use the fact that these bundles extend as reflexive sheaves over $Z_{\limfunc{alg}}$ to the double dual of the associated graded object of $E$ and the Uhlenbeck limit of $A_{j}$ respectively, and hence by normality of these sheaves, the isomorphism extends as well. The outline of the proof given above has to be modified somewhat for technical reasons which we will now explain. Just as for the case of subbundles, by first running the $YM$ flow for finite time we may assume there is a uniform bound $\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega }F_{A_{j}}\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }(X)}$ or equivalently on $\left\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{% \tilde{A}_{j}}\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }(\tilde{X}-\mathbf{E})}$ where $% \tilde{A}_{j}=\pi ^{\ast }A_{j}$. As usual we will denote by $A_{\infty }$ the Uhlenbeck limit of $A_{j}$ on $(X,\omega )$ and we have $% A_{j}\rightarrow A_{\infty }$ in $L_{1,loc}^{p}(X-Z_{\limfunc{an}})$ for $% p>n $. The proof of the proposition proves all but $(3)$ of Theorem [Thm12]{}. Let $E_{i}\subset E$ be a factor of the $HNS$ filtration and $% A_{j}^{(i)}=\pi _{j}^{(i)}A_{j}$ be the connections on $g_{j}(E_{i})$ induced from $A_{j}$, and $A_{\infty }^{(i)}=\pi _{\infty }^{(i)}A_{\infty }$. By Lemma \[Lemma14\] it follows that $A_{j}^{(i)}\rightarrow A_{\infty }^{(i)}$ weakly in $L_{1,loc}^{p}(X-Z_{\limfunc{an}}\cup Z_{\limfunc{alg}})$. If $\pi :\tilde{X}\rightarrow X$ is the aforementioned resolution of singularities then the filtration of $\pi ^{\ast }E=\tilde{E}$ is given by subbundles $\tilde{E}_{i}\subset \tilde{E}$, isomorphic to $E_{i}$ away from the exceptional divisor $\mathbf{E}$. Write $\tilde{g}_{j}=g_{j}\circ \pi $ and let $\tilde{A}_{j}^{(i)}$ be the connection induced by $\tilde{A}% _{j}=\pi ^{\ast }A_{j}$ on $\tilde{g}_{j}(\tilde{E}_{i})$. We will write $% \tilde{\pi}_{j}$ for the projection to $\tilde{g}_{j}(\tilde{E}_{i})$ and $% \tilde{\beta}_{j}$ for the second fundamental forms for the connections $% \tilde{A}_{j}$ with respect to the subbundles $\tilde{E}_{i}$; in other words these are sections of the bundle $\Omega ^{0,1}\left( \tilde{X},Hom(% \tilde{Q}_{i},\tilde{E}_{i})\right) $ for an auxiliary bundle $\tilde{Q}_{i}$. Then this sequence of connections satisfies the following:$$$$ $(1)$ There is a closed subset $\tilde{Z}_{\limfunc{an}}\subset \tilde{X}-% \mathbf{E}$ of Hausdorff codimension at least $4$ and a Yang-Mills connection $\tilde{A}_{\infty }^{(i)}$ defined on a reflexive sheaf $\tilde{E}_{\infty ,i}\rightarrow \tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$ (which is a bundle on $\tilde{X}-(\tilde{Z}_{\limfunc{an}}\cup \mathbf{E)}$), such that $\tilde{A}_{j}^{(i)}\rightarrow \tilde{A}_{\infty }^{(i)}$ weakly in $L_{1,loc}^{p}\left( \tilde{X}-(\tilde{Z}_{\limfunc{an}}\cup \mathbf{E)}% \right) $. $(2)$ We have the standard formula for the curvature:$$\sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{A}_{j}^{(i)}}=\sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}\left( \tilde{\pi}_{j}F_{\tilde{A}_{j}}\tilde{\pi}_{j}\right) +% \sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}\left( \tilde{\beta}_{j}\wedge \tilde{\beta}% _{j}^{\ast }\right) .$$ Also: $\qquad \bullet $ The $\tilde{\beta}_{j}$ are locally bounded on $\tilde{X}-(% \tilde{Z}_{\limfunc{an}}\cup \mathbf{E)}$ uniformly in $j$ (Lemma [Lemma4]{}) $\qquad \bullet $ The $\tilde{\beta}_{j}\rightarrow 0$ in $L^{2}(\omega _{0}) $. In particular, they are uniformly bounded in $L^{2}(\omega _{0})$ (see the proof of [@DW1] Lemma $4.5$). $$$$ Note that the term$$\sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}\left( \tilde{\pi}_{j}F_{\tilde{A}_{j}}\tilde{% \pi}_{j}\right)$$is bounded in $L^{\infty }(\tilde{X},\omega _{0}\mathbf{)}$ since $\tilde{A}% _{j}=\pi ^{\ast }A_{j}$. The key point here is that term $$\sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}\left( \tilde{\beta}_{j}\wedge \tilde{\beta}% _{j}^{\ast }\right)$$is not bounded in $L^{\infty }(\tilde{X},\omega _{0})$ since it may be written as$$\sqrt{-1}\frac{\left( \tilde{\beta}_{j}\wedge \tilde{\beta}_{j}^{\ast }\right) \wedge \omega _{0}^{n-1}}{\omega _{0}^{n}}$$which blows up near $\mathbf{E}$. This is a problem because in order to carry out the induction in the preceding sub-section we had to consider exact sequences of the form:$$0\longrightarrow \tilde{Q}_{i}^{\ast }\longrightarrow \tilde{E}_{i}^{\ast }\longrightarrow \tilde{E}_{i-1}^{\ast }\longrightarrow 0$$(here $\tilde{Q}_{i}=\tilde{E}_{i}/\tilde{E}_{i-1}$) and apply $\limfunc{% Proposition}$ \[Prop23\] to construct a non-zero holomorphic map $\tilde{Q}% _{i}^{\ast }\rightarrow \tilde{E}_{\infty ,i}^{\ast }$. This involved knowing that there was a uniform $L^{\infty }$ bound on the Hermitian-Einstein tensors of the induced connections $(\tilde{A}% _{j}^{(i)})^{\ast }$ and $(\tilde{A}_{j,Q}^{(i)})^{\ast }$ on $\tilde{E}% _{i}^{\ast }$ and $\tilde{Q}_{i}^{\ast }$. Since this is not the case we cannot apply this argument directly. On the other hand we do know that for all positive times $t>0$, the degenerate Yang-Mills flow of Section $6$ gives connections $\tilde{A}_{j,t}^{(i)}$ such that $\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{A}_{j,t}^{(i)}}$ is uniformly bounded (see Lemma \[Lemma18\]). For each $t$ the deformed sequence of connections has an Uhlenbeck limit $% \tilde{A}_{\infty ,t}^{(i)}$ on a reflexive sheaf $\tilde{E}_{\infty ,i}^{t}$ which a priori depends on $t$. There are now two points to address. In parallel to $\limfunc{Proposition}$ \[Prop23\] we will show that after resolving the singularities of the maximal destabilising subsheaf $S$ to a bundle $\tilde{S}$ there is a non-zero holomorphic map $\tilde{S}\rightarrow \tilde{E}_{\infty }^{t}$ (where $\tilde{E}_{\infty }^{t}$ is an Uhlenbeck limit of $\tilde{A}_{j,t}$) away from $\mathbf{E}$. This is not automatic from the proof of Proposition \[Prop23\] because the connections $\tilde{A}_{j,t}$ do not extend smoothly across $\mathbf{E}$, so the integration by parts involved in the proof is not valid. We will instead derive this map as a limit of the maps produced from the corresponding argument for the family of Kähler manifolds $(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon })$. Secondly we need to know that the Uhlenbeck limits $(\tilde{E}_{\infty }^{t},\tilde{A}_{\infty ,t})$ are independent of $t$ and are all equal to $(\tilde{E}_{\infty },\tilde{A}% _{\infty })$. Again, this does not follow from our previous argument since, as we have noted, the second fundamental forms of the restricted connections are only bounded in $L^{2}$ and therefore the curvatures are only bounded in $L^{1}$. In particular we do not have that $\tilde{A}_{j}^{(i)}$ is minimising for the functional $YM$. Establishing these two facts will complete the proof of the main theorem, since then we may use induction just as for the case when the $HNS$ filtration is given by subbundles. We begin with the first point. \[Prop24\]Let $\tilde{E}\rightarrow \tilde{X}$ be a vector bundle with an hermitian metric $\tilde{h}$. Let $\tilde{A}_{j}=\tilde{g}_{j}(\tilde{A}% _{0})$ be a sequence of unitary connections on $\tilde{E}$, and assume $% \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{A}_{j}}$ is bounded uniformly in $j$ in $% L^{1}(\tilde{X},\omega _{0})$. Let $\tilde{A}_{j,t}$ be the solution of the degenerate $YM$ flow at time $t$ with initial condition $\tilde{A}_{j}$, and suppose that this sequence has an Uhlenbeck limit $(\tilde{E}_{\infty }^{t},% \tilde{A}_{\infty ,t})$. Finally let $\tilde{S}\subset \tilde{E}$ be a subbundle of $(\tilde{E},\tilde{A}_{0})$. Then there is a non-zero holomorphic map $\tilde{g}_{\infty }:\tilde{S}\rightarrow \tilde{E}_{\infty }^{t}$ on $\tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$. Furthermore, assume that $(\tilde{E}% _{\infty }^{t},\tilde{A}_{\infty ,t})$ has an extension $(E_{\infty }^{t},A_{\infty ,t})$ as a reflexive sheaf over $Z_{\limfunc{alg}}$ to $X$, assume $\tilde{S}$ also extends to a reflexive sheaf $S$ on $X$. Then $% \tilde{g}_{\infty }$ induces a non-zero holomorphic map $g_{\infty }:S\rightarrow E_{\infty }^{t}$. Let $\omega _{\varepsilon }$ be the standard family of Kähler metrics on $\tilde{X}$ and fix $t>0$. Let $\varepsilon _{i}\rightarrow 0$ be a sequence as in Section $6$, i.e. if $\tilde{A}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon _{i}}$ is the time $% t$ $YM$ flow on $(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{i}})$, then $\tilde{A}% _{j,t}^{\varepsilon _{i}}\rightarrow \tilde{A}_{j,t}$ in $C^{1/0}$ on compact subsets of $\tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$. Choose a family of metrics $% \tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{i}}^{\tilde{S}}$ on $\tilde{S}$ converging uniformly on compact subsets of $\tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$ to a metric $\tilde{h}% _{0}^{\tilde{S}}$ defined away from $\mathbf{E}$, and such that $\sup \left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon i}}F_{\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{i}}^{\tilde{S}}}\right\vert $ is uniformly bounded as $\varepsilon _{i}\rightarrow 0$ (take for example the time $1$ $HYM$ flow of $\tilde{h}$ with respect $\omega _{\varepsilon }$). For each $j$ and each $\varepsilon _{i}>0$, we have a non-zero holomorphic map $\tilde{g}_{\varepsilon _{i},j}^{% \tilde{S}}:\tilde{S}\rightarrow (\tilde{E},\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{A}% _{j,t}^{\varepsilon _{i}}})$. Just as in Section $7.1$, we set $% k_{\varepsilon _{i},j}^{\tilde{S}}=$ $\left( \tilde{g}_{\varepsilon _{i},j}^{% \tilde{S}}\right) ^{\ast }\tilde{g}_{\varepsilon _{i},j}^{\tilde{S}}$. As in $\limfunc{Proposition}$ \[Prop23\] we have the inequality:$$\Delta _{(\partial ,\omega _{\varepsilon })}(\limfunc{Tr}\tilde{k}% _{\varepsilon _{i},j}^{\tilde{S}})\leq (\limfunc{Tr}\tilde{k}_{\varepsilon _{i},j}^{\tilde{S}})\left( \left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{i}}}F_{\tilde{A}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon _{i}}}\right\vert +\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon i}}F_{\tilde{h}_{\varepsilon _{i}}^{\tilde{S}% }}\right\vert \right) .$$ Both factors on the right are uniformly bounded as $\varepsilon _{i}\rightarrow 0$ by assumption. It follows that we have the inequality: $% \bigl\Vert\limfunc{Tr}\tilde{k}_{\varepsilon _{i},j}^{\tilde{S}}\bigr\Vert% _{L^{\infty }(\tilde{X})}\leq C\bigl\Vert\limfunc{Tr}\tilde{k}_{\varepsilon _{i},j}^{\tilde{S}}\bigr\Vert_{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon })}$, where the constant $C$ depends only on these uniform bounds and the Sobolev constant of $(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon _{i}})$ is also uniformly bounded away from zero by [@BS] Lemma $3$. As in the proof of $\limfunc{% Proposition}\ $\[Prop23\] we rescale $\tilde{g}_{\varepsilon _{i},j}^{% \tilde{S}}$ so that $\bigl\Vert\tilde{g}_{\varepsilon _{i},j}^{\tilde{S}}% \bigr\Vert_{L^{4}(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon })}=1$. A diagonalisation argument for an exhaustion of $\tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$ together with the $\sup $ bound gives a sequence of non-zero holomorphic maps $\tilde{g}_{j}^{\tilde{% S}}:\tilde{S}\rightarrow (\tilde{E},\tilde{\partial}_{\tilde{A}_{j,t}})$ defined on $\tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$ with $\tilde{g}_{\varepsilon _{i},j}^{% \tilde{S}}\rightarrow $ $\tilde{g}_{j}^{\tilde{S}}$ uniformly on compact subsets as $\varepsilon _{i}\rightarrow 0$ such that: $\bigl\Vert\tilde{g}% _{j}^{\tilde{S}}\bigr\Vert_{L^{\infty }}\leq C$, and $\bigl\Vert\tilde{g}% _{j}^{\tilde{S}}\bigr\Vert_{L^{4}(\omega _{0})}=1$. Repeating the proof of $% \limfunc{Proposition}$ \[Prop23\] yields a nonzero limit $\tilde{g}% _{\infty }^{\tilde{S}}:\tilde{S}\rightarrow (\tilde{E}_{\infty }^{t},\tilde{A% }_{\infty ,t})$. The last statement follows from the normality of the sheaves in question. Secondly we have: \[Prop25\]Let $\tilde{E}\rightarrow \tilde{X}$ be a Hermitian vector bundle with a unitary integrable connection $\tilde{A}_{0}$. We assume that the holomorphic bundle $(\tilde{E},\bar{\partial}_{A_{0}})$ restricted to $% \tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}=X-Z_{\limfunc{alg}}$ extends to a holomorphic bundle $% (E,\bar{\partial}_{E})$ on $X$ with Harder-Narasimhan type $\mu =(\mu _{1},\cdots ,\mu _{R}).$ Let $\tilde{A}_{j}=\tilde{g}_{j}(\tilde{A}_{0})$ be a sequence of unitary connections on $\tilde{E}$, and assume there is a subset $\tilde{Z}_{\limfunc{an}}\subset \tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$ of Hausdorff codimension at least $4$, and a $YM$ connection $\tilde{A}_{\infty }$ on a bundle $\tilde{E}_{\infty }\rightarrow \tilde{X}-(\tilde{Z}_{\limfunc{an}% }\cup \mathbf{E})$ such that $\tilde{A}_{j}\rightarrow \tilde{A}_{\infty }$ weakly in $L_{1,loc}^{p}$ (where $p>n$) on compact subsets of $\tilde{X}-(% \tilde{Z}_{\limfunc{an}}\cup \mathbf{E)}$. We assume that the constant eigenvalues of $\sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{A}_{\infty }}$ are given by the vector $\mu $. Finally assume $\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{A% }_{j}}\rightarrow \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{A}_{\infty }}$ in $% L^{1}(\omega _{0})$. Then there is a subsequence such that for almost all $% t>0$, $\tilde{A}_{j,t}\rightarrow \tilde{A}_{\infty }$ in $L_{1,loc}^{p}$ away from $\tilde{Z}_{\limfunc{an}}\cup \mathbf{E}$ where $\tilde{A}_{j,t}$ is the time $t$ degenerate $YM$ flow with initial condition $\tilde{A}_{j}$. This will follow from a sequence of lemmas. \[Lemma19\]For any $t>0$, $\bigl\Vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{A}% _{j,t}}\bigr\Vert _{L^{\infty }(\tilde{X}-\mathbf{E})}$ is uniformly bounded in $j$. Moreover, for almost all $t>0$, $\lim_{j\to \infty }HYM^{\omega _{0}}\left( \tilde{A}_{j,t}\right) =HYM(\mu ) $. The first statement follows from Lemma \[Lemma18\]. By assumption, we have $\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{A}_{j}}\rightarrow \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{% \tilde{A}_{\infty }}$ in $L^{1}$, and $\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{A}% _{\infty }}$ has constant eigenvalues $\mu _{1},\cdots ,\mu _{K}$. Set $% M^{2}=\sum_{i=1}^{K}\mu _{i}^{2}=\frac{HYM(\mu )}{2\pi }$. Also let $\mu _{1,\varepsilon },\cdots ,\mu _{K,\varepsilon }$ be the $HN$ type of $(E,% \bar{\partial}_{\tilde{A}_{0}})$ with respect to $\omega _{\varepsilon }$, and set $\tilde{M}_{\varepsilon }^{2}=\sum_{i=1}^{K}$ $\mu _{i,\varepsilon }^{2}$. By Corollary$\ $\[Cor3\] we know:$$\tilde{M}_{\varepsilon }\leq \frac{1}{2\pi }\int_{\tilde{X}}\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{A}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon }}\right\vert dvol_{\omega _{\varepsilon }}.$$By $\limfunc{Proposition}\ $\[Prop22\] , for almost all $t$, we can find a sequence $\varepsilon _{i}=\varepsilon _{i}(t)\rightarrow 0$ such that $% \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon _{i}}}F_{\tilde{A}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon _{i}}}\rightarrow \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{A}_{j,t}}$ in any $% L^{p}(\omega _{0})$. Let $\varepsilon _{i}\rightarrow 0$ and using the convergence of the $HN$ type:$$M\leq \frac{1}{2\pi }\int_{\tilde{X}}\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{% \tilde{A}_{j,t}}\right\vert dvol_{\omega _{0}}$$for all $j$ and almost all $t\geq 0$. We also have:$$\begin{aligned} \left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{A}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon }}\right\vert (x) &\leq &\int_{\tilde{X}}K_{t}^{\varepsilon }(x,y)\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{A}_{j}}\right\vert (y)dvol_{\omega _{\varepsilon }}(y) \\ &=&M+\int_{\tilde{X}}K_{t}^{\varepsilon }(x,y)\left( \left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{A}_{j}}\right\vert -M\right) dvol_{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\end{aligned}$$where $K_{t}^{\varepsilon }(x,y)$ is the heat kernel on $(\tilde{X},\omega _{\varepsilon })$ (since $K_{t}^{\varepsilon }(x,y)$ has integral equal to $% 1 $). Since we have the bound: $K_{t}^{\varepsilon }(x,y)\leq C(1+1/t^{n})$, there is a constant $C(t)$ independent of $\varepsilon $ such that:$$\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{A}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon }}\right\vert (x)\leq M+C\left\Vert \left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{A}_{j}}\right\vert -M\right\Vert _{L^{1}(\tilde{X}% ,\omega _{\varepsilon })}.$$Then just as above we have:$$\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{A}_{j,t}}\right\vert (x)\leq M+C\left\Vert \left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{A}_{j}}\right\vert -M\right\Vert _{L^{1}(\tilde{X},\omega _{0})}$$for almost all $x\in \tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$ and almost all $t>0$. Since $% \left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{A}_{j}}\right\vert \rightarrow \left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{A}_{\infty }}\right\vert =M$ in $% L^{1}$, we have$$\lim_{j\rightarrow \infty }\sup \left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{A}% _{j,t}}\right\vert (x)\leq M$$for almost all $x\in \tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$ and almost all $t>0$. On the other hand since $\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{A}_{j,t}}$ is uniformly bounded in $j$, we can use the lower bound for $$\frac{1}{2\pi }\int_{\tilde{X}}\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{A}% _{j,t}}\right\vert dvol_{\omega _{0}}$$and Fatou’s Lemma to show:$$M\leq \int_{\tilde{X}}\lim_{j\rightarrow \infty }\sup \left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{A}_{j,t}}\right\vert dvol_{\omega _{0}}.$$It follows that $\lim_{j\rightarrow \infty }\sup \bigl\vert\Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{A}_{j,t}}\bigr\vert^{2}=M^{2}$ almost everywhere. By Fatou’s lemma we therefore have:$$\begin{aligned} HYM(\mu ) &\leq &\lim_{j\rightarrow \infty }\inf HYM^{\omega _{0}}(\tilde{A}% _{j,t})\leq \lim_{j\rightarrow \infty }\sup HYM^{\omega _{0}}(\tilde{A}% _{j,t}) \\ &=&\lim_{j\rightarrow \infty }\sup \int_{\tilde{X}}\left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{A}_{j,t}}\right\vert dvol_{\omega _{0}}\leq \int_{% \tilde{X}}\lim_{j\rightarrow \infty }\sup \left\vert \Lambda _{\omega _{0}}F_{\tilde{A}_{j,t}}\right\vert dvol_{\omega _{0}} \\ &=&2\pi M^{2}=HYM(\mu ).\end{aligned}$$ \[Lemma20\]For almost all $t_{0}>0$, $\left\Vert \tilde{A}_{j,t}-\tilde{A% }_{j,t_{0}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X},\omega _{0})}\to 0$, uniformly for almost all $t\geq t_{0}$. As before let $\varepsilon _{i}\rightarrow 0$ be a sequence such that $% \tilde{A}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon _{i}}\rightarrow $ $\tilde{A}_{j,t}$ and $% \tilde{A}_{j,t_{0}}^{\varepsilon _{i}}\rightarrow \tilde{A}_{j,t_{0}}$ in $% C_{loc}^{0}$. Then we again have: $$\begin{aligned} &&\left\Vert \tilde{A}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon _{i}}-\tilde{A}_{j,t_{0}}^{% \varepsilon _{i}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}}\overset{Minkowski}{\leq }% \int_{t_{0}}^{t}\left\Vert \frac{\partial \tilde{A}_{j,s}^{\varepsilon _{i}}% }{\partial s}\right\Vert _{L^{2}} \\ &\leq &\sqrt{t}\left( \int_{t_{0}}^{t}\left\Vert d_{A_{j,s}}^{\ast }F_{% \tilde{A}_{j,s}^{\varepsilon _{i}}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{2}\right) ^{\frac{1% }{2}}=\sqrt{t}\left( \int_{t_{0}}^{t}-\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{ds}\left\Vert F_{% \tilde{A}_{j,s}^{\varepsilon _{i}}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{2}ds\right) ^{\frac{% 1}{2}} \\ &=&\sqrt{\frac{t}{2}}\left( YM(\tilde{A}_{j,t_{0}}^{\varepsilon _{i}})-YM(% \tilde{A}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon _{i}})\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}=\sqrt{\frac{t}{2}}% \left( HYM(\tilde{A}_{j,t_{0}}^{\varepsilon _{i}})-HYM(\tilde{A}% _{j,t}^{\varepsilon _{i}})\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}} \\ &\leq &\sqrt{\frac{t}{2}}\left( HYM(\tilde{A}_{j,t_{0}}^{\varepsilon _{i}})-HYM(\mu _{\varepsilon _{i}})\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Using $\limfunc{Proposition}\ $\[Prop22\]$\,$and $\limfunc{Proposition}$ \[Prop17\] this yields:$$\left\Vert \tilde{A}_{j,t}-\tilde{A}_{j,t_{0}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\tilde{X}% ,\omega _{0})}\leq \sqrt{\frac{t}{2}}\left( HYM(\tilde{A}_{j,t_{0}})-HYM(\mu )\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}$$ The result follows by applying the previous lemma. \[Lemma21\]There is a $YM$ connection $\tilde{A}_{\infty ,\ast }$ on a reflexive sheaf $\tilde{E}_{\infty ,\ast }\rightarrow \tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$ with the following property: for almost all $t>0$ there is a subsequence and a closed subset $\tilde{Z}_{\limfunc{an}}^{t}\subset \tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$, possibly depending on $t$ and the choice of subsequence, such that $\tilde{A}% _{j,t}\rightarrow \tilde{A}_{\infty ,\ast }$ in $L_{1,loc}^{p}$ ($p>n$) away from $\limfunc{Sing}(\tilde{E}_{\infty ,\ast })\cup \tilde{Z}_{\limfunc{an}% }^{t}\cup \mathbf{E}$. As in $\limfunc{Proposition}$ \[Prop21\] and using $\limfunc{Proposition}$ \[Prop22\] we have:$$HYM(\tilde{A}_{j,t_{1}})-HYM(\tilde{A}_{j,t_{2}})\geq 2\int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}\left\Vert d_{A_{j,s}}^{\ast }F_{\tilde{A}% _{j,s}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\omega _{0})}ds$$for almost all $t_{2}\geq t_{1}>0$. It follows from Lemma \[Lemma19\] and Fatou’s lemma that:$$\lim \inf_{j\rightarrow \infty }\left\Vert d_{A_{j,s}}^{\ast }F_{\tilde{A}% _{j,s}}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\omega _{0})}^{2}=0,$$for almost all $t$. Choose a sequence $t_{k}$ of such $t$ with $% t_{k}\rightarrow 0$. For each $k$ there is a subsequence $j_{m}(t_{k})$, a $% YM$ connection $\tilde{A}_{\infty ,t_{k}}$, and a set of Hausdorff codimension at least $4$ which we denote by $\tilde{Z}_{\limfunc{an}% }^{t_{k}} $, depending on the choice of subsequence such that $\tilde{A}% _{j_{m},t_{k}}\rightarrow \tilde{A}_{\infty ,t_{k}}$ in $L_{1,loc}^{p}$ away from $\tilde{Z}_{\limfunc{an}}^{t_{k}}$. By a diagonalisation argument, assume without loss of generality that the original sequence satisfies $% \tilde{A}_{j,t_{k}}\rightarrow \tilde{A}_{\infty ,t_{k}}$ for all $t_{k}$. On the other hand, by Lemma \[Lemma20\], $\tilde{A}_{\infty ,t_{k}}=\tilde{% A}_{\infty ,\ast }$ is independent of $t_{k}$. For any $t$, there is a $k$ with $t\geq t_{k}$, so Lemma \[Lemma20\] also implies $\tilde{A}% _{j,t}\rightarrow \tilde{A}_{\infty ,\ast }$ in $L_{loc}^{2}$ for almost all $t>0$. Hence, any Uhlenbeck limit of $\tilde{A}_{j,t}$ coincides with $% \tilde{A}_{\infty ,\ast }$. The proof of $\limfunc{Proposition}$ \[Prop25\] will be complete if we can show $\tilde{A}_{\infty }=\tilde{A}_{\infty ,\ast }$. First we will need: \[Lemma22\]$\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{A}_{j,t}}$ is bounded on compact subsets of $\tilde{X}-\mathbf{E}$, uniformly for all $j$, all $t\geq 0$, and all $\varepsilon >0$. By our assumptions it follows that $\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{% \tilde{A}_{j}}$ are uniformly bounded in $L^{1}$ and that they are uniformly locally bounded. The result now follows just as in the proof of Lemma [Lemma16]{}$(2)$. \[Cor8\]$\left\vert \tilde{A}_{j,t}-\tilde{A}_{\infty }\right\vert $ is bounded in any $L_{1,loc}^{p}$ away from $\tilde{Z}_{\limfunc{an}}\cup \mathbf{E}$, uniformly for all $j$ and all $0\leq t\leq t_{0}$. In particular, the singular set $\tilde{Z}_{\limfunc{an}}^{t}$ is independent of $t$ and is equal to $\tilde{Z}_{\limfunc{an}}$. Since $\tilde{A}_{j}\rightarrow \tilde{A}_{\infty }$ in $L_{1,loc}^{p}$, it suffices to prove that $\left\vert \tilde{A}_{j,t}-\tilde{A}_{j}\right\vert $ is bounded in $C_{loc}^{1}$. Choose a sequence $\varepsilon _{i}$ such that $% \tilde{A}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon _{i}}\rightarrow \tilde{A}_{j,t}$ in $% C_{loc}^{1}$. It suffices to prove $\left\vert \tilde{A}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon _{i}}-\tilde{A}_{j}\right\vert $ is bounded in $C_{loc}^{1}$ uniformly in $% \varepsilon _{i}$. Write $\tilde{A}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon _{i}}=\tilde{g}% _{j,t}^{\varepsilon _{i}}(\tilde{A}_{j})$ and $\tilde{k}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon _{i}}=(\tilde{g}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon _{i}})^{\ast }\tilde{g}% _{j,t}^{\varepsilon _{i}}$. It suffices to show that $(\tilde{k}% _{j,t}^{\varepsilon _{i}})^{-1}$ is bounded and $\tilde{k}% _{j,t}^{\varepsilon _{i}}$ has bounded derivatives, locally with respect to a trivialisation of $\tilde{E}$. The local boundedness of $\tilde{k}% _{j,t}^{\varepsilon _{i}}$ and $(\tilde{k}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon _{i}})^{-1}$ follows from the flow equations and the preceding lemma. Namely, it is easy to see that the determinant and trace of these endomorphisms are bounded, and this easily implies the boundedness of the endomorphisms themselves. The boundedness of the derivatives follows from [@BS] $\limfunc{Proposition}$ $1\ $applied to the equation$$\triangle _{(\bar{\partial}_{A_{0}},\omega _{\varepsilon })}\tilde{k}% _{\varepsilon ,t}-\sqrt{-1}\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\left( \bar{% \partial}_{A_{0}}\tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}\right) \tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}^{-1}\left( \partial _{A_{0}}\tilde{k}_{\varepsilon ,t}\right) =\tilde{k}% _{\varepsilon ,t}f_{\varepsilon ,t}.$$ Now we can complete the proof of $\limfunc{Proposition}$ \[Prop25\]. Fix a smooth test form $\phi \in \Omega ^{1}(\tilde{X},\mathfrak{u}(E))$, compactly supported away from $\tilde{Z}_{\limfunc{an}}\cup \mathbf{E}$. Choose $0<\delta \leq 1$. For $\varepsilon >0$ we have:$$\begin{aligned} \int_{\tilde{X}}\left\langle \phi ,\tilde{A}_{j,\delta }^{\varepsilon }-A_{j}\right\rangle dvol_{\omega _{\varepsilon }} &=&\int_{0}^{\delta }dt\int_{\tilde{X}}\left\langle \phi ,\frac{\partial \tilde{A}% _{j,t}^{\varepsilon }}{\partial t}\right\rangle dvol_{\omega _{\varepsilon }} \\ (flow\text{ }equations) &=&-\int_{0}^{\delta }dt\int_{\tilde{X}}\left\langle \phi ,\left( d_{\tilde{A}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon }}\right) ^{\ast }F_{\tilde{A}% _{j,t}^{\varepsilon }}\right\rangle dvol_{\omega _{\varepsilon }} \\ (K\ddot{a}hler\text{ }identities) &=&\sqrt{-1}\int_{0}^{\delta }dt\int_{% \tilde{X}}\left\langle \phi ,\left( \partial _{\tilde{A}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon }}-\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{A}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon }}\right) \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{A}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon }}\right\rangle dvol_{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\text{ } \\ &=&\sqrt{-1}\int_{0}^{\delta }dt\int_{\tilde{X}}\left\langle \left( \partial _{\tilde{A}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon }}-\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{A}% _{j,t}^{\varepsilon }}\right) ^{\ast }\phi ,\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{A}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon }}\right\rangle dvol_{\omega _{\varepsilon }}.\end{aligned}$$By Lemma \[Lemma22\], $\Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{A}% _{j,t}^{\varepsilon }}$ is bounded on the support of $\phi $ for all $j$, all $\varepsilon >0$, and all $0\leq t\leq \delta $, and the bound may be taken to be independent of $\delta $. Therefore:$$\int_{\tilde{X}}\left\langle \phi ,\tilde{A}_{j,\delta }^{\varepsilon }-A_{j}\right\rangle dvol_{\omega _{\varepsilon }}\leq C\int_{0}^{\delta }dt\left\Vert \left( \partial _{\tilde{A}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon }}-\bar{\partial% }_{\tilde{A}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon }}\right) ^{\ast }\phi \right\Vert _{L^{1}(\omega _{0})}.$$Applying this inequality to a sequence, $\tilde{A}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon _{i}}\rightarrow \tilde{A}_{j,t}$ in $C_{loc}^{1}$, $$\left\vert \int_{\tilde{X}}\left\langle \phi ,\tilde{A}_{j,\delta }-A_{j}\right\rangle dvol_{\omega _{0}}\right\vert \leq C\int_{0}^{\delta }dt\left\Vert \left( \partial _{\tilde{A}_{j,t}}-\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{A}% _{j,t}}\right) ^{\ast }\phi \right\Vert _{L^{1}(\omega _{0})}.$$By the Corollary \[Cor8\], $\left\vert \tilde{A}_{j,t}-\tilde{A}_{\infty }\right\vert $ is locally bounded in any $L^{p}$ independently of $j$. Then $$\left\vert \int_{\tilde{X}}\left\langle \phi ,\tilde{A}_{j,\delta }-A_{j}\right\rangle dvol_{\omega _{0}}\right\vert \leq C\delta \text{ }$$where $C$ depends only on the $L^{1}$ norm of $\partial _{\tilde{A}_{\infty }}\phi $, $\bar{\partial}_{\tilde{A}_{\infty }}\phi $ and the bounds on $% \Lambda _{\omega _{\varepsilon }}F_{\tilde{A}_{j,t}^{\varepsilon }}$ and $% \left\vert \tilde{A}_{j,t}-\tilde{A}_{\infty }\right\vert $. In particular $% C $ is independent of $j$. Taking limits as $j\rightarrow \infty $ we have:$$\left\vert \int_{\tilde{X}}\left\langle \phi ,\tilde{A}_{\infty ,\delta }-A_{\infty }\right\rangle dvol_{\omega _{0}}\right\vert \leq C\delta$$and since $\delta $ and was arbitrary and $\tilde{A}_{\infty ,\delta }=% \tilde{A}_{\infty ,\ast }$ for almost all small $\delta $, this implies $% \tilde{A}_{\infty ,\ast }=A_{\infty }$. This concludes the proof of $% \limfunc{Proposition}\ $\[Prop25\]$\,$and hence the proof of the main theorem. [CHLI]{} M.F. Atiyah and R. Bott, The Yang Mills equations over Riemann surfaces, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 308 (1986), 523-615. S. Bando, Removable singularities for holomorphic vector bundles, Tohoku Math. J. (2) 43 (1991), no. 1, 61-67. S. Bando and Y.-T.Siu, Stable sheaves and Einstein-Hermitian metrics, in Geometry and Analysis on Complex Manifolds, World Scientific, 1994, 39-50. N. Buchdahl, Hermitian-Einstein connections and stable vector bundles over compact complex surfaces, Math. Ann. 280 (1988), 625-648 . N. Buchdahl, Sequences of stable bundles over compact complex surfaces, J. Geom. Anal. 9(3), (1999), 391-427. S.-Y. Cheng and P. Li, Heat kernel estimates and lower bound of eigenvalues, Comment. Math. Helvetici 56 (1981), 327-338. S.D. Cutkosky, Resolution of Singularities, American Mathematical Society, Graduate Studies in Mathematics v. 63, 2004. G. Daskalopoulos, The topology of the space of stable bundles on a Riemann surface, J. Diff. Geom. 36 (1992), 699-742. G. Daskalopoulos and R.A. Wentworth, Convergence properties of the Yang-Mills flow on Kähler surfaces, J.Reine Angew. Math, 575 (2004), 69-99. G. Daskalopoulos and R.A. Wentworth, On the blow-up set of the Yang-Mills flow on Kähler surfaces, Mathematische Zeitschrift, 256 (2007), 301-310. G. Daskalopoulos and R.A. Wentworth, Convergence properties of the Yang-Mills flow on Algebraic Surfaces (unpublished preprint). S.K. Donaldson, Anti self-dual Yang-Mills connections over complex algebraic surfaces and stable vector bundles, Proc. London. Math. Soc. 50 (1985), 1-26. S.K. Donaldson, Infinite determinants, stable bundles, and curvature, Duke Math. J. 54 (1987), 231–247. S.K. Donaldson, A new proof of a theorem of Narasimhan and Seshadri, J. Differential Geom. 18 (1983), 269-277 S.K. Donaldson and P.B. Kronheimer, The Geometry of Four-Manifolds, Oxford Science, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990. A. Grigor’yan, Gaussian upper bounds for the heat kernel on arbitary manifolds, J. Differential Geom. 45 (1997), 33-52. H. Hironaka, Resolution of singularities of an algebraic variety over a field of characteristic zero, Ann. of Math. (2) 79 (1), 109–203. H. Hironaka, Resolution of singularities of an algebraic variety over a field of characteristic zero part II, Ann. of Math. (2) 79 (1), 205–326. M. -C. Hong and G. Tian, Asymptotical behaviour of the Yang-Mills flow and singular Yang-Mills connections, Math. Ann. 330 (2004), no. 3, 441–472. A. Jacob, Existence of approximate Hermitian-Einstein structures on semi-stable bundles, arXiv:1012.1888v2. A. Jacob, The limit of the Yang-Mills flow on semi-stable bundles, arXiv:1104.4767. A. Jacob, The Yang-Mills flow and the Atiyah-Bott formula on compact Kähler manifolds, arXiv:1109.1550. S. Kobayashi, Differential Geometry of Complex Vector Bundles, Princeton University Press, 1987. J. Kollár, Lectures on Resolution of Singularities, Princeton University Press, 2007. H. Nakajima, Compactness of the moduli space of Yang-Mills connections in higher dimensions, J. Math. Soc. Japan 40, (1988), 383-392. C. Okonek, M. Scheider, and H. Spindler, Vector Bundles Over Complex Projective Space, Birkhauser, Boston, 1980. J. Råde, On the Yang-Mills heat equation in two and three dimensions, J. Reine Angew. Math. 431 (1992), 123–163. S. Shatz, The decomposition and specialization of algebraic families of vector bundles, Compositio Math. 35 (1977), 163-187. B. Shiffman, On the removal of singularities of analytic sets, Michigan Math. J. 15 (1968), 111-120. C. Simpson, Constructing variations of Hodge structure using Yang-Mills theory and applications to uniformization, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 1 (1988), 867–918. Siu, Y.-T., A Hartogs type extension theorem for coherent analytic sheaves, Ann. of Math. (2) 93 (1971), no. 1, 166-188 K. Uhlenbeck, Removable singularities in Yang-Mills fields, Comm. Math. Phys. 83 (1982), no. 1, 11–29. K. Uhlenbeck, A priori estimates for Yang-Mills fields, unpublished. K. Uhlenbeck and S.-T. Yau, On the existence of Hermitian-Yang-Mills connections in stable vector bundles, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 39 (1986), S257–S293. C. Voisin, Hodge Theory and complex algebraic geometry I and II, Cambridge University Press 2002-3 G. Wilkin, Morse theory for the space of Higgs bundles. Comm. Anal.Geom., 16(2):283–332, 2008.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| It is argued that the magnetic behavior of Sr$_2$MnMoO$_6$ is determined by the existence of two total energy minima corresponding to the metallic ferromagnetic and insulating antiferromagnetic states, which may be nearly degenerate depending on the magnitude of the breathing distortion.\ [PACS:]{} 71.20.Be; 71.70.Gm; 72.25.Ba; 75.30.Et [Keywords:]{} ordered double perovskites, double exchange and superexchange interactions, electronic structure calculations, lattice distortion --- [ON THE COMPETITION BETWEEN FERROMAGNETIC AND ANTIFERROMAGNETIC STATES IN Sr$_2$MnMoO$_6$ ]{}\ I. V. Solovyev[^1]\ [Tokura Spin Superstructure Project (SSS),\ ERATO Japan Science and Technology Corporation,\ c/o National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology,\ AIST Tsukuba Central 4, 1-1-1 Higashi, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8562, Japan]{} Introduction ============ Recently, the ordered double perovskites Sr$_2$$M$$M'$O$_6$ ($M$ being the magnetic $3d$ element, and $M'$ being the $4d$ or $5d$ element) have attracted a great deal of attention. The interest to these systems was spurred on by large intergrain-tunneling magnetoresistance observed at room temperature in Sr$_2$FeMoO$_6$ and Sr$_2$FeReO$_6$ [@Kobayashi], which opens wide perspectives for technological applications. On the contrary, Sr$_2$MnMoO$_6$ remains paramagnetic down to the very low temperature [@Moritomo]. The magnetic susceptibility of Sr$_2$MnMoO$_6$ obeys the Curie-Weiss law with fairly large effective moment. However, there is something that prevents formation of the long-range magnetic order in this material (a similar situation occurs in double-layer manganites La$_{2-2x}$Sr$_{1+2x}$Mn$_2$O$_7$ around $x$$=$$0.7$ [@Ling]). In this work we argue that such a behavior may be due to the competition between ferromagnetic (FM) and type-II antiferromagnetic (AFM) phases. Total energy and local stability of the collinear state ======================================================= The main idea of this work is to complement the standard total energy calculations with the analysis of inter-atomic magnetic interactions in the collinear magnetic state characterized by the directions $\{ {\bf e}^0_{\bf i} \}$ of the spin magnetic moments. The latter can be described in terms of a perturbation theory expansion for small rotations $\{ \mbox{\boldmath$\delta\varphi$}_{\bf i} \}$ near $\{ {\bf e}^0_{\bf i} \}$. The ”perturbed” direction of the magnetic moment at the site ${\bf i}$ is given by ${\bf e}_{\bf i}$$=$${\bf e}^0_{\bf i}$$+$$ [\mbox{\boldmath$\delta\varphi$}_{\bf i}$$\times$${\bf e}^0_{\bf i}]$$ -\frac{1}{2}(\mbox{\boldmath$\delta\varphi$}_{\bf i})^2{\bf e}^0_{\bf i}$, and the total energy change $\Delta E$$=$$E(\{ {\bf e_i} \})$$-$$E(\{ {\bf e}^0_{\bf i} \})$ in the second order of $\{ \mbox{\boldmath$\delta\varphi$}_{\bf i} \}$ can be exactly mapped onto the Heisenberg model as [@Liechtenstein]: $$\Delta E = -\frac{1}{2} \sum_{\bf im} J_{\bf m} \left[ {\bf e}_{\bf i} \cdot {\bf e}_{{\bf i}+{\bf m}} - {\bf e}^0_{\bf i} \cdot {\bf e}^0_{{\bf i}+{\bf m}} \right]. \label{eqn:Heisenberg}$$ Eq. (\[eqn:Heisenberg\]) originates from the Taylor series expansion for $E(\{ {\bf e_i} \})$ near $\{ {\bf e}^0_{\bf i} \}$, and $\{ J_{\bf m} \}$ are related with the second derivatives of $E(\{ {\bf e_i} \})$ with respect to $\{ \mbox{\boldmath$\delta\varphi$}_{\bf i} \}$. $\{ J_{\bf m} \}$ can be expressed through the matrix elements of the one-electron Green function and the magnetic part of the Kohn-Sham potential at the site ${\bf m}$, $\Delta_{\rm ex}^{\bf m}$$=$$\frac{1}{2}(v_{\bf m}^\uparrow$$-$$v_{\bf m}^\downarrow)$, as [@Liechtenstein]: $$J_{\bf m}=\frac{1}{2\pi} {\rm Im} \int_{-\infty}^{\varepsilon_F} d \varepsilon {\rm Tr}_L \left\{ \Delta^{\bf 0}_{\rm ex} \widehat{\cal G}^\uparrow_{\bf 0m}(\varepsilon) \Delta^{\bf m}_{\rm ex} \widehat{\cal G}^\downarrow_{\bf m0}(\varepsilon) \right\}, \label{eqn:Jm}$$ with ${\rm Tr}_L$ denoting the trace over the orbital indices. All calculations have been performed in the local-spin-density approximation, using the ASA-LMTO method [@LMTO]. Electronic structure and magnetic interactions ============================================== The calculated densities of states for the FM and AFM phases are shown in Fig.\[fig.DOS\], as a function of the breathing distortion $\delta$$=$$d_{\rm Mn-O}/d_{\rm Mn-Mo}$ (the ratio of Mn-O and Mn-Mo bondlengths). When $\delta$$\leq$$0.52$, the FM state is metallic. The Fermi level crosses Mn($e_g$) band in the majority ($\uparrow$)-spin channel and the Mo($t_{2g}$) band in the minority ($\downarrow$)-spin channel. Therefore, one can expect two main contributions, which tends to stabilize the FM ordering: the canonical double exchange (DE) operating in the $\uparrow$-spin Mn($e_g$) band, similar to the colossal magnetoresistive manganites [@Springer02]; and a generalized DE mechanism associated with partial filling of the $\downarrow$-spin Mo($t_{2g}$) band and originating from the strong Mn-Mo hybridization [@Fang; @comment1]. The breathing distortion $\delta$$>$$0.5$ tends to fully populate the Mn($e_g$) band and depopulate the Mo($t_{2g}$) band. Therefore, when $\delta$ increases, the DE interactions of the both types will [decreases]{}. The AFM phase is metallic in the undistorted cubic structure ($\delta$$=$$0.5$). However, even small oxygen displacement towards the Mo sites opens the band gap. The situation corresponds to the formal configurations $3d^5_\uparrow 3d^0_\downarrow$ (Mn$^{2+}$) and $4d^0$ (Mo$^{6+}$) of the transition-metal sites. The half-filled Mn($3d$) states give rise to the AFM superexchange (SE) interactions, similar to the rock-salt monoxide MnO, which are roughly proportional to $-$$t_{\rm eff}^2/\Delta_{\rm ex}^{\rm Mn}$. The effective hoppings $t_{\rm eff}$ between nearest-neighbor ($nn$) Mn($3d$) orbitals are smaller in Sr$_2$MnMoO$_6$ (in comparison with MnO), as they are mediated by much longer Mn-O-Mo-O-Mn paths. However, $\Delta_{\rm ex}^{\rm Mn}$ is expected to be also smaller in Sr$_2$MnMoO$_6$, which is more itinerant material than MnO. Thus, smaller $t_{\rm eff}$ in Sr$_2$MnMoO$_6$ is compensated by smaller $\Delta_{\rm ex}^{\rm Mn}$, and the resulting SE interactions are expected to be comparable with those in MnO. The qualitative discussions are supported by direct calculations of inter-atomic magnetic interactions (Fig.\[fig.Jij\]). In the FM state, the $180^\circ$ exchange $J_2^{\rm Mn-Mn}$ between next-nearest-neighbors in the Mn sublattice is the strongest interaction. The $nn$ ($90^\circ$) interaction $J_1^{\rm Mn-Mn}$ is significantly weaker and becomes antiferromagnetic around $\delta$$=$$0.51$. However, the FM interaction $J_2^{\rm Mn-Mn}$ largely prevails and the FM phase remains stable at least up to $\delta$$=$$0.52$. The $nn$ interactions $J_1^{\rm Mn-Mo}$ between Mn and Mo sublattices is small and does not play any role in the problem. The breathing distortion in the AFM state stabilizes the AFM coupling (both between first and second nearest neighbors in the Mn-sublattice). $J_1$ and $J_2$ are of the order of 5-8 meV, and comparable with similar interactions in MnO [@PRB98]. Thus, within the interval $0.5$$<$$\delta$$\leq$$0.52$ [both]{} FM and type-II AFM phases are locally stable. Next, we argue that these two local minima of the total energy may exist in the very narrow energy range, so that [two magnetic solutions are nearly degenerate]{}. This is qualitatively supported by results of direct total energy calculations shown in Fig.\[fig.etot\]. The situation when the FM and AFM solutions become nearly degenerate can occur roughly around $\delta$$=$$0.51$. Conclusions =========== We have argued that Sr$_2$MnMoO$_6$ may have (at least) two total energy minima corresponding to the metallic FM and insulating type-II AFM states, which coexist in the very narrow energy range. We expect the competition between these states to prevent the formation of the long-range magnetic order which features the experimental behavior of Sr$_2$MnMoO$_6$ down to the very low temperature. The quantitative description of such a situation, using results of first-principles electronic structure calculations, could be one of the possible extensions of the present work. [^1]: Corresponding author. Fax: +81 (298) 61 2586; e-mail: [email protected]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'While spin textures in materials exhibiting zero net magnetization, such as antiferromagnetic domain walls (DWs), have attracted much interest lately due to their robustness against external magnetic noise, their generic detection via conventional magnetometry remains a challenging task. Here, we propose quantum relaxometry as a new route to image spin textures by probing the collective spin modes harbored by them. We investigate the Goldstone modes hosted by an antiferromagnetic domain wall and assess the relaxation rate of a quantum-spin sensor interacting with them. We show that such modes can be detected via relaxometry in some common antiferromagnets. Moreover, based on symmetry considerations, we propose a simple protocol to probe the individual dynamics of each mode.' author: - 'B. Flebus' - 'H. Ochoa' - 'P. Upadhyaya' - 'Y. Tserkovnyak' title: 'Dynamic imaging of an antiferromagnetic domain wall via quantum-impurity relaxometry' --- Introduction. Over the last few decades, ferromagnets have engendered the dominant material platform for exploring spin-based phenomena and devices [@wolf2001spintronics; @vzutic2004spintronics]. Recently, antiferromagnets have emerged as the next-generation systems with a potential for constructing denser and faster spintronic devices [@jungwirth2016antiferromagnetic; @baltz2018antiferromagnetic]. Antiferromagnets derive their advantage from the fact that the Néel order parameter encoding the information is composed of a set of strongly-coupled oppositely-oriented spins. This results in a vanishing net magnetic moment, which makes the information robust against external magnetic noise. Consequently, computer elements composed of antiferromagnets can be packed closer than their ferromagnetic counterparts without undesired dipolar interaction-induced cross talks, giving a route to higher density. Secondly, the inherent spin dynamics is governed by the exchange coupling between the oppositely oriented spins and lies in the THz regime (as opposed to GHz frequencies in ferromagnets), paving the way for faster computation. In order to achieve this goal, phenomena allowing for imaging of the Néel order down to nanoscale in a non invasive manner and operating in ambient conditions will play a crucial role. However, the absence of net magnetic moment presents a significant challenge in adapting the widely-used nanoscale imaging techniques for ferromagnets to antiferromagnets [@gross2017real]. In particular, imaging techniques to characterize domain walls in a generic antiferromagnet are needed, as they will provide the basis for building antiferromagnet-based single-domain and domain-wall-based devices [@jungwirth2018multiple]. ![(a) Detection scheme proposed in the text. The color gradient represents the $z$ component of the Néel order parameter, $l_{z}$. The antiferromagnet hosts a DW along the $\mathbf{x}$ axis (dashed red line). Within the DW width $\lambda$, the order parameter (black arrow) lies within the $xy$ plane. Its dynamics engender the spin density $\mathbf{m}$. The associated stray field is detected by the QI spin. (b) Collective field variables representing the soft modes of the DW. (c) Dispersion relations of the string and spin superfluid modes harbored by the DW. For the former, the dispersion relation deviates from $\omega=ck$ at $k\sim \lambda^{-1}$ due to the bending stiffness. The dashed line corresponds to the bulk spin waves (SWs) away from the DW.[]{data-label="Fig1"}](fig1.pdf){width="1.\linewidth"} On another front, atomic-size quantum spin systems have recently surfaced as precision sensors of nanoscale magnetic fields in a variety of solid-state systems [@degen2017quantum]. Among these, quantum-impurity (QI) spins hosted by the Nitrogen-vacancy (NV) defects in diamond are particularly interesting owing to their ability to operate at room temperature [@balasubramanian2008nanoscale; @casola2018probing]. Notably, NVs have been recently deployed to image domains and spin cycloids in antiferromagnets Cr$_2$O$_3$ [@kosub2017purely] and BiFeO$_3$ [@gross2017real], respectively. However, in these demonstrations, NVs sense the Néel order via imaging the static magnetic fields emanating from a non-zero magnetic moment, which is imprinted by the textured Néel order [@fiebig2005revival]. These demonstrations are thus limited to the special class of magnetoelectric antiferromagnets. In contrast to the modality of imaging static magnetic fields, a scheme to sense the magnetic noise generated by collective spin modes has been recently established [@sar2015nanometer; @du2017control]. Within this method, referred to as relaxometry, fluctuating magnetic fields resonant with the NVs spin transitions are detected by monitoring the change in relaxation rate caused by the magnetic noise. In this Letter, invoking relaxometry, we present a new scheme for overcoming the challenge of imaging domain walls in a generic antiferromagnet. The proposed imaging method, schematically depicted in Fig. \[Fig1\](a), amounts to measuring the relaxation rate of a quantum-spin sensor while its position scans the antiferromagnetic film. Within the proposed scheme, we take advantage of the difference in the strength of the magnetic noise generated by the bulk and domain wall regions. Specifically, within a broad frequency range, we predict a significant increase of the relaxation rate when the sensor approaches the DW region. This enhancement stems from the interactions between the quantum spin and the Goldstone modes encoding the DW dynamics. Detection scheme. We consider a quantum-impurity spin $\textbf{S}$ oriented along the anisotropy axis $\mathbf{n}=(\cos\phi_{s} \sin \theta_{s}, \sin \phi_{s} \sin\theta_{s} , \cos\theta_{s})$, as shown in Fig. \[Fig1\](a). With a NV center in mind [@Doherty2013], we set $\|\textbf{S}\|=1$. The local spin density $\textbf{m}(\vec{r})$ of the magnetic film gives rise to a stray field $\mathbf{B}(\vec{r}_{s})= \gamma \int d\vec{r} \; \mathcal{D}(\vec{r},\vec{r}_{s}) \mathbf{m}(\vec{r})$ at the QI position $\vec{r}_{s}=(0,0,d)$, with $\gamma$ being the gyromagnetic ratio of the magnetic film and $\mathcal{D}$ the tensorial magnetostatic Green’s function [@FootnoteD; @Guslienko2011]. Before focusing on a specific model of the antiferromagnet, we highlight, invoking symmetry arguments, the differences in the magnetic noise sensed by the QI spin when it is placed over the bulk and the domain wall region. When the quantum spin interacts with the spin density of a bulk region of a U(1) symmetric and translationally invariant film, the QI relaxation rate at the frequency $\omega$ is given, to leading order in perturbation theory, by [@Flebus2018] $$\begin{aligned} \Gamma(\omega)= f(\theta_{s}) \hspace{-0.05cm} \int dk \;k^3 e^{-2kd} \left[ C_{xx}(k,\omega) + C_{zz}(k,\omega) \right]\,, \label{eq51}\end{aligned}$$ where $f(\theta_{s})=(\gamma \tilde{\gamma})^2(5-\cos2\theta_{s})/16\pi$, $\tilde{\gamma}$ is the QI gyromagnetic ratio, and $\beta = 1/k_{B}T$, with $k_{B}$ being the Boltzmann constant and $T$ the temperature. Here, $C_{\alpha \beta}(k,\omega)$, for $\alpha, \beta=x,y,z$, is the spin-spin correlation function, which, at thermal equilibrium, can be related to the imaginary part of the spin susceptibility, $\chi_{\alpha \beta}^{''}(k,\omega)$, as $C_{\alpha \beta}(k,\omega)=\coth \left(\beta \hbar \omega/2 \right)\chi_{\alpha \beta}^{''}(k,\omega)$ [@kubo1966]. The QI relaxation rate stemming from the first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq51\]), i.e., $\propto C_{xx}$, can be attributed to one-magnon processes [@Flebus2018]. For spin waves with energy gap $\Delta$ and relaxation time $\tau_{s}$, the one-magnon contribution to the QI relaxation rate decays within the subgap region, vanishing at frequency $\omega \lesssim \Delta - 1/\tau_{s}$, while generally dominating the overall relaxation rate at higher frequencies [@Flebus2018]. The longitudinal noise $C_{zz}$, on the other hand, depends on the transport of the (approximately) conserved component, $m_{z}$, of the spin density, reflecting the collective two-magnon response [@Flebus2018]. Let us now consider the quantum spin to be placed above a domain wall of width $\lambda$, as illustrated in Fig. \[Fig1\](a). As we discuss in detail later on, the DW dynamics can be described in terms of two independent Goldstone modes. The translational-symmetry restoring mode corresponds to fluctuations of the DW position. The mode emerging from the spontaneous $U$(1)-symmetry breaking coincides, instead, with planar rotations of the Néel order parameter, and its dynamics parallel the ones of a spin superfluid [@superfluid]. We take the distance $d$ between the quantum spin and the magnetic film to be much larger than the DW width, i.e., $d \gg \lambda$. This assumption allows us to relate the spin susceptibility of the magnetic film to the one associated with the one-dimensional DW modes as $\chi_{\alpha \beta}(\vec{r}_{i}, \vec{r}_{j} ;\omega)=\chi_{\alpha \beta}(\|x_{i}-x_{j}\|;\omega) \delta(y_{i}) \delta(y_{j})$, with $\alpha, \beta=x, y, z$. The spin-superfluid dynamics gives rise to a finite out-of-plane spin density (per unit of length), while the corresponding planar spin density is fomented by rigid DW translations. Thus, the longitudinal and transverse spin fluctuations do not interfere and can be considered separately, i.e., $C_{xz}=C_{yz}=0$. We focus on a Néel and a Bloch DWs, whose planar spin density (per unit of length) lies along the $x$ and $y$ direction, respectively. Hence, for a Néel (Bloch) DW there is only a transverse response represented by the spin-spin correlation function $C_{xx}$ ($C_{yy}$), while $C_{xy}=C_{yx}=0$. The relaxation rate associated to the DW modes can be then written as $$\begin{aligned} \Gamma(\omega)&=\frac{(\gamma \tilde{\gamma})^2}{4\pi} \int dk \; \large[ f_{N}(\theta_{s}, \phi_{s}, k) C_{xx}(k,\omega) \nonumber \\ &+ f_{B}(\theta_{s}, \phi_{s}, k) C_{yy}(k, \omega) + f_{s}(\theta_{s}, \phi_{s}, k) C_{zz}(k, \omega) \large]\,, \label{68}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} f_{N}(\theta_{s}, \phi_{s}, k) &= \left[ D_{xx}(k) \cos\theta_{s} \cos\phi_{s} + D_{xz}(k) \sin\theta_{s} \right]^2 \nonumber \\ &+D^2_{xx}(k) \sin^2\phi_{s}\,, \nonumber \\ f_{B}(\theta_{s}, \phi_{s}, k)&=D^2_{yy}(k) \left( \cos^{2}\theta_{s} \sin^2\phi_{s} + \cos^2 \phi_{s} \right)\,, \label{geometricfactor}\end{aligned}$$ and $ f_{s}(\theta_{s}, \phi_{s}, k)=f_{N}(\theta_{s}, \phi_{s}, k)$ for $D_{xx} \rightarrow D_{xz}$ and $D_{xz} \rightarrow D_{zz}$. Equations (\[68\]) and (\[geometricfactor\]) show that the relaxation rate due to the string mode of a Bloch DW vanishes when $\mathbf{n} \parallel \mathbf{y}$. Our results are confirmed by symmetry arguments. Focusing on a mirror reflection with respect to the $xz$ plane, the stray field due to the string mode of a Bloch DW has to be oriented along y, as it must behave, under symmetry transformations, as the spin density engedering it. Thus, the corresponding QI relaxation rate vanishes when $\mathbf{n} \parallel \mathbf{y}$. Similar symmetry considerations show that the spin superfluid mode, as well as the string mode of a Néel DW, contribute to QI relaxation for any QI spin orientation. However, a U(1) symmetry-breaking field, i.e., a planar magnetic field, can open a gap $\Delta_{s}$ in the dispersion of the spin-superfluid mode. In this scenario, for QI frequencies $\omega \lesssim \Delta_{s} -1/\tau_{s}$, the relaxation rate due to the spin-superfluid mode vanishes. Model and results. Next, we evaluate the noise from hydrodynamic fluctuations in a bipartite antiferromagnetic film with uniaxial anisotropy along $\mathbf{z}$. At low temperatures $T\ll T_{N}$, the long wavelength dynamics can be described in terms of coarse-grained continuous fields $\mathbf{l}(\vec{r})$ and $\mathbf{m}(\vec{r})$, corresponding, respectively, to the Néel order parameter along the staggered magnetization (with $\|\mathbf{l}(\vec{r})\|=1$) and the nonequilibrium spin density already introduced. The Lagrangian reads as \[eq:model\] $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Lagrangian_AFM} \mathcal{L}\left[\mathbf{l},\mathbf{m}\right]&=\int d\vec{r}\, \{\mathbf{m}\cdot\left(\mathbf{l}\times\partial_t\mathbf{l}\right)-\mathcal{H}\left[\mathbf{l},\mathbf{m}\right] \},\,\text{with}\\ \label{eq:Hamiltonian_AFM} \mathcal{H}\left[\mathbf{l},\mathbf{m}\right]&=\frac{1}{2}\int d\vec{r}\, \left[ A\left(\vec{\nabla}\mathbf{l}\right)^{2}+K\left\|\mathbf{\hat{z}}\times\mathbf{l}\right\|^2+\frac{\left\|\mathbf{m}\right\|^2}{\chi} \right].\end{aligned}$$ Varying Eq. with respect to $\mathbf{m}$ leads to the constitutive relation $\mathbf{m}=\chi\,\mathbf{l}\times\partial_t\mathbf{l}$ [@foot; @Andreev]. Equation expresses the free-energy cost of deviations from collinear order along $\mathbf{\hat{z}}$, where $A$ is the order-parameter stiffness, $K$ the easy-axis anisotropy, and $\chi$ is the uniform static transverse (to the Néel order parameter) spin susceptibility. Dissipation can be introduced by means of the Rayleigh function $\mathcal{R}[\mathbf{l}]=\alpha s \int d \vec{r} \; (\partial_{t}\mathbf{l})^2 / 2$, where $\alpha$ is the (dimensionless) Gilbert damping constant and $s$ the saturated spin density of both sublattices. From this model, we find the imaginary part of the bulk transverse spin susceptibility as [@sum_rule] $$\begin{aligned} \chi_{xx}^{''}(k,\omega)=\chi \omega^2 \frac{2 \omega / \tau_{s}}{(\omega^2_{k}-\omega^2)^2+ (2\omega/ \tau_{s})^2}\,, \label{transversesuscep}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_{k}=\sqrt{ c^2 k^2+\Delta^2}$ (with $k=\|\vec{k}\|$) is the bulk SW dispersion and $\tau_{s}=2\chi/ s \alpha$. Here, $c=\sqrt{A/\chi}$ is the SW velocity, $\Delta=\sqrt{K/\chi}$ the anisotropy gap. Treating the transport of the $z$ component of the spin density as diffusive, we find the imaginary part of the bulk longitudinal susceptibility as [@Flebus2018] $$\begin{aligned} \chi^{''}_{zz}(k,\omega)=\chi_{\parallel} \frac{ \omega D k^2 }{ (D k^2+ 1/\tau_{s})^2 + \omega^2}\,, \label{diffusivesusc}\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi_{\parallel}$ is the uniform static longitudinal susceptibility and $D$ the SW diffusion coefficient. The model admits also a solution for a static domain wall of width $\lambda=\sqrt{A/K}$ and finite energy density (per unit length) $\sigma=2\sqrt{AK}$. For boundary conditions of the form $l_z(y\rightarrow\pm\infty)=\pm 1$ and using the parametrization $\mathbf{l}=\left(\cos \phi \sin \theta, \sin \phi \sin \theta, \cos \theta \right)$, the DW solution is given by $$\begin{aligned} \cos \theta\left(\vec{r}\right)=\tanh\frac{y-Y}{\lambda}, \; \; \phi\left(\vec{r}\right)=\Phi.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $Y$ and $\Phi$ correspond, respectively, to the center position of the domain wall and the azimuthal angle therein [@footDW]. As a result of the translational and $U$(1) symmetries of the Hamiltonian, the energy density $\sigma$ does not depend on these parameters. The corresponding Goldstone modes can be described by promoting $Y$ and $\Phi$ to dynamic field variables with values along the DW length, as represented in Fig. \[Fig1\](b). Unlike for ferromagnets [@Kim_Tserkovnyak], here small perturbations of $\Phi(x)$ and $Y(x)$ are dynamically independent. We can introduce the following auxiliary variables: $$\begin{aligned} M_{z}\left(x\right)\equiv \hspace{-0.15cm}\int dy\,\mathbf{z}\cdot\mathbf{m}\left(\vec{r}\right), \; \Pi\left(x\right)\equiv\frac{1}{\lambda} \hspace{-0.05cm}\int dy\,\mathbf{z}\cdot\left[\mathbf{l}\left(\vec{r}\right)\times\mathbf{m}\left(\vec{r}\right)\right].\end{aligned}$$ The $z$-projected spin density (per unit length) $M_{z}\left(x\right)$ corresponds to the generator of rotations around $\mathbf{z}$, $\{\Phi(x),M_{z}(x')\}=\delta(x-x')$, with $\{ .\,,. \}$ being the Poisson brackets in the corresponding Hamiltonian description. This canonical pair describes the dynamics of the $z$ component of the spin density within the DW ascribed to planar rotations of the Néel order parameter. The imaginary part of the spin susceptibility associated with this mode reads as $$\begin{aligned} \chi^{''}_{zz}(k, \omega)=2\lambda \chi \omega^2 \frac{2\omega / \tau_{s}}{(\omega^2_{k,s}-\omega^2)^2+ (2\omega/ \tau_{s})^2}\,, \label{eq246}\end{aligned}$$ with $\omega_{k,s}= ck$ being the dispersion relation of the superfluid mode [@footnoteSS] within the antiferromagnetic gap, depicted in Fig. \[Fig1\](c). The field $\Pi(x)$, on the other hand, generates translations of the domain wall, $\{Y(x),\Pi(x')\}=\delta(x-x')$. These can be interpreted as the position and linear-momentum density of a clamped string with mass density $\varrho=2\chi/\lambda$ subjected to a lateral tension $\sigma$. For a Néel DW, the associated spin response at long wavelengths can be written as $$\begin{aligned} \chi^{''}_{yy}(k,\omega)=\frac{ \pi^2 \lambda \chi \omega^2}{2} \frac{2 \omega / \tau_{s}}{(\omega^2_{k,s}-\omega^2)^2+ (2\omega/ \tau_{s})^2}\,. \label{90}\end{aligned}$$ For a Bloch DW, one has $\chi^{''}_{xx}(k,\omega)=\chi^{''}_{yy}(k,\omega)$ in Eq. (\[90\]). As shown in Fig. \[Fig1\](c), this branch eventually deviates from linear dispersion at wavelengths $\sim \lambda$ due to the bending rigidity of the string, $\kappa\approx\lambda A$. For a quantitative estimate of the QI relaxation rate in correspondence of both a bulk region of the film and the domain wall, we consider a thin film of the cubic insulating $\text{RbMnF}_{3}$, a spin $S=5/2$ antiferromagnet with $T_{N} \approx 83$ K and SW gap $\Delta \approx $ $1$ K. Writing $A=J S^2$ and $\chi=\hbar^2/(8 J S^2 a^2_{0})$ [@Auerbach; @Sachdev], we take the Heinsenberg exchange $J \approx 0.3$ meV and the lattice constant $a_{0} \approx 4 \; \dot{\text{A}}$ [@Coldea1998; @Jiang2006]. As an upper bound for the two-magnon induced relaxation rate, we set $\chi_{\parallel}=\chi$, which should be much larger than the value of the longitudinal susceptibility $\chi_{\parallel}$ while in the Néel ordered phase. We can rewrite the spin diffusion coefficient as $D= v \ell_{\text{mfp}}/2$, where $v = c \sqrt{1-(\beta \hbar \Delta)^2}$ is thermal SW velocity, and $\ell_{\text{mfp}}$ the magnon mean-free path. Finally, we take $\gamma (\tilde{\gamma}) \approx 2 \mu_{B}/ \hbar$, where $\mu_{B}$ is the Bohr magneton, $\ell_{\text{mfp}} \sim 100$ nm, $\lambda \sim$ 10 nm, $\alpha \sim 10^{-3}$, $d \sim 20$ nm and $T \sim T_{N}/2$. ![ QI relaxation rate as function of frequency. (a) Relaxation rate due to the one-magnon (blue line) and two-magnon (red line) noise emitted by the bulk spin waves for $\theta_{s}=0$. (b) For a Bloch DW while $\mathbf{n} \parallel \mathbf{z}$, we plot the relaxation rate induced by the spin superfluid mode (blue line) and the string mode (green line). For a Bloch DW while $\mathbf{n} \parallel \mathbf{y} $, the spin superfluid is the only soft mode responsible for QI relaxation (red line). The relaxation rate is normalized by $\tilde{\Gamma}=\hbar (\gamma \tilde{\gamma})^2 \chi/8\pi a^4_{0}\sim $ MHz.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](figure2.pdf){width="1.\linewidth"} Figure \[Fig2\](a) shows the relaxation rate due to one- and two-magnon processes in the absence of spatial inhomogeneities. In Fig. \[Fig2\](b), we plot the relaxation rate due to the modes of a Bloch DW, for both $\mathbf{n}\parallel\mathbf{z}$ and $\mathbf{n} \parallel \mathbf{y}$. By comparing Fig. \[Fig2\](a) and \[Fig2\](b), one can see that, over a broad frequency range, the relaxation rate induced by the DW modes is approximately two order of magnitude higher than the one associated with the coherent and incoherent bulk SW dynamics. To get an insight in our result, we compare, for $\mathbf{n} \parallel \mathbf{z}$, the maximum value of the relaxation rate due to the background one-magnon noise, $\Gamma_{1m}(\omega)=3 g(\omega) \int dk k^3 e^{-2kd} \chi''_{xx}(k,\omega) /8\pi$, with the one associated with the spin superfluid mode, i.e., $ \Gamma_{s}(\omega)= 16 g(\omega) \int dk k^4 K_{1}(kd)^2 \chi''_{zz}(k,\omega) / \pi$, with $g(\omega)=\coth (\beta \hbar \omega/2) (\gamma \tilde{\gamma})^2$ and where $K_{1}(x)$ is a modified Bessel function of the second kind [@footnote3]. The relaxation rates are maximized at the respective resonance frequency and for $k \sim 1/d$ [@Flebus2018]. When both conditions are met, we find that, for $ \omega_{1/d}, \omega_{s,1/d} \ll \beta^{-1}$, $\Gamma_{s}/\Gamma_{1m} \sim 2^{9} \lambda /d $, in agreement with our numerical results. The relaxation time induced by the Bloch DW dynamics, at $\omega \approx 10$ GHz for $\mathbf{n} \parallel \mathbf{z}$, can be estimated as $\Gamma^{-1} \sim 1 -10 \;\text{ms}$, much shorter than the intrinsic one of, e.g., an NV center, which can reach seconds at similar temperatures [@BarGill2013]. We can probe the individual noise of each DW modes by applying an external magnetic field and tuning the orientation of the QI impurity spin. A field oriented along $\mathbf{y}$ can both open up a gap $\Delta_{s}$ in the spin superfluid dispersion and enforce a DW Bloch profile. For a QI frequency $\omega < \Delta_{s} -1/\tau_{s}$, the QI relaxation rate due to the spin superfluid mode becomes negligible. By orienting the QI spin along $\mathbf{y}$, the QI relaxation rate associated to the string mode vanishes as well. Discussion and conclusions. In this work, we propose quantum-impurity relaxometry as a spectroscopic imaging method for spin textures. We show that this technique allows to detect both the position of a spin texture and the dynamics of the Goldstone modes harbored by it. While here we have focused specifically on probing an antiferromagnetic domain wall, our approach could be extended to other nontrivial spin textures such as, e.g., antiferromagnetic skyrmions. Our results indicates that, by, e.g., embedding a QI spin on a tip and scanning the sample [@Maletinsky2012], the position of a domain wall can be detected in correspondence of a significant increase of the QI relaxation rate within a broad frequency range. Future work should address the detection of spin-superfluid transport properties when the spin superfluid mode is populated coherenty by, e.g., attaching metallic reservoirs at the two terminations of the DW [@Kim_Tserkovnyak], or in the context of two-fluid dynamics [@FlebusPRL106]. Furthermore, it has been recently predicted that the spin superfluid current decays through phase slips, triggering the emission/absorption of skyrmions of the N' eel order [@Kim_Tserkovnyak], whose proliferation can be controlled by the external bias. Probing this non equilibrium dynamics via quantum-impurity relaxometry is another interesting direction for future work. B.F. has been supported by the Dutch Science Foundation (NWO) through a Rubicon grant, H.O. by U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences under Award No. de-sc0012190, and Y.T. by NSF under Grant No. DMR-1742928. [99]{} Wolf, S. A., D. D. Awschalom, R. A. Buhrman, J. M. Daughton, S. von Molnar, M. L. Roukes, C. A. Y., and D. M. Treger, Science 294, 1488 (2001); I. Zutic, J. Fabian, and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 323 (2004). T. Jungwirth, X. Marti, P. Wadley, and J. Wunderlich, Nat. Nanotechnol. 11, 231 (2016); V. Baltz, A. Manchon, M. Tsoi, T. Moriyama, T. Ono, and Y. Tserkovnyak, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015005 (2018). I. Gross, W. Akhtar, V. Garcia, L. J. Marttinez, S. Chouaieb, K. Garcia, C. Carretero, A. Barthelemy, P. Appel, P. Maletinsky, J.-V. Kim, J. Y. Chauleau, N. Jaouen, M. Viret, M. Bibes, S. Fusil, and V. Jacques, Nature 549, 252 (2017). T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, A. Manchon, X. Marti, J. Wun- derlich, and C. Felser, Nature Phys. 14, 200 (2018). C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017); F. Casola, T. van der Sar, and A. Yacoby, Nat. Rev. Mater. 3, 17088 (2018). G. Balasubramanian, I. Y. Chan, R. Kolesov, M. Al-Hmoud, J. Tisler, C. Shin, C. Kim, A. Wojcik, P. R. Hemmer, A. Krueger, T. Hanke, A. Leitenstorfer, R. Bratschitsch, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature 455, 648 (2008). T. Kosub, M. Kopte, R. Hühne, P. Appel, B. Shields, P. Maletinsky, R. Hubner, M. O. Liedke, J. Fassbender, O. G. Schmidt, and D. Makarov, Nat. Commun. 8, 13985 (2017). M. Fiebig, J. Phys. D 38, R123 (2005). T. Van der Sar, F. Casola, R. L. Walsworth, and A. Yacoby, Nature Comm. 6 7886, (2015); C. Du, T. Van der Sar, T. X. Zhou, P. Upadhyaya, F. Casola, H. Zhang, M. C. Onbasli, C. A. Ross, R. L. Walsworth, Y. Tserkovnyak, and A. Yacoby, Science 357 (6347), 195-198 (2017). M. W. Doherty, N. B. Manson, P. Delaney, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtrup, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Phys. Rep. 528, 1 (2013). Here, $\mathcal{D}_{\alpha \beta}(\vec{r}, \vec{r}_{s})= - \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \vec{r}_{\alpha} \partial \vec{r}_{s,\beta}} \|\vec{r}-\vec{r}_{s}\|^{-1}$ with $\alpha, \beta= x, y, z$ [@Guslienko2011]. K. Y. Guslienko, and A. N. Slavin, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 323, 2418–2424 (2011). B. Flebus and Y. Tserkovnyak, arXiv:1804.02417. R. Kubo, Rep. Prog. Phys. 29, 255 (1966). B. I. Halperin and P. C. Hohenberg, Phys. Rev. 188, 898 (1969); J. Konig, M. C. Bonsager, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 187202 (2001); E. B. Sonin, Adv. Phys. 59, 181 (2010); S. Takei, B. I. Halperin, A. Yacoby, and Y. Tserkovnyak, Phys. Rev. B 90, 094408 (2014). In the presence of an external field $\mathbf{h}$, we have the substitution $\partial_t\mathbf{l}\rightarrow\partial_t\mathbf{l}-\gamma\,\mathbf{l}\times\mathbf{h}$ in the kinetic term of the Lagrangian , leading to $\mathbf{m}=\chi\,\mathbf{l}\times\left(\partial_t\mathbf{l}-\gamma\,\mathbf{l}\times\mathbf{h}\right)$ upon variations of $\mathbf{m}$ [@Andreev]. Here, $\gamma$ is the gyromagnetic ratio of the magnet. This Lagrangian is valid as long as $\gamma\chi\|\mathbf{h}\| \ll s$. A. F. Andreev and V. I. Marchenko, Sov. Phys. Uspekhi 23, 21 (1980). Notice that the result in Eq. exhausts the thermodynamic sum rule $\lim_{k\rightarrow0}\int d\omega\,\chi_{xx}(k,\omega)/\pi\omega=\chi$. Here, $\Phi=0$ and $\Phi=\pi$ correspond, respectively, to a Bloch and a Néel domain-wall configuration. S. K. Kim and Y. Tserkovnyak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 047202 (2017). In the presence of U(1) symmetry-breaking field, which gives rise to an energy gap $\Delta_{s}$, the dispersion of the spin-superfluid mode becomes $\omega_{k,s}=\sqrt{c^2 k^2 + \Delta^2_{s}}$. A. Auerbach, Interacting Electrons and Quantum Magnetism (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994). S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999). R. Coldea, R. A. Cowley, T. G. Perring, D. F. McMorrow, and B. Roessli, Phys. Rev. B 57, 5281 (1998). L. Jiang, J. Guo, H. Liu, M. Zhu, X. Zhou, P. Wu, and C. Li, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 67, 1531 (2006). While we have focused on the relaxation rate associated with the spin superfluid mode for $\mathbf{n} \parallel \mathbf{z}$, choosing the string mode and/or any other QI orientation (with the exception of $\mathbf{n} \parallel \mathbf{y}$ for a Bloch DW) would lead to a similar relaxation rate. S. Amashm, K. MacLean, I. P. Radu, D. M. Zumbu ̈hl, M. A. Kastner, M. O. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 046803 (2008). P. Maletinsky, S. Hong, M. S. Grinolds, B. Hausmann, M. D. Lukin, R. L. Walsworth, M. Loncar, and A. Yacoby, Nat. Nano. 7, 320 (2012). B. Flebus, S. Bender, Y. Tserkovnyak, and R. A. Duine, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 117201 (2016).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - 'Lisa Huynh and Yotam Gingold[^1]' bibliography: - 'bib/bibl.bib' - 'bib/coordinates.bib' - 'bib/toposmooth.bib' title: 'Bijective Deformations in $\mathbb{R}^n$ via Integral Curve Coordinates' --- Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ We are grateful to Harry Gingold, Jyh-Ming Lien, and Alec Jacobson for fruitful discussions. Ofir Weber generously provided the frog used in Figure \[fig:frog\]. [^1]:	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| THERMUS is a package of C++ classes and functions allowing statistical-thermal model analyses of particle production in relativistic heavy-ion collisions to be performed within the ROOT framework of analysis. Calculations are possible within three statistical ensembles; a grand-canonical treatment of the conserved charges $B$, $S$ and $Q$, a fully canonical treatment of the conserved charges, and a mixed-canonical ensemble combining a canonical treatment of strangeness with a grand-canonical treatment of baryon number and electric charge. THERMUS allows for the assignment of decay chains and detector efficiencies specific to each particle yield, which enables sensible fitting of model parameters to experimental data. PACS: 25.75.-q, 25.75.DW statistical-thermal models; resonance decays; particle multiplicities; relativistic heavy-ion collisions address: - '[UCT-CERN Research Centre and Department of Physics, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa]{}' - 'Helmholtz Research School, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany' author: - 'S. Wheaton' - 'J. Cleymans' - 'M. Hauer' title: THERMUS --- , , [PROGRAM SUMMARY]{} [Manuscript Title:]{} THERMUS - A Thermal Model Package for ROOT\ [Authors:]{} S. Wheaton, J. Cleymans, M. Hauer\ [Program Title:]{} THERMUS, version 2.1\ [Journal Reference:]{}\ [Catalogue identifier:]{}\ [Licensing provisions:]{} none\ [Programming language:]{} C++\ [Computer:]{} PC, Pentium 4, 1 GB RAM (not hardware dependent)\ [Operating system:]{} Linux: FEDORA, RedHat etc\ [RAM:]{}\ [Keywords:]{} statistical-thermal models, resonance decays, particle multiplicities, relativistic heavy-ion collisions\ [PACS:]{} 25.75.-q, 25.75.DW\ [Classification:]{} 17.7 Experimental Analysis - Fission, Fusion, Heavy-ion\ [External routines/libraries:]{} ’Numerical Recipes in C’ \[1\], ROOT \[2\]\ [Nature of problem:]{}\ Statistical-thermal model analyses of heavy-ion collision data require the calculation of both primordial particle densities and contributions from resonance decay. A set of thermal parameters (the number depending on the particular model imposed) and a set of thermalised particles, with their decays specified, is required as input to these models. The output is then a complete set of primordial thermal quantities for each particle, together with the contributions to the final particle yields from resonance decay.\ In many applications of statistical-thermal models it is required to fit experimental particle multiplicities or particle ratios. In such analyses, the input is a set of experimental yields and ratios, a set of particles comprising the assumed hadron resonance gas formed in the collision and the constraints to be placed on the system. The thermal model parameters consistent with the specified constraints leading to the best-fit to the experimental data are then output.\ [Solution method:]{}\ THERMUS is a package designed for incorporation into the ROOT \[2\] framework, used extensively by the heavy-ion community. As such, it utilises a great deal of ROOT’s functionality in its operation. Three distinct statistical ensembles are included in THERMUS, while additional options to include quantum statistics, resonance width and excluded volume corrections are also available.\ THERMUS provides a default particle list including all mesons (up to the $K_4^(2045)$) and baryons (up to the $\Omega^-$) listed in the July 2002 Particle Physics Booklet \[3\]. For each typically unstable particle in this list, THERMUS includes a text-file listing its decays. With thermal parameters specified, THERMUS calculates primordial thermal densities either by performing numerical integrations or else, in the case of the Boltzmann approximation without resonance width in the grand-canonical ensemble, by evaluating Bessel functions. Particle decay chains are then used to evaluate experimental observables (i.e. particle yields following resonance decay). Additional detector efficiency factors allow fine-tuning of the model predictions to a specific detector arrangement.\ When parameters are required to be constrained, use is made of the ‘Numerical Recipes in C’ \[1\] function which applies the Broyden globally convergent secant method of solving nonlinear systems of equations. THERMUS provides the means of imposing a large number of constraints on the chosen model (amongst others, THERMUS can fix the baryon-to-charge ratio of the system, the strangeness density of the system and the primordial energy per hadron).\ Fits to experimental data are accomplished in THERMUS by using the ROOT `TMinuit` class. In its default operation, the standard $\chi^2$ function is minimised, yielding the set of best-fit thermal parameters. THERMUS allows the assignment of separate decay chains to each experimental input. In this way, the model is able to match the specific feed-down corrections of a particular data set.\ [Running time:]{} Depending on the analysis required, run-times vary from seconds (for the evaluation of particle multiplicities given a set of parameters) to several minutes (for fits to experimental data subject to constraints).\ \ [References:]{} W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, B. P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002). R. Brun and F. Rademakers, Nucl. Inst. & Meth. in Phys. Res. A [389]{} (1997) 81.\ See also http://root.cern.ch/. K. Hagiwara et al., Phys. Rev. D [66]{} (2002) 010001. Introduction ============ The statistical-thermal model has proved extremely successful [@andronic; @wheaton; @becattini] in describing the hadron multiplicities observed in relativistic collisions of both heavy-ions and elementary particles. The methods used in calculating these yields have been extensively reviewed in recent years [@jaipur; @reviewPBM]. The success of these models has led to the creation of several software codes [@share; @sharev2; @therminator] that use experimental particle yields as input and calculate the corresponding chemical freeze-out temperature ($T$) and baryon chemical potential ($\mu_B$). In this paper we present THERMUS, a package of C++ classes and functions, which is based on the object-oriented ROOT framework [@Root]. All THERMUS C++ classes inherit from the ROOT base class `TObject`. This allows them to be fully integrated into the interactive ROOT environment, allowing all of the ROOT functionality in a statistical-thermal model analysis. Recent applications of THERMUS include [@wheaton; @LHC; @Kraus; @Caines; @Stiles; @Takahashi; @Murray; @HauerViscosity; @Witt; @Hippo; @Sahoo]. An on-going effort to extend the range of applications of THERMUS has led to several publications on fluctuations in statistical models [@Hauer1; @Hauer2; @Hauer3].\ The paper is structured in the following way. In Section 2 an overview is presented of the theoretical model on which THERMUS is based. Section 3 outlines the structure and functionality of the THERMUS code, while Section 4 explains the installation procedure.\ Overview of the Statistical-Thermal Model of Heavy-Ion Collisions ================================================================= Choice of Ensemble ------------------ Within the statistical-thermal model there is a freedom regarding the ensemble with which to treat the quantum numbers $B$ (baryon number), $S$ (strangeness) and $Q$ (charge), which are conserved in strong interactions. The introduction of chemical potentials for each of these quantum numbers (i.e. a grand-canonical description) allows fluctuations about conserved averages. This is a reasonable approximation only when the number of particles carrying the quantum number concerned is large. In applications of the thermal model to high-energy elementary collisions, such as $pp$, $p\bar{p}$ and $e^+e^-$ collisions [@B1; @B2], a canonical treatment of each of the quantum numbers is required. Within such a canonical description, quantum numbers are conserved exactly. In small systems or at low temperatures (more specifically, low $VT^3$ values), a canonical treatment leads to a suppression of hadrons carrying non-zero quantum numbers, since these particles have to be created in pairs. In heavy-ion collisions, the large number of baryons and charged particles generally allows baryon number and charge to be treated grand-canonically. However, at the low temperatures of the GSI SIS, the resulting low production of strange particles requires a canonical treatment of strangeness [@C8]. This is the so-called mixed-canonical approach.\ In order to calculate the thermal properties of a system, one starts with an evaluation of its partition function. The form of the partition function obviously depends on the choice of ensemble. In the following sections, we consider the three ensembles most widely used in applications of the statistical-thermal model.\ ### The Grand-Canonical Ensemble {#SubSection::GCanEnsemble} This ensemble is the most widely used in applications to heavy-ion collisions [@reviewPBM; @review; @heavy_ions; @PBM_qd; @abundances_a; @PBMRHIC; @abundances_b; @Polish_a; @Polish_b; @Xu; @Kaneta]. Within this ensemble, conservation laws for energy and quantum or particle numbers are enforced on average through the temperature and chemical potentials.\ In the case of a multi-component hadron gas of volume $V$ and temperature $T$, the logarithm of the total partition function is given by, $$\begin{aligned} \ln Z^{GC}(T,V,\{\mu_i\}) &=& \sum_{\mathrm{species}\;i}{g_iV\over\left(2\pi\right)^3}\int d^3p\ln\left(1\pm e^{-\beta\left(E_i-\mu_i\right)}\right)^{\pm1}, \end{aligned}$$ where $g_i$ and $\mu_i$ are, respectively, the degeneracy and chemical potential of hadron species $i$, $\beta\equiv 1/T$, while $E_i=\sqrt{p^2+m_i^2}$, where $m_i$ is the particle mass. The plus sign refers to fermions and the minus sign to bosons. Since in relativistic heavy-ion collisions it is not individual particle numbers that are conserved, but rather the quantum numbers $B$, $S$ and $Q$, the chemical potential for particle species $i$ is given by, $$\begin{aligned} \mu_i &=& B_i\mu_B + S_i\mu_S + Q_i\mu_Q,\end{aligned}$$ where $B_i$, $S_i$ and $Q_i$ are the baryon number, strangeness and charge, respectively, of hadron species $i$, and $\mu_B$, $\mu_S$ and $\mu_Q$ are the corresponding chemical potentials for these conserved quantum numbers.\ Once the partition function is known, the particle multiplicities, entropy and pressure are obtained by differentiation: $$\begin{aligned} N_i^{GC} &=& T{\partial\ln Z^{GC}\over\partial\mu_i},\\ S^{GC} &=& {\partial\over\partial T}\left(T\ln Z^{GC}\right),\\ P^{GC} &=& T{\partial\ln Z^{GC}\over\partial V}.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the energy is given by, $$\begin{aligned} E^{GC} &=& T^2\frac{\partial \ln Z^{GC}}{\partial T} + \sum_{\mathrm{species}\;i}\mu_i\;N_i^{GC}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the prescription for the particle multiplicity, $$\begin{aligned} N_i^{GC} &=& {g_iV \over 2\pi^2}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}(\mp 1)^{k+1}{m_i^2 T\over k} K_2\left(km_i\over T\right)e^{\beta k\mu_i}=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}z_i^k e^{\beta k \mu_i},\label{density}\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced the $z_i^k$. Similar expressions exist for the energy, entropy and pressure.\ In practice, the Boltzmann approximation (i.e. retaining just the $k=1$ term in Equation (\[density\])) is reasonable for all particles except the pions. In this approximation, $$\begin{aligned} \ln Z^{GC}\left(T,V,\{\mu_i\}\right) &=& \sum_{\mathrm{species}\;i}\frac{g_iV}{\left(2\pi\right)^3}\int d^3p\;e^{-\beta\left(E_i-\mu_i\right)}= \sum_{\mathrm{species}\;i} z_i^1\;e^{\beta\mu_i},\end{aligned}$$ where $z_i^1$ is the single-particle partition function of hadron species $i$. Furthermore, under this approximation, $P=\sum_{\mathrm{species}\;i}N_i^{GC}T/V$ both for massive and massless particles, which is certainly not true for quantum statistics.\ Since the use of quantum statistics requires numerical integration (or evaluation of infinite sums), while Boltzmann statistics can be implemented analytically, it is worthwhile to identify those regions in which quantum statistics deviate greatly from Boltzmann statistics. In most applications of the statistical-thermal model, only a small region of the $\mu-T$ parameter space is of interest. Using the freeze-out condition of constant $E/N$ [@UnifiedFO], the thermal parameters, and hence the percentage deviation from Boltzmann statistics, can be determined as a function of the collision energy $\sqrt{s}$. From such an analysis it is evident that, for pions, quantum statistics must be implemented at all but the lowest energies (deviation at the level of 10%), while, for kaons, the deviation peaks at between 1 and 2%. For all other mesons, the deviation is below the 1% level. For baryons, the deviation is extremely small for all except the protons at small $\sqrt{s}$.\ When quantum statistics are applied, restrictions have to be imposed on the chemical potentials so as to avoid Bose-Einstein condensation. The Bose-Einstein distribution function diverges if, $$\begin{aligned} e^{\beta\left(m_i-\mu_i\right)} \le 1.\end{aligned}$$ Such Bose-Einstein condensation is avoided, provided that the chemical potentials of all bosons included in the resonance gas are less than their masses (i.e. $\mu_i<m_i$).\ ### The Canonical Ensemble {#SubSection::Canonical} Within this ensemble, quantum number conservation is exactly enforced. Considering the fully canonical treatment of $B$, $S$ and $Q$ in the Boltzmann approximation, as investigated in [@Keranen1], the partition function for the system is given by, $$\begin{aligned} Z_{B,S,Q} &=& {Z_0\over(2\pi)^2}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}d\phi_S\; \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}d\phi_Q\;\cos\left(S\phi_S + Q\phi_Q - B\arg\omega\right)\nonumber\\ & &\times\exp\left[2\sum_{\mathrm{mesons}\;j}z_j^1\;\cos\left(S_j\phi_S+Q_j\phi_Q\right)\right] I_B\left(2\|\omega\|\right),\label{Eq:BSQ Canonical}\end{aligned}$$ where, $$\begin{aligned} \omega &\equiv& \sum_{\mathrm{baryons}\;j}z_j^1\;e^{i(S_j\phi_S+Q_j\phi_Q)},\nonumber\\ z_j^1 &\equiv& {g_jV\over\left(2\pi\right)^3}\int d^3p\;e^{-\beta E_j},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $Z_0$ represents the contribution of those hadrons with no net charges, and the sums over mesons and baryons extend only over the particles (i.e. not the anti-particles).\ Once the partition function is known, we can calculate all thermodynamic properties of the system. Using thermodynamic relations it follows that, $$\begin{aligned} S &=&{\partial \over\partial T}\left(T\ln Z_{B,S,Q}\right),\end{aligned}$$ and, $$\begin{aligned} P &=&T{\partial\ln Z_{B,S,Q} \over\partial V}.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the multiplicity of hadron species $i$ within this ensemble, $N_i^{B,S,Q}$, is calculated by multiplying the single-particle partition function for particle $i$, appearing in the canonical partition function, by a fictitious fugacity $\lambda_i$, differentiating with respect to $\lambda_i$, and then setting $\lambda_i$ to 1: $$\begin{aligned} N_i^{B,S,Q} &=& \left.{\partial\ln Z_{B,S,Q}({\lambda_i})\over\partial\lambda_i}\right\|_{\lambda_i=1}.\end{aligned}$$ Following these prescriptions,\ $$\begin{aligned} N_i^{B,S,Q} &=& \left({Z_{B-B_i,S-S_i,Q-Q_i}\over Z_{B,S,Q}}\right)\left.N_i^{GC}\right\|_{\mu_i=0},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} S^{B,S,Q} &=& \ln Z_{B,S,Q} + \sum_{\mathrm{species}\;i} \left({Z_{B-B_i,S-S_i,Q-Q_i}\over Z_{B,S,Q}}\right){\left.E_i^{GC}\right\|_{\mu_i=0}\over T},\\ P^{B,S,Q} &=& \sum_{\mathrm{species}\;i} \left({Z_{B-B_i,S-S_i,Q-Q_i}\over Z_{B,S,Q}}\right)\left.P_i^{GC}\right\|_{\mu_i=0},\\ E^{B,S,Q} &=& \sum_{\mathrm{species}\;i} \left({Z_{B-B_i,S-S_i,Q-Q_i}\over Z_{B,S,Q}}\right)\left.E_i^{GC}\right\|_{\mu_i=0}.\end{aligned}$$ One notices that, in the Boltzmann approximation, the particle and energy density and pressure of particle species $i$, within the canonical ensemble, differ from that in the grand-canonical formalism, with all chemical potentials set to zero, by a multiplicative factor $\left({Z_{B-B_i,S-S_i,Q-Q_i}/Z_{B,S,Q}}\right)$. This correction factor depends only on the thermal parameters of the system and the quantum numbers of the particle (i.e. the correction for the $\Delta^+$ and $p$ are the same). The entropy is, however, slightly different; the total entropy cannot be split into the sum of contributions from separate particles.\ Now, $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{V\rightarrow\infty}\left({Z_{B-B_i,S-S_i,Q-Q_i}\over Z_{B,S,Q}}\right) = e^{B_i\mu_B/T}e^{S_i\mu_S/T}e^{Q_i\mu_Q/T}.\label{Eq:Corr Factors} \end{aligned}$$ Thus, for large systems, the grand-canonical results for the particle number, entropy, pressure and energy are approached [@Keranen1].\ ### The Mixed-Canonical (Strangeness-Canonical) Ensemble {#SubSection::SCanonical} Within this ensemble, the strangeness in the system is fixed exactly by its initial value of $S$, while the baryon and charge content are treated grand-canonically. For a Boltzmann hadron gas of strangeness $S$, $$\begin{aligned} Z_{S} &=& {1\over2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}d\phi_S\;e^{-iS\phi_S}\nonumber\\ & & \times\exp\left[\sum_{\mathrm{hadrons}\;i}{g_iV\over\left(2\pi\right)^3}\int d^3p\;e^{-\beta\left( E_i-\mu_i\right)}\;e^{iS_i\phi_S}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where the sum over hadrons includes both particles and anti-particles and, $$\begin{aligned} \mu_i &=& B_i\mu_B + Q_i\mu_Q.\end{aligned}$$ Applying the same prescription for the evaluation of the particle multiplicities as discussed for the canonical ensemble, it follows that, $$\begin{aligned} N_i^{S} &=& \left({Z_{S-S_i}\over Z_{S}}\right)\left.N_i^{GC}\right\|_{\mu_S=0}.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned} S^{S} &=& \ln Z_{S} + \sum_{\mathrm{species}\;i} \left({Z_{S-S_i}\over Z_{S}}\right)\left({\left.E_i^{GC}\right\|_{\mu_S=0}-\mu_i\left.N_i^{GC}\right\|_{\mu_S=0}\over T}\right),\\ P^{S} &=& \sum_{\mathrm{species}\;i} \left({Z_{S-S_i}\over Z_{S}}\right)\left.P_i^{GC}\right\|_{\mu_S=0},\\ E^{S} &=& \sum_{\mathrm{species}\;i} \left({Z_{S-S_i}\over Z_{S}}\right)\left.E_i^{GC}\right\|_{\mu_S=0}.\end{aligned}$$ As in the case of the canonical ensemble, the strangeness-canonical results, in the Boltzmann approximation, differ from those of the grand-canonical ensemble, with $\mu_S=0$, by multiplicative correction factors which depend, in this case, only on the thermal parameters and the strangeness of the particle concerned. For large systems and high temperatures, these correction factors approach the grand-canonical fugacities, i.e., $$\lim_{V\rightarrow \infty}\left({Z_{S-S_i}\over Z_{S}}\right)= e^{S_i\mu_S/T}.$$ The expression for $Z_{S}$ can be reduced [@PBMCleymans] to, $$\begin{aligned} Z_{S} = Z_0\times\sum_{m=-\infty}^{+\infty}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} I_{\|3m+2n-S\|}(x_1)&&\;I_{\|n\|}(x_2)\;I_{\|m\|}(x_3)\\\nonumber &&\times(y_3/y_1^3)^m\;(y_2/y_1^2)^n\;y_1^{S},\end{aligned}$$ where $Z_0$ is the contribution to the total partition function of the non-strange hadrons, while, $$\begin{aligned} x_i &=& 2\;\sqrt{k_{+i}k_{-i}}\hspace{1cm}(i=1,2,3),\end{aligned}$$ and, $$\begin{aligned} y_i &=& \sqrt{{k_{+i}\over k_{-i}}}\hspace{1.8cm}(i=1,2,3),\end{aligned}$$ with, $$\begin{aligned} k_{m} = \sum_{\mathrm{hadrons}\;j\;\mathrm{with}\;S_j=m}\left.n_j^{GC}\right\|_{\mu_S=0}V.\end{aligned}$$ In [@RedlichTounsi; @CleymansSIS] it is suggested that two volume parameters be used within canonical ensembles; the fireball volume at freeze-out, $V_f$, which provides the overall normalisation factor fixing the particle multiplicities from the corresponding densities, and the correlation volume, $V_c$, within which particles fulfill the requirement of local conservation of quantum numbers. In this way, by taking $V_c<V_f$, it is possible to boost the strangeness suppression. In fact, this was shown to be required to reproduce experimental heavy-ion collision data [@RedlichTounsi; @CleymansSIS].\ Additional Features ------------------- ### Feeding from Unstable Particles Since the particle yields measured by the detectors in collision experiments include feed-down from heavier hadrons and hadronic resonances, the primordial hadrons are allowed to decay to particles considered stable by the experiment before model predictions are compared with experimental data. For example, the total $\pi^+$ yield is given by, $$N_{\pi^+} = \sum_{\mathrm{species}\;i}N_i^{(\mathrm{prim})}\:Br(i\rightarrow \pi^+),$$ where $Br(i\rightarrow \pi^+)$ is the number of $\pi^+$’s into which a single particle of species $i$ decays. As shown in Figure \[PiDecay\], approximately 70% of $\pi^+$’s originate from resonance decay at RHIC energies. Thus, a full treatment of resonances is essential in any statistical-thermal analysis.\ ![The energy dependence of the decay contribution to the final $\pi^+$ yield as predicted by the statistical-thermal model. Calculations performed within the grand-canonical formalism, assuming the constant $E/N$ freeze-out criterion [@UnifiedFO] (weak decays excluded).[]{data-label="PiDecay"}](EnergyDepPiDecay.eps){width="12cm"} ### Resonances and the Inclusion of Resonance\ Width {#SubSection::ResonanceWidth} The inclusion of a mass cut-off in the measured resonance mass spectrum is motivated by the realisation that the time scale of a relativistic collision does not allow the heavier resonances to reach chemical equilibrium [@SKH]. This assumes that inelastic collisions drive the system to chemical equilibrium. If the hadronisation process follows a statistical rule, then all resonances should, in principle, be included [@abundances_b]. This is problematic, since data on the heavy resonances is sketchy. The situation is saved by the finite energy density of the system, resulting in a chemical freeze-out temperature at RHIC of approximately 160-170 MeV [@Kaneta1; @WheatonKaneta], which strongly suppresses these heavy resonances and justifies their exclusion from the model. It is, however, important to check the sensitivity of the extracted thermal parameters to the chosen cut-off.\ The finite width of the resonances is especially important at the low temperatures of the SIS. Resonance widths are included in the thermal model by distributing the resonance masses according to Breit-Wigner forms [@B1; @B2; @heavy_ions; @C8; @SKH; @BGS]. This amounts to the following modification in the integration of the Boltzmann factor [@C8]: $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\int d^3p\; \exp\left[-{\sqrt{p^2+m^2}\over T}\right]} \nonumber \\ & & \rightarrow \int d^3p \int ds\; \exp\left[-{\sqrt{p^2+s}\over T}\right]{1 \over \pi}{m\Gamma \over (s-m^2)^2+m^2\Gamma^2}, \end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma$ is the width of the resonance concerned, with threshold limit $m_{\mathrm{threshold}}$ and mass $m$, and $\sqrt{s}$ is integrated over the interval \[$m$ - $\delta m$, $m$ + $2\Gamma$\], where $\delta m$ = min\[$m$ - $m_{\mathrm{threshold}}$, $2\Gamma$\].\ ### Deviations from Equilibrium Levels {#SubSection::Gammas} The statistical-thermal model applied to elementary $e^+e^-$, $pp$ and $p\bar{p}$ collisions [@B1; @B2] indicates the need for an additional parameter, $\gamma_S$ (first introduced as a purely phenomenological parameter [@Raf_a; @Raf_b]), to account for the observed deviation from chemical equilibrium in the strange sector. Since a canonical ensemble was considered in these analyses, there is an additional strangeness suppression at work, on top of the canonical suppression. Although strangeness production is expected to be greatly increased in $AA$ collisions, due to the larger interaction region and increased hadron rescattering, a number of recent analyses [@BGS; @BecEnergyScan; @previous_analyzes; @PRC; @Nantes; @SQMPeter] have found such a factor necessary to accomplish a satisfactory description of data.\ Allowance for possibly incomplete strangeness equilibration is made by multiplying the Boltzmann factors of each particle species in the partition function (or thermal distribution function $f_i(x,p)$) by $\gamma_S^{\left\|S_i\right\|}$, where $\left\|S_i\right\|$ is the number of valence strange quarks and anti-quarks in species $i$. The value $\gamma_S = 1$ obviously corresponds to complete strangeness equilibration.\ It has been suggested [@Rafelski99] that a similar parameter, $\gamma_q$, should be included in thermal analyses to allow for deviations from equilibrium levels in the non-strange sector. Furthermore, as collider energies increase, so does the need for the inclusion of charmed particles in the statistical-thermal model, with their occupation of phase-space possibly governed by an additional parameter, $\gamma_C$.\ ### Excluded Volume Corrections (Grand-Canonical Ensemble) {#Excl Vol Corrections} At very high energies, the ideal gas assumption is inadequate. In fact, the total particle densities predicted by the thermal model, with parameters extracted from fits to experimental data, far exceed reasonable estimates and measurements based on yields and the system size inferred by pion interferometry [@VDW3]. It becomes necessary to take into account the Van der Waals–type excluded volume procedure [@VDW3; @VDW1; @VDW2]. At the same fixed $T$ and $\mu_B$, all thermodynamic functions of the hadron gas are smaller than in the ideal hadron gas, and strongly decrease with increasing excluded volume.\ Van der Waals–type corrections are included by making the following substitution for the volume $V$ in the canonical (with respect to particle number) partition function, $$\begin{aligned} V &\rightarrow& V-\sum_{\mathrm{hadrons}\;i}\nu_i N_i, \end{aligned}$$ where $N_i$ is the number of hadron species $i$, and $\nu_i=4\left(4/3\pi r_i^3\right)$ is its proper volume, with $r_i$ its hard-sphere radius. This then leads to the following transcendental equation for the pressure of the gas in the grand-canonical ensemble (assuming $h$ particle species): $$\begin{aligned} P(T,\mu_1,...,\mu_h) &=& \sum_{i=1}^{h}P_i^{ideal}(T,\tilde{\mu_i}),\end{aligned}$$ with, $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{\mu_i} &=& \mu_i - \nu_i P(T,\mu_1,...,\mu_h).\end{aligned}$$ The particle, entropy and energy densities are given by, $$\begin{aligned} n_i(T,\mu_1,...,\mu_h) &=& \frac{n_i^{ideal}(T,\tilde{\mu_i})}{1+\sum_j\nu_jn_j^{ideal}(T,\tilde{\mu_j})},\\ s(T,\mu_1,...,\mu_h) &=& \frac{\sum_i s_i^{ideal}(T,\tilde{\mu_i})}{1+\sum_j\nu_jn_j^{ideal}(T,\tilde{\mu_j})},\end{aligned}$$ and, $$\begin{aligned} e(T,\mu_1,...,\mu_h) &=& \frac{\sum_i e_i^{ideal}(T,\tilde{\mu_i})}{1+\sum_j\nu_jn_j^{ideal}(T,\tilde{\mu_j})},\end{aligned}$$ respectively. One sees that two suppression factors enter. The first suppression is due to the shift in chemical potential $\mu_i\rightarrow\tilde{\mu_i}$. In the Boltzmann approximation, this leads to a suppression factor $e^{-\nu_iP/T}$ in all thermodynamic quantities. The second suppression is due to the $[1+\sum_j\nu_jn_j^{ideal}(T,\tilde{\mu_j})]^{-1}$ factor.\ In ratios of particle numbers, although the denominator correction cancels out, the shift in chemical potentials leads to a change in the case of quantum statistics. In the Boltzmann case, even these corrections cancel out, provided that the same proper volume parameter $\nu$ is applied to all species.\ The Structure of THERMUS ======================== Introduction ------------ The three distinct ensemble choices outlined in Sections \[SubSection::GCanEnsemble\]-\[SubSection::SCanonical\] are implemented in THERMUS. As input to the various thermal model formalisms one needs first a set of particles to be considered thermalised. When combined with a set of thermal parameters, all primordial densities (i.e. number density as well as energy and entropy density and pressure) are calculable. Once the particle decays are known, sensible comparisons can be made with experimentally measured yields.\ In THERMUS, the following units are used for the parameters:\ Unit ---------------------------- ------ Temperature ($T$) GeV Chemical Potential ($\mu$) GeV Radius fm Quantities frequently output by THERMUS are in the following units:\ Unit ------------------------ ------------------------ Number Densities ($n$) $\mathrm{fm}^{-3}$ Energy Density ($e$) $\mathrm{GeV.fm}^{-3}$ Entropy Density ($s$) $\mathrm{fm}^{-3}$ Pressure ($P$) $\mathrm{GeV.fm}^{-3}$ Volume ($V$) $\mathrm{fm}^3$ In the subsections to follow, we explain the basic structure and functionality of THERMUS (shown diagrammatically in Figure \[FlowChart\]) by introducing the major THERMUS classes in a bottom-up approach. We begin with a look at the `TTMParticle` object.[^1]\ ![The basic structure of THERMUS (only the most fundamental base classes are shown).[]{data-label="FlowChart"}](thermus_structure.eps){width="12cm"} The `TTMParticle` Class ----------------------- The properties of a particle applicable to the statistical-thermal model are grouped in the basic `TTMParticle` object: ****** LISTING FOR PARTICLE Delta(1600)0 ***** ID = 32114 Deg. = 4 STAT = 1 Mass = 1.6 GeV Width = 0.35 GeV Threshold = 1.07454 GeV Hard sphere radius = 0 B = 1 S = 0 \|S\| = 0 Q = 0 Charm = 0 \|C\| = 0 Beauty = 0 Top = 0 UNSTABLE Decay Channels: Summary of Decays: ****************************************** Besides the particle name, ‘Delta(1600)0’ in this case, its Monte Carlo numerical ID is also stored. This provides a far more convenient means of referencing the particle. The particle’s decay status is also noted. In this case, the $\Delta(1600)^0$ is considered unstable. Particle properties are input using the appropriate ‘setters’.\ ### Inputting and Accessing Particle Decays The `TTMParticle` class allows also for the storage of a particle’s decays. These can be entered from file. As an example, consider the decay file of the $\Delta(1600)^0$: 11.67 2112 111 5.83 2212 -211 29.33 2214 -211 3.67 2114 111 22. 1114 211 8.33 2112 113 4.17 2212 -213 15. 12112 111 7.5 12212 -211 Each line in the decay file corresponds to a decay channel. The first column lists the branching ratio of the channel, while the subsequent tab-separated integers represent the Monte Carlo ID’s of the daughters (each line (channel) can contain any number of daughters). The decay channel list of a `TTMParticle` object is populated with `TTMDecayChannel` objects by the `SetDecayChannels` function, with the decay file the first argument (only that part of the output that differs from the previous listing of the particle information is shown): root [ ] part->SetDecayChannels("$THERMUS/particles/Delta$1600$0_decay.txt") root [ ] part->List() ***** LISTING FOR PARTICLE Delta(1600)0 ***** - - - UNSTABLE Decay Channels: BRatio: 0.1167 Daughters: 2112 111 BRatio: 0.0583 Daughters: 2212 -211 BRatio: 0.2933 Daughters: 2214 -211 BRatio: 0.0367 Daughters: 2114 111 BRatio: 0.22 Daughters: 1114 211 BRatio: 0.0833 Daughters: 2112 113 BRatio: 0.0417 Daughters: 2212 -213 BRatio: 0.15 Daughters: 12112 111 BRatio: 0.075 Daughters: 12212 -211 Summary of Decays: 2112 20% 111 30.34% 2212 10% -211 42.66% 2214 29.33% 2114 3.67% 1114 22% 211 22% 113 8.33% -213 4.17% 12112 15% 12212 7.5% ******************************************** In many cases, the branching ratios of unstable hadrons do not sum to 100%. This can, however, be enforced by scaling all branching ratios. This is achieved when the second argument of `SetDecayChannels` is set to true (it is false by default).\ In addition to the list of decay channels, a summary list of `TTMDecay` objects is generated in which each daughter appears only once, together with its total decay fraction. This summary list is automatically generated from the decay channel list when the `SetDecayChannels` function is called.\ An existing `TList` can be set as the decay channel list of the particle, using the `SetDecayChannels` function. This function calls `UpdateDecaySummary`, thereby automatically ensuring consistency between the decay channel and decay summary lists.\ The function `SetDecayChannelEfficiency` sets the reconstruction efficiency of the specified decay channel to the specified percentage. Again, a consistent decay summary list is generated.\ Access to the `TTMDecayChannel` objects in the decay channel list is achieved through the `GetDecayChannel` method. If the extracted decay channel is subsequently altered, `UpdateDecaySummary` must be called to ensure consistency of the summary list.\ The `TTMParticleSet` Class -------------------------- The thermalised fireballs considered in statistical-thermal models typically contain approximately 350 different hadron and hadronic resonance species. To facilitate fast retrieval of particle properties, the `TTMParticle` objects of all constituents are stored in a hash table in a `TTMParticleSet` object. Other data members of this `TTMParticleSet` class include the filename used to instantiate the object and the number of particle species. Access to the entries in the hash table is through the particle Monte Carlo ID’s.\ ### Instantiating a `TTMParticleSet` Object In addition to the default constructor, the following constructors exist: ---------------------------------------------------------------- `TTMParticleSet set = new TTMParticleSet(char file);` `TTMParticleSet set = new TTMParticleSet(TDatabasePDG pdg);` ---------------------------------------------------------------- The first constructor instantiates a `TTMParticleSet` object and inputs the particle properties contained in the specified text file. As an example of such a file, `/$THERMUS/particles/PartList_PPB2002.txt` contains a list of all mesons (up to the $K_4^(2045)$) and baryons (up to the $\Omega^-$) listed in the July 2002 Particle Physics Booklet [@PDG] (195 entries). Only particles need be included, since the anti-particle properties are directly related to those of the corresponding particle. The required file format is as follows: 0 Delta(1600)0 32114 4 +1 1.60000 0 1 0 0 0.35000 1.07454 (npi0) - [stability flag (1 for stable, 0 for unstable)]{} - [particle name]{} - [Monte Carlo particle ID (used for all referencing)]{} - [spin degeneracy]{} - [statistics (+1 for Fermi-Dirac, -1 for Bose-Einstein, 0 for Boltzmann)]{} - [mass in GeV]{} - [strangeness]{} - [baryon number]{} - [charge]{} - [absolute strangeness content $\left\|{S}\right\|$]{} - [width in GeV]{} - [threshold in GeV]{} - [string recording the decay channel from which the threshold is calculated if the particle’s width is non-zero]{} All further particle properties have to be set with the relevant ‘setters’ (e.g. the charm, absolute charm content and hard-sphere radius). By default, all properties not listed in the particle list file are assumed to be zero.\ Figure \[ResDistr\] shows the distribution of resonances (both particle and anti-particle) derived from `/$THERMUS/particles/PartList_PPB2002.txt`. As collider energies increase, so does the need to include also the higher mass resonances. Although the `TTMParticle` class allows for the properties of charmed particles, these particles are not included in the default THERMUS particle list. If required, these particles have to be input by the user. The same applies to the hadrons composed of $b$ and $t$ quarks.\ ![The mass distribution of the resonances included in `PartList_PPB2002.txt`.[]{data-label="ResDistr"}](ResDistr.eps){width="12cm"} It is also possible to use a `TDatabasePDG` object to instantiate a particle set[^2]. `TDatabasePDG` objects also read in particle information from text files. The default file is `/$ROOTSYS/etc/pdg_table.txt` and is based on the parameters used in PYTHIA [@Pythia].\ The constructor `TTMParticleSet(TDatabasePDG pdg)` extracts only those particles in the specified `TDatabasePDG` object in particle classes ‘Meson’, ‘CharmedMeson’, ‘HiddenCharmMeson’, ‘B-Meson’, ‘Baryon’, ‘CharmedBaryon’ and ‘B-Baryon’, as specified in `/$ROOTSYS/etc/pdg_table.txt`, and includes them in the hadron set. Anti-particles must be included in the `TDatabasePDG` object, as they are not automatically generated in this constructor of the `TTMParticleSet` class.\ The default file read into the `TDatabasePDG` object, however, is incomplete; the charm, degeneracy, threshold, strangeness, $\left\|S\right\|$, beauty and topness of the particle are not included. Although the `TDatabasePDG::ReadPDGTable` function and default file allow for isospin, $I_3$, spin, flavor and tracking code to be entered too, the default file does not contain these values. Furthermore, all particles are made stable by default. Therefore, at present, using the `TDatabasePDG` class to instantiate a `TTMParticleSet` class should be avoided, at least until `pdg_table.txt` is improved. ### Inputting Decays Once a particle set has been defined, the decays to the stable particles in the set can be determined. After instantiating a `TTMParticleSet` object and settling on its stable constituents (the list of stable particles can be modified by adjusting the stability flags of the `TTMParticle` objects included in the `TTMParticleSet` object), decays can be input using the `InputDecays` method. Running this function populates the decay lists of all unstable particles in the set, using the decay files listed in the directory specified as the first argument. If a file is not found, then the corresponding particle is set to stable. For each typically unstable particle in `/$THERMUS/particles/PartList_PPB2002.txt`, there exists a file in `/$THERMUS/particles` listing its decays. The filename is derived from the particle’s name (e.g. `Delta(1600)0_decay.txt` for the $\Delta(1600)^0$). There are presently 195 such files, with entries based on the Particle Physics Booklet of July 2002 [@PDG]. The decays of the corresponding anti-particles are automatically generated, while a private recursive function, `GenerateBRatios`, is invoked to ensure that only stable particles feature in the decay summary lists. The second argument of `InputDecays`, when set to true, scales the branching ratios so that their sum is 100%. As an example, consider the following (again only part of the listing is shown):\ root [ ] TTMParticleSet set("$THERMUS/particles/PartList_PPB2002.txt") root [ ] set.InputDecays("$THERMUS/particles/",true) root [ ] TTMParticle part = set.GetParticle(32114) root [ ] part->List() ****** LISTING FOR PARTICLE Delta(1600)0 ***** - - - UNSTABLE Decay Channels: BRatio: 0.108558 Daughters: 2112 111 BRatio: 0.0542326 Daughters: 2212 -211 BRatio: 0.272837 Daughters: 2214 -211 BRatio: 0.0341395 Daughters: 2114 111 BRatio: 0.204651 Daughters: 1114 211 BRatio: 0.0774884 Daughters: 2112 113 BRatio: 0.0387907 Daughters: 2212 -213 BRatio: 0.139535 Daughters: 12112 111 BRatio: 0.0697674 Daughters: 12212 -211 Summary of Decays: 2112 60.6774% 111 62.5704% 2212 39.3226% -211 83.9999% 211 44.6773% ******************************************** For particle sets based on `TDatabasePDG` objects, decay lists should be populated through the function `InputDecays(TDatabasePDG )`. This function, however, does not automatically generate the anti-particle decays from those of the particle. Instead, the anti-particle decay list is used. Since the decay list may include electromagnetic and weak decays to particles other than the hadrons stored in the `TTMParticleSet` object, each channel is first checked to ensure that it contains only particles listed in the set. If not, the channel is excluded from the hadron’s decay list used by THERMUS. As mentioned earlier, care should be taken when using `TDatabasePDG` objects based on the default file, as it is incomplete.\ An extremely useful function is `ListParents(Int_t id)`, which lists all of the parents of the particle with the specified Monte Carlo ID. This function uses `GetParents(TList parents, Int_t id)`, which populates the list passed with the decays to particle `id`. Note that these parents are not necessarily ‘direct parents’; the decays may involve unstable intermediates. ### Customising the Set The `AddParticle` and `RemoveParticle` functions allow customisation of particle sets. Particle and anti-particle are treated symmetrically in the case of the former; if a particle is added, then its corresponding anti-particle is also added. This is not the case for the `RemoveParticle` function, however, where particle and anti-particle have to be removed separately.\ Mass-cuts can be performed using `MassCut(Double_t x)` to exclude all hadrons with masses greater than the argument (expressed in GeV). Decays then have to be re-inserted, to remove the influence of the newly-excluded hadrons from the decay lists.\ The function `SetDecayEfficiency` allows the reconstruction efficiency of the decays from a specified parent to the specified daughter to be set. Changes are reflected only in the decay summary list of the parent (i.e. not the decay channel list). Note that running `UpdateDecaySummary` or `GenerateBRatios` will remove any such changes, by creating again a summary list consistent with the channel list.\ In addition to these operations, users can input their own particle sets by compiling their own particle lists and decay files.\ The `TTMParameter` Class ------------------------ This class groups all relevant information for parameters in the statistical-thermal model. Data members include:\ ----------- --------------------------------------------------------------- `fName` - the parameter name, `fValue` - the parameter value, `fError` - the parameter error, `fFlag` - a flag signalling the type of parameter (constrain, fit, fixed, or uninitialised), `fStatus` - a string reflecting the intended treatment or action taken. ----------- --------------------------------------------------------------- \ In addition to these data members, the following, relevant to fit-type parameters, are also included:\ ---------- ------------------------------------- `fStart` - the starting value in a fit, `fMin` - the lower bound of the fit-range, `fMax` - the upper bound of the fit-range, `fStep` - the step-size. ---------- ------------------------------------- \ The constructor and `SetParameter(TString name, Double_t value, Double_t error)` function set the parameter to fixed-type, by default. The parameter-type can be modified using the `Constrain`, `Fit` or `Fix` methods. The `TTMParameterSet` Class --------------------------- The `TTMParameterSet` class is the base class for all thermal parameter set classes. Each derived class contains its own `TTMParameter` array, with size determined by the requirements of the ensemble. The base class contains a pointer to the first element of this array. In addition, it stores the constraint information.\ All derived classes contain the function `GetRadius`. In this way, `TTMParameterSet` is able to define a function, `GetVolume`, which returns the volume required to convert densities into total fireball quantities.\ `TTMParameterSetBSQ`, `TTMParameterSetBQ` and `TTMParameterSetCanBSQ` are the derived classes.\ ### `TTMParameterSetBSQ` This derived class, applicable to the grand-canonical ensemble, contains the parameters:\ ----- --------- --------- --------- --------- ------------ ------------ ------ $T$ $\mu_B$ $\mu_S$ $\mu_Q$ $\mu_C$ $\gamma_S$ $\gamma_C$ $R$, ----- --------- --------- --------- --------- ------------ ------------ ------ where $R$ is the fireball radius, assuming a spherical fireball (i.e. $V=4/3\pi R^3$). In addition, the $B/2Q$ ratio and charm and strangeness density of the system are stored here. In the constructor, all errors are defaulted to zero, as is $R$, $\mu_C$, $S/V$, $C/V$ and $B/2Q$, while $\gamma_C$ is defaulted to unity.\ Each parameter has a ‘getter’ (e.g. `GetTPar`), which returns a pointer to the requested `TTMParameter` object. In this class, $\mu_S$ and $\mu_Q$ can be set to constrain-type using `ConstrainMuS` and `ConstrainMuQ`, where the arguments are the required strangeness density and $B/2Q$ ratio, respectively. No such function exists for $\mu_C$, since constraining functions are not yet coded for the charm density. Each parameter of this class can be set to fit-type, using functions such as `FitT` (where the fit parameters have reasonable default values), or fixed-type, using functions such as `FixMuB`. ### `TTMParameterSetBQ` This derived class, applicable to the strangeness-canonical ensemble (strangeness exactly conserved and $B$ and $Q$ treated grand-canonically), has the parameters:\ ----- --------- --------- ------------ ------- ------ $T$ $\mu_B$ $\mu_Q$ $\gamma_S$ $R_c$ $R$, ----- --------- --------- ------------ ------- ------ where $R_c$ is the canonical or correlation radius; the radius inside which strangeness is exactly conserved. The fireball radius $R$, on the other hand, is used to convert densities into total fireball quantities. In addition, the required $B/2Q$ ratio is also stored, as well as the strangeness required inside the correlation volume (which must be an integer).\ In addition to the same ‘getters’ and ‘setters’ as the previous derived class, it is possible to set $\mu_Q$ to constrain-type by specifying the $B/2Q$ ratio in the argument of `ConstrainMuQ`. The strangeness required inside the canonical volume is set through the `SetS` method. This value is defaulted to zero. The function `ConserveSGlobally` fixes the canonical radius, $R_c$, to the fireball radius, $R$. As in the case of the `TTMParameterSetBSQ` class, there also exist functions to set each parameter to fit or fixed-type.\ ### `TTMParameterSetCanBSQ` This set, applicable to the canonical ensemble with exact conservation of $B$, $S$ and $Q$, contains the parameters:\ ----- ----- ----- ----- ------------ ------ $T$ $B$ $S$ $Q$ $\gamma_S$ $R$. ----- ----- ----- ----- ------------ ------ Since all conservation is exact, there are no chemical potentials to satisfy constraints. Again, the same ‘getters’, ‘setters’ and functions to set each parameter to fit or fixed-type exist, as in the case of the previously discussed `TTMParameterSet` derived classes.\ ### Example As an example, let us define a `TTMParameterSetBQ` object. By default, all parameters are initially of fixed-type. Suppose we wish to fit $T$ and $\mu_B$, and use $\mu_Q$ to constrain the $B/2Q$ ratio in the model to that in Pb+Pb collisions: root [ ] TTMParameterSetBQ parBQ(0.160,0.2,-0.01,0.8,6.,6.) root [ ] parBQ.FitT(0.160) root [ ] parBQ.FitMuB(0.2) root [ ] parBQ.ConstrainMuQ(1.2683) root [ ] parBQ.List() *************************** Thermal Parameters ************************ Strangeness inside Canonical Volume = 0 T = 0.16 (to be FITTED) start: 0.16 range: 0.05 -- 0.18 step: 0.001 muB = 0.2 (to be FITTED) start: 0.2 range: 0 -- 0.5 step: 0.001 muQ = -0.01 (to be CONSTRAINED) B/2Q: 1.2683 gammas = 0.8 (FIXED) Can. radius = 6 (FIXED) radius = 6 (FIXED) Parameters unconstrained ************************************************************************** Note the default parameters for the $T$ and $\mu_B$ fits. Obviously, no constraining or fitting can take place yet; we have simply signalled our intent to take these actions at some later stage. The `TTMThermalParticle` Class ------------------------------ By combining a `TTMParticle` and `TTMParameterSet` object, a thermal particle can be created. The `TTMThermalParticle` class is the base class from which thermal particle classes relevant to the three currently implemented thermal model formalisms, `TTMThermalParticleBSQ`, `TTMThermalParticleBQ` and `TTMThermalParticleCanBSQ`, are derived. Since no particle set is specified, the total fireball properties cannot be determined. Thus, in the grand-canonical approach, the constraints cannot yet be imposed to determine the values of the chemical potentials of constrain-type, while, in the strangeness-canonical and canonical formalisms, the canonical correction factors cannot yet be calculated. Instead, at this stage, the chemical potentials and/or correction factors must be specified.\ Use is made of the fact that, in the Boltzmann approximation, $E/V$, $N/V$ and $P$, in the canonical and strangeness-canonical ensembles, are simply the grand-canonical values, with the chemical potential(s) corresponding to the canonically-treated quantum number(s) set to zero, multiplied by a particle-specific correction factor. This allows the functions for calculating $E/V$, $N/V$ and $P$ in the Boltzmann approximation to be included in the base class, which then also contains the correction factor as a data member (by definition, this correction factor is 1 in the grand-canonical ensemble).\ Both functions including and excluding resonance width, $\Gamma$, are coded (e.g. `DensityBoltzmannNoWidth` and `EnergyBoltzmannWidth`). When width is included, a Breit-Wigner distribution is integrated over between the limits $[\mathrm{max}(m-2\Gamma,m_{\mathrm{threshold}}),m+2\Gamma]$.\ ### `TTMThermalParticleBSQ` This class is relevant to the grand-canonical treatment of $B$, $S$ and $Q$. In addition to the functions for calculating $E/V$, $N/V$ and $P$ in the Boltzmann approximation, defined in the base class, functions implementing quantum statistics for these quantities exist in this derived class (e.g. `EnergyQStatNoWidth` and `PressureQStatWidth`). Additional member functions of this class calculate the entropy using either Boltzmann or quantum statistics, with or without width.\ In the functions calculating the thermal quantities assuming quantum statistics, it is first checked that the integrals converge for the bosons (i.e. there is no Bose-Einstein condensation). The check is performed by the `ParametersAllowed` method. A warning is issued if there are problems and zero is returned.\ This class also accommodates charm, since the associated parameter set includes $\mu_C$ and $\gamma_C$, while the associated particle may have non-zero charm.\ ### `TTMThermalParticleBQ` This class is relevant to the strangeness-canonical ensemble. At present, this class is only applied in the Boltzmann approximation. Under this assumption, $N/V$, $E/V$ and $P$ are given by the grand-canonical result, with $\mu_S$ set to zero, up to a multiplicative correction factor. Since the total entropy does not split into the sum of particle entropies, no entropy calculation is made in this class.\ ### `TTMThermalParticleCanBSQ` This class is relevant to the fully canonical treatment of $B$, $S$ and $Q$. At present, as in the case of `TTMThermalParticleBQ`, this class is only applied in the Boltzmann approximation. Also, since the total entropy again does not split into the sum of particle entropies, no entropy calculation is made here.\ ### Example Let us construct a thermal particle, within the strangeness-canonical ensemble, from the $\Delta(1600)^0$ and the parameter set previously defined. Since this particle has zero strangeness, a correction factor of 1 is passed as the third argument of the constructor: root [ ] TTMThermalParticleBQ therm_delta(part,&parBQ,1.) root [ ] therm_delta.DensityBoltzmannNoWidth() (Double_t)8.15072671710089913e-04 root [ ] therm_delta.EnergyBoltzmannWidth() (Double_t)2.29185316377137748e-03 The `TTMThermalModel` Class --------------------------- Once a parameter and particle set have been specified, these can be combined into a thermal model. `TTMThermalModel` is the base class from which the `TTMThermalModelBSQ`, `TTMThermalModelBQ` and `TTMThermalModelCanBSQ`classes are derived. A string descriptor is included as a data member of the base class to identify the type of model. This is used, for example, to handle the fact that the number of parameters in the associated parameter sets is different, depending on the model type.\ All derived classes define functions to calculate the primordial particle, energy and entropy densities, as well as the pressure. These thermal quantities are stored in a hash table of `TTMDensObj` objects. Again, access is through the particle ID’s. In addition to the individual particles’ thermal quantities, the total primordial fireball strangeness, baryon, charge, charm, energy, entropy, and particle densities, pressure, and Wròblewski factor (see Section \[Wrob\]) are included as data members.\ At this level, the constraints on any chemical potentials of constrain-type can be imposed, and the correction factors in canonical treatments can be determined. Also, as soon as the primordial particle densities are known, the decay contributions can be calculated.\ ### Calculating Particle Densities Running `GenerateParticleDens` clears the current entries in the density hash table of the `TTMThermalModel` object, automatically constrains the chemical potentials (where applicable), calculates the canonical correction factors (where applicable), and then populates the density hash table with a `TTMDensObj` object for each particle in the associated set. The decay contributions to each stable particle are also calculated, so that the density hash table contains both primordial and decay particle density contributions, provided of course that the decays have been entered in the associated `TTMParticleSet` object. In addition, the Wròblewski factor and total strangeness, baryon, charge, charm and particle densities in the fireball are calculated.\ Note: The summary decay lists of the associated `TTMParticleSet` object are used to calculate the decay contributions. Hence, only stable particles have decay contributions reflected in the hash table. Unstable particles that are themselves fed by higher-lying resonances, do not receive a decay contribution.\ Each derived class contains the private function `PrimPartDens`, which calculates only the primordial particle densities and, hence, the canonical correction factors, where applicable. In the case of the grand-canonical and strangeness-canonical ensembles, this function calculates the densities without automatically constraining the chemical potentials of constrain-type first. The constraining is handled by `GenerateParticleDens`, which calls external friend functions, which, in turn, call `PrimPartDens`. In the purely canonical ensemble, `GenerateParticleDens` simply calls `PrimPartDens`. In this way, there is uniformity between the derived classes. Since there is no constraining to be done, there is no real need for a separate function in the canonical case.\ ### Calculating Energy and Entropy Densities and Pressure `GenerateEnergyDens`, `GenerateEntropyDens` and `GeneratePressure` iterate through the existing density hash table and calculate and insert, respectively, the primordial energy density, entropy density and pressure of each particle in the set. In addition, they calculate the total primordial energy density, entropy density and pressure in the fireball, respectively. These functions require that the density hash table already be in existence. In other words, `GenerateParticleDens` must already have been run. If the parameters have subsequently changed, then this function must be run yet again to recalculate the correction factors or re-constrain the parameters, as required.\ ### Bose-Einstein Condensation When quantum statistics are taken into account (e.g. in `TTMThermalModelBSQ` or for the non-strange particles in `TTMThermalModelBQ`), certain choices of parameters lead to diverging integrals for the bosons (Bose-Einstein condensation). In these classes, a check, based on `TTMThermalParticleBSQ::Parameters-` `Allowed`, is included to ensure that the parameters do not lead to problems. Including also the possibility of incomplete strangeness and/or charm saturation (i.e. $\gamma_S\neq1$ and/or $\gamma_C\neq1$), Bose-Einstein condensation is avoided, provided that, $$e^{\left(m_i-\mu_i\right)/T} > \gamma_S^{\left\|S_i\right\|}\gamma_C^{\left\|C_i\right\|},$$ for each boson. If this condition is failed to be met for any of the bosons in the set, a warning is issued and the densities are not calculated.\ ### Accessing the Thermal Densities The entries in the density hash table are accessed using the particle Monte Carlo ID’s. The function `GetDensities(Int_t ID)` returns the `TTMDensObj` object containing the thermal quantities of the particle with the specified ID. The primordial particle, energy, and entropy densities, pressure, and decay density are extracted from this object using the `GetPrimDensity`, `GetPrimEnergy`, `GetPrimEntropy`, `GetPrimPressure`, and `GetDecayDensity` functions of the `TTMDensObj` class, respectively. The sum of the primordial and decay particle densities is returned by `TTMDensObj::GetFinalDensity`. `TTMDensObj::List` outputs to screen all thermal densities stored in a`TTMDensObj` object.\ `ListStableDensities` lists the densities (primordial and decay contributions) of all those particles considered stable in the particle set associated with the model. Access to the total fireball densities is through separate ‘getters’ defined in the `TTMThermalModel` base class (e.g. `GetStrange`, `GetBaryon` etc.).\ ### Further Functions `GenerateDecayPartDens` and `GenerateDecayPartDens(Int_t id)` (both defined in the base class) calculate decay contributions to stable particles. The former iterates through the density hash table and calculates the decay contributions to all those particles considered stable in the set. The latter calculates just the contribution to the stable particle with the specified ID. In both cases, the primordial densities must be calculated first. In fact, `GenerateParticleDens` automatically calls `GenerateDecayPartDens`, so that this function does not have to be run separately under ordinary circumstances. However, if one is interested in investigating the effect of decays, while keeping the parameters (and hence the primordial densities) fixed, then running these functions is best (the hash table will not be repeatedly cleared and repopulated with the same primordial densities).\ `ListDecayContributions(Int_t d_id)` lists the contributions (in percentage and absolute terms) of decays to the daughter with the specified ID. The primordial and decay densities must already appear in the density hash table (i.e. run `GenerateParticleDens` first). `ListDecayContribution(Int_t p_id, Int_t d_id)` lists the contribution of the decay from the specified parent (with ID `p_id`) to the specified daughter (with ID `d_id`). The percentages listed by each of these functions are those of the individual decays to the total decay density.\ Next we consider the specific features of the derived `TTMThermalModel` classes. ### `TTMThermalModelBSQ` In the grand-canonical ensemble, quantum statistics can be employed and, hence, there is a flag specifying whether to use Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein statistics or Boltzmann statistics. The constructor, by default, includes both the effect of quantum statistics and resonance width. The flags controlling their inclusion are set using the `SetQStats` and `SetWidth` functions, respectively. The functions that calculate the particle, energy, and entropy densities, and pressure then use the corresponding functions in the `TTMThermalParticleBSQ` class to calculate these quantities in the required way. The statistics data member (`fStat`) of each `TTMParticle` included in the associated set can be used to fine-tune the inclusion of quantum statistics; with the quantum statistics flag switched on, Boltzmann statistics are still used for those particles with `fStat=0`.\ In this ensemble, at this stage, both $\mu_S$ and $\mu_Q$ can be constrained (either separately or simultaneously). In order to accomplish this, the $\mu_S$ and/or $\mu_Q$ parameters in the associated `TTMParameterSetBSQ` object must be set to constrain-type.\ It is also possible to constrain $\mu_B$ by the primordial ratio $E/N$ (the average energy per hadron), $n_b+n_{\bar{b}}$ (the total primordial baryon plus anti-baryon density), or $s/T^3$ (the primordial, temperature-normalised entropy density). This is accomplished by the $\texttt{ConstrainEoverN}$, $\texttt{ConstrainTotalBaryonDensity}$ and $\texttt{ConstrainSoverT3}$ methods, respectively. Running these functions will adjust $\mu_B$ such that $E/N$, $n_b+n_{\bar{b}}$ or $s/T^3$, respectively, has the required value, regardless of the parameter type of $\mu_B$. In addition, the percolation model [@perc] can be imposed to constrain $\mu_B$ using `ConstrainPercolation`.\ This class also accommodates charm, since the associated parameter set includes $\mu_C$ and $\gamma_C$, while the associated particle set may contain charmed particles. However, no constraining functions have yet been written for the charm content within this ensemble.\ Within the grand-canonical ensemble, it is possible to include excluded volume effects. Their inclusion is controlled by the `fExclVolCorrection` flag, false by default, which is set through the `SetExcludedVolume` function. When included, these corrections are calculated on calling [GenerateParticleDens]{}, based on the hard-sphere radii stored in the `TTMParticle` objects of the associated particle set.\ ### `TTMThermalModelBQ` This class contains the following additional data members:\ ------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- `flnZtot` - log of the total partition function, `flnZ0` - log of the non-strange component of the partition function, `fExactMuS` - equivalent strangeness chemical potential, `fCorrP1` - canonical correction for S = +1 particles, `fCorrP2` - canonical correction for S = +2 particles, `fCorrP3` - canonical correction for S = +3 particles, `fCorrM1` - canonical correction for S = -1 particles, `fCorrM2` - canonical correction for S = -2 particles, `fCorrM3` - canonical correction for S = -3 particles. ------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- \ Although this ensemble is only applied in the Boltzmann approximation for $S\neq0$ hadrons, it is possible to apply quantum statistics to the $S=0$ hadrons. This is achieved through the `SetNonStrangeQStats` function. By default, quantum statistics is included for the non-strange hadrons by the constructors. Resonance width can be included for all hadrons, and is achieved through the `SetWidth` function. The constructors, by default, apply resonance width. The functions that calculate the particle, energy, and entropy densities, and pressure then use the corresponding functions in the `TTMThermalParticle` classes to calculate these quantities in the required way.\ `GenerateParticleDens` populates the density hash table with particle densities, including the canonical correction factors, which are also stored in the appropriate data members. The equivalent strangeness chemical potential is calculated from the canonical correction factor for $S=+1$ particles. In the limit of large $VT^3$, this approaches the value of $\mu_S$ in the equivalent grand-canonical treatment.\ Running `GenerateEntropyDens` populates each `TTMDensObj` object in the hash table with only that part of the total entropy that can be unambiguously attributed to that particular particle. There is a term in the total entropy that cannot be split; this is added to the total entropy at the end, but not included in the individual entropies (i.e. summing up the entropy contributions of each particle will not give the total entropy).\ At this stage, in this formalism, $\mu_Q$ can be constrained (this is automatically realised if this parameter is set to constrain-type), while the correlation radius ($R_c$) can be set to the fireball radius ($R$) by applying the function `ConserveSGlobally` to the associated `TTMParameterSetBQ` object.\ In exactly the same way as in the grand-canonical ensemble case, $\mu_B$ can be constrained in this ensemble by the primordial ratio $E/N$ (the average energy per hadron), $n_b+n_{\bar{b}}$ (the total primordial baryon plus anti-baryon density), or $s/T^3$ (the primordial, temperature-normalised entropy density), as well as by the percolation model.\ ### `TTMThermalModelCanBSQ` This class contains, amongst others, the following data members:\ ------------------ --------------------------------------------------- `flnZtot` - log of the total canonical partition function, `fMuB,fMuS,fMuQ` - equivalent chemical potentials, `fCorrpip` - correction for $\pi^+$-like particles, `fCorrpim` - correction for $\pi^-$-like particles, `fCorrkm` - correction for $K^-$-like particles, `fCorrkp` - correction for $K^+$-like particles, `fCorrk0` - correction for $K^0$-like particles, `fCorrak0` - correction for $\bar{K}^0$-like particles, `fCorrproton` - correction for $p$-like particles, `fCorraproton` - correction for $\bar{p}$-like particles, `fCorrneutron` - correction for $n$-like particles, `fCorraneutron` - correction for $\bar{n}$-like particles, `fCorrlambda` - correction for $\Lambda$-like particles, `fCorralambda` - correction for $\bar{\Lambda}$-like particles, `fCorrsigmap` - correction for $\Sigma^+$-like particles, `fCorrasigmap` - correction for $\bar{\Sigma}^-$-like particles, `fCorrsigmam` - correction for $\Sigma^-$-like particles, `fCorrasigmam` - correction for $\bar{\Sigma}^+$-like particles, `fCorrdeltam` - correction for $\Delta^-$-like particles, ------------------ --------------------------------------------------- ----------------- ------------------------------------------------------ `fCorradeltam` - correction for $\bar{\Delta}^+$-like particles, `fCorrdeltapp` - correction for $\Delta^{++}$-like particles, `fCorradeltapp` - correction for $\bar{\Delta}^{--}$-like particles, `fCorrksim` - correction for $\Xi^{-}$-like particles, `fCorraksim` - correction for $\bar{\Xi}^+$-like particles, `fCorrksi0` - correction for $\Xi^0$-like particles, `fCorraksi0` - correction for $\bar{\Xi}^0$-like particles, `fCorromega` - correction for $\Omega^-$-like particles, `fCorraomega` - correction for $\bar{\Omega}^+$-like particles. ----------------- ------------------------------------------------------ \ Since this ensemble is only applied in the Boltzmann approximation, there is no flag for quantum statistics. However, resonance width can be included. This is achieved through the `SetWidth` function. The constructor, by default, applies resonance width. The functions that calculate the particle, energy, and entropy densities, and pressure then use the corresponding functions in the `TTMThermalParticle` classes to calculate these quantities in the required way.\ `GenerateParticleDens` calls `PrimPartDens`, which calculates the particle densities, including the canonical correction factors, which are then also stored in the relevant data members accessible through the `GetCorrFactor` method. The integrands featuring in the evaluation of the partition function and correction factors can be viewed after calling `PopulateZHistograms`. This function populates the array passed as argument with histograms showing these integrands as a function of the integration variables $\phi_S$ and $\phi_Q$. Since these histograms are created off of the heap, they must be cleaned up afterwards.\ `GenerateEntropyDens` acts in exactly the same way as in the strangeness-canonical ensemble case.\ ### Example As an example, we consider the strangeness-canonical ensemble, based on the particle set and strangeness-canonical parameter set previously defined. After instantiating the object, we populate the hash table with primordial and decay particle densities: root [ ] TTMThermalModelBQ modBQ(&set,&parBQ) root [ ] modBQ.GenerateParticleDens() root [ ] parBQ.List() ************************* Thermal Parameters ************************** Strangeness inside Canonical Volume = 0 T = 0.16 (to be FITTED) start: 0.16 range: 0.05 -- 0.18 step: 0.001 muB = 0.2 (to be FITTED) start: 0.2 range: 0 -- 0.5 step: 0.001 muQ = -0.00636409 (CONSTRAINED) B/2Q: 1.2683 gammas = 0.8 (FIXED) Can. radius = 6 (FIXED) radius = 6 (FIXED) B/2Q Successfully Constrained ****************************************************************************** One notices that the constraint on $\mu_Q$ is now automatically imposed.\ The energy and entropy densities and pressure can be calculated once `GenerateParticleDens` has been run: root [ ] modBQ.GenerateEnergyDens() root [ ] modBQ.GenerateEntropyDens() root [ ] modBQ.GeneratePressure() Now, suppose that we are interested in the thermal densities of the $\Delta(1600)^0$ and $\pi^+$: root [ ] TTMDensObj delta_dens = modBQ.GetDensities(32114) root [ ] delta_dens->List() * Densities for Particle 32114 ** n_prim = 0.00138306 n_decay = 0 e_prim = 0.0022912 s_prim = 0.0139745 p_prim = 0.000221328 root [ ] TTMDensObj piplus_dens = modBQ.GetDensities(211) root [ ] piplus_dens->List() * Densities for Particle 211 n_prim = 0.0488139 n_decay = 0.119683 e_prim = 0.0247039 s_prim = 0.20276 p_prim = 0.00742708 One notices that the $\pi^+$ has a decay density contribution, while the $\Delta(1600)^0$ does not. This is because, unlike the $\Delta(1600)^0$, the $\pi^+$ was considered stable.\ ### Imposing of Constraints The ‘Numerical Recipes in C’ [@NRC] function applying the Broyden globally convergent secant method of solving nonlinear systems of equations is employed by THERMUS to constrain parameters. The input to the Broyden method is a vector of functions for which roots are sought. Typically, in the thermal model, solutions to the following equations are required (either separately or simultaneously):\ $$\begin{aligned} \left({B/V \over 2Q/V}\right)_{primordial}^{model} - \left({B \over 2Q}\right)^{colliding\;system} &=& 0,\\ S_{primordial}^{model} - S^{colliding\;system} &=& 0,\\ \left({E/V \over N/V}\right)_{primordial}^{model} - \left(E \over N\right)^{required} &=& 0.\end{aligned}$$ Although, as written, these equations are correct, the quantities $B/2Q$, $S$ and $E/N$ are typically of different orders of magnitude. Since the Broyden method in ‘Numerical Recipes in C’ defines just one tolerance level for function convergence (`TOLF`), it is important to ‘normalise’ each equation: $$\begin{aligned} \left\{\left({B/V \over 2Q/V}\right)_{primordial}^{model} - \left({B \over 2Q}\right)^{colliding\;system}\right\} / \left({B \over 2Q}\right)^{colliding\;system} &=& 0,\\ \left\{S_{primordial}^{model} - S^{colliding\;system}\right\} / S^{colliding\;system} &=& 0,\\ \left\{\left({E/V \over N/V}\right)_{primordial}^{model} - \left({E \over N}\right)^{required}\right\} / \left({E \over N}\right)^{required}&=& 0.\end{aligned}$$ This is the most democratic way of treating the constraints. However, this method obviously fails in the event of one of the denominators being zero. For the equations considered above, this is only likely in the case of the strangeness constraint, where the initial strangeness content is typically zero. In this case, where the strangeness carried by the positively strange particles $S_+$ is balanced by the strangeness carried by the negatively strange particles $S_-$, we write as our function to be satisfied, $$\begin{aligned} \left(S/V\right)_{primordial}^{model}/ \left(\|S_+\|_{primordial}^{model}/V+\|S_-\|_{primordial}^{model}/V\right) &=& 0.\end{aligned}$$ In this way, the constraints can be satisfied to equal relative degrees, and equally well fractionally at each point in the parameter space. In addition to the constraints listed above, THERMUS also allows for the constraining of the total baryon plus anti-baryon density and the temperature-normalised entropy density, $s/T^3$, as well as the imposing of the percolation model.\ ### Calculation of the Wròblewski Factor {#Wrob} The Wròblewski factor [@Wrob] is defined as, $$\begin{aligned} \lambda_S &=& \frac{2<s\bar{s}>}{<u\bar{u}>+<d\bar{d}>},\end{aligned}$$ where $<u\bar{u}>+<d\bar{d}>$ is the sum of newly-produced $u\bar{u}$ and $d\bar{d}$ pairs, while all $s\bar{s}$ pairs are newly-produced if $S=0$ in the initial state.\ In THERMUS, $\lambda_S$ is calculated in the following way: - [Using the primordial particle densities and the strangeness content of each particle listed in the particle hash table, the $s + \bar{s}$ and $u + d + \bar{u} + \bar{d}$ densities are determined.]{} - [Assuming $S=0$, $\#s = \#\bar{s}$, and so the density of newly-produced $s\bar{s}$ pairs is simply $(s + \bar{s})/2$]{}. - [From baryon number conservation, the net baryon content in the system, $n_B$, originates from the initial state. Thus, $3\times n_B$ must correspond to the density of $u+d$ quarks brought in by the colliding nuclei. This is subtracted from the total $u + d + \bar{u} + \bar{d}$ density to yield the density of newly-produced non-strange light quarks.]{} - [Since $\#s=\#\bar{s}$ and, amongst newly-produced non-strange light quarks, $u+d=\bar{u}+\bar{d}$, further assuming that $\mu_Q=0$ implies that $u=\bar{u}=d=\bar{d}$. This allows the density of $u\bar{u}$ and $d\bar{d}$ pairs to be easily determined.]{} Thermal Fit Preliminaries ------------------------- Often a single experiment releases yields and ratios that contain different feed-down corrections. Each yield or ratio then has a different decay chain associated with it. Since `TTMThermalModel` objects allow for just one associated particle set, they do not allow sufficient flexibility for performing thermal fits to experimental data. However, `TTMThermalFit` classes do feature such flexibility. Before we discuss these classes, let us look at the `TTMYield` object, which forms an essential part of the `TTMThermalFit` class.\ ### `TTMYield` Information relating to both yields and ratios of yields can be stored in `TTMYield` objects. These objects contain the following data members:\ --------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- `fName` - the name of the yield or ratio, `fID1` - the ID of the yield or numerator ID in the case of a ratio, `fID2` - denominator ID in the case of a ratio (0 for a yield), `fFit` - true if the yield or ratio is to be included in a fit (else predicted), `fSet1` - particle set relevant to yield or numerator in case of ratio, `fSet2` - particle set relevant to denominator in case of ratio (0 for yield), `fExpValue` - the experimental value, `fExpError` - the experimental error, `fModelValue` - the model value, `fModelError` - the model error. --------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \ By default, `TTMYield` objects are set for inclusion in fits. The functions `Fit` and `Predict` control the fit-status of a `TTMYield` object. Particle sets (decay chains) are assigned using the `SetPartSet` method.\ The functions `GetStdDev` and `GetQuadDev` return the number of standard and quadratic deviations between model and experimental values, respectively, i.e., $$\begin{aligned} (\mathrm{Model\;Value- Exp.\;Value})/\mathrm{Exp.\;Error},\end{aligned}$$ and, $$\begin{aligned} (\mathrm{Model\;Value - Exp.\;Value})/\mathrm{Model\;Value},\end{aligned}$$ respectively, while `List` outputs the contents of a `TTMYield` object to screen. Access to all remaining data members is through the relevant ‘getters’ and ‘setters’.\ The `TTMThermalFit` Class ------------------------- This is the base class from which the `TTMThermalFitBSQ`, `TTMThermalFitBQ` and `TTMThermalFitCanBSQ` classes are derived. Each `TTMThermalFit` object contains: - [a particle set, the so-called base set, which contains all of the constituents of the hadron gas, as well as the default decay chain to be used;]{} - [a parameter set;]{} - [a list of `TTMYield` objects containing yields and/or ratios of interest;]{} - [data members storing the total $\chi^2$ and quadratic deviation; and]{} - [a `TMinuit` fit object.]{} A string descriptor is also included in the base class to identify the type of model on which the fit is based. This is used, for example, to determine the number of parameters in the associated parameter sets.\ Each derived class defines a private function, `GenerateThermalModel`, which creates (off the heap) a thermal model object, based on the base particle set and parameter set of the `TTMThermalFit` object, with the specific quantum statistics/resonance width/excluded volume requirements, where applicable.\ ### Populating and Customising the List of Yields of Interest The list of yields and/or ratios of interest can be input from file using the function `InputExpYields`, provided that the file has the following format: 333 Exp_A 0.02 0.01 -211 211 Exp_B 0.990 0.100 -211 211 Exp_C 0.960 0.177 321 -321 Exp_C 1.152 0.239 where the first line corresponds to a yield, and has format:\ `Yield ID /t Descriptor string /t Exp. Value /t Exp. Error/n`\ while the remaining lines correspond to ratios, and have format:\ `Numerator ID /t Denominator ID /t Descriptor string /t Exp. Value /t Exp. Error/n`\ A `TTMYield` object is created off the heap for each line in the file, with a name derived from the ID’s and the descriptor. This name is determined by the private function `GetName`, which uses the base particle set to convert the particle ID’s into particle names and appends the descriptor. In addition to all of the Monte Carlo particle ID’s in the associated base particle set, the following THERMUS-defined identifiers are also allowed: - [ID = 1: $N_{part}$,]{} - [ID = 2: $h^-$,]{} - [ID = 3: $h^+$.]{} A `TTMYield` object can also be added to the list using `AddYield`. Such yields should, however, have names that are consistent with those added by the `InputExpYields` method; the `GetName` function should be used to ensure this consistency. Only yields with unique names can be added to the list, since it is this name which allows retrieval of the `TTMYield` objects from the list. If a yield with the same name already exists in the list, a warning is issued. The inclusion of descriptors ensures that `TTMYield` objects can always be given unique names.\ `RemoveYield(Int_t id1,Int_t id2,TString descr)` removes from the list and deletes the yield with the name derived from the specified ID’s and descriptor by `GetName`. The `GetYield(Int_t id1,Int_t id2,TString descr)` method returns the required yield.\ ### Generating Model Values Values for each of the yields of interest listed in a `TTMThermalFit` object are calculated by the function `GenerateYields`. This method uses the current parameter values and assigned particle sets to calculate these model values.\ `GenerateYields` firstly calculates the primordial particle densities of all constituents listed in the base particle set. This it does by creating the relevant `TTMThermalModel` object from the base particle set and the parameters, and then calling `GenerateParticleDens`. In this way, the density hash table of the newly-formed `TTMThermalModel` object is populated with primordial densities, as well as decay contributions, according to the base particle set (recall that `GenerateParticleDens` automatically calculates decay contributions in addition to primordial ones). `GenerateYields` then iterates through the list of `TTMYield` objects, calculating their specific decay contributions. New model values are then inserted into these `TTMYield` objects. In addition, the total $\chi^2$ and quadratic deviation are calculated, based solely on the `TTMYield` objects which are of fit-type. `ListYields` lists all `TTMYield` objects in the list.\ ### Performing a Fit The `FitData(Int_t flag)` method initiates a fit to all experimental yields or ratios in the `TTMYield` list which are of fit-type. With `flag=0`, a $\chi^2$ fit is performed, while `flag=1` leads to a quadratic deviation fit. In both cases, `fit_function` is called. This function determines which parameters of the associated parameter set are to be fit, and performs the required fit using the ROOT `TMinuit` fit class. On completion, the list of `TTMYield` objects contains the model values, while the parameter set reflects the best-fit parameters. Model values are calculated by the `GenerateYields` method. For each `TTMYield` object in the list, a model value is calculated– even those that have been chosen to be excluded from the actual fit. In this way, model predictions can be determined at the same time as a fit is performed. `ListMinuitInfo` lists all information relating to the `TMinuit` object, following a fit. ### `TTMThermalFitBSQ`, `TTMThermalFitBQ` and `TTMThermalFitCanBSQ` The constructor in each of these derived classes instantiates an object with the specified base particle set and parameter set and inputs the yields listed in the specified file in the `TTMYield` list.\ The specifics of the fit, i.e. the treatment of quantum statistics (in the grand-canonical ensemble and for the non-strange particles in the strangeness-canonical ensemble), resonance width (in all three ensembles) and excluded volume corrections (in the grand-canonical ensemble), are handled through the `SetQStats`/ `SetNonStrangeQStats`, `SetWidth` and `SetExclVol` methods, respectively. By default, both resonance width and quantum statistics are included, while excluded volume corrections are excluded, where applicable.\ ### Example As an example to conclude this section, consider a fit to fictitious particle ratios measured in Au+Au collisions at some energy. We will assume a grand-canonical ensemble, with the parameters $T$, $\mu_B$ and $\mu_S$ fitted, and $\mu_Q$ fixed to zero. In the grand-canonical ensemble, ratios are independent of the fireball radius (this is not true in the canonical ensemble). For this reason, there is no need to specify the treatment of the radius. Furthermore, we will ignore the effects of resonance width and quantum statistics.\ We begin by instantiating a particle set object, based on the particle list distributed with THERMUS. After inputting the particle decays (scaled to 100%), a parameter set is defined: root [ ] TTMParticleSet set("$THERMUS/particles/PartList_PPB2002.txt") root [ ] set.InputDecays("$THERMUS/particles/",true) root [ ] TTMParameterSetBSQ par(0.160,0.05,0.,0.,1.) Next, we change the parameters $T$, $\mu_B$ and $\mu_S$ to fit-type, supplying sensible starting values as the arguments to the appropriate functions. For all other properties of the fit (step size, fit range etc.), we accept the default values: root [ ] par.FitT(0.160) root [ ] par.FitMuB(0.05) root [ ] par.FitMuS(0.) Next, we prepare a file (‘ExpData.txt’) containing the experimental data: -211 211 Exp_A 0.990 0.100 -211 211 Exp_B 0.960 0.177 -211 211 Exp_D 1.000 0.022 321 -321 Exp_B 1.152 0.239 321 -321 Exp_D 1.098 0.111 321 -321 Exp_C 1.108 0.022 -2212 2212 Exp_A 0.650 0.092 -2212 2212 Exp_B 0.679 0.148 -2212 2212 Exp_D 0.600 0.072 -2212 2212 Exp_C 0.714 0.050 -3122 3122 Exp_B 0.734 0.210 -3122 3122 Exp_C 0.720 0.024 -3312 3312 Exp_C 0.878 0.054 -3334 3334 Exp_C 1.062 0.410 As one can see, there are multiple occurrences of the same particle–anti-particle combination. This is why additional descriptors are required. In this case, the descriptors list the particular experiment responsible for the measurement. In other situations, the descriptors may describe whether feed-down corrections have been employed or some other relevant detail that, together with the ID’s, uniquely identifies each yield or ratio.\ We are now in a position to create a `TTMThermalFitBSQ` object based on the newly-instantiated parameter and particle sets and the data file. Since quantum statistics and resonance width are included by default, we have to explicitly turn these settings off: root [ ] TTMThermalFitBSQ fit(&set,&par,"ExpData.txt") root [ ] fit.SetQStats(kFALSE) root [ ] fit.SetWidth(kFALSE) Next, let us simply generate the model values corresponding to each of the `TTMYield` objects in the list, based on the current parameters. Part of the output of `ListYields` is shown here: root [ ] fit.GenerateYields() root [ ] fit.ListYields() **************************** - - - K+/anti-K+ Exp_B: FIT YIELD Experiment: 1.152 +- 0.239 Model: 0.979833 +- 0 Std.Dev.: -0.720365 Quad.Dev.: -0.175711 K+/anti-K+ Exp_D: FIT YIELD Experiment: 1.098 +- 0.111 Model: 0.979833 +- 0 Std.Dev.: -1.06457 Quad.Dev.: -0.120599 K+/anti-K+ Exp_C: FIT YIELD Experiment: 1.108 +- 0.022 Model: 0.979833 +- 0 Std.Dev.: -5.82578 Quad.Dev.: -0.130805 anti-p/p Exp_A: FIT YIELD Experiment: 0.65 +- 0.092 Model: 0.535261 +- 0 Std.Dev.: -1.24716 Quad.Dev.: -0.21436 - - - ************************************************************************** Finally, we perform a $\chi^2$ fit: root [ ] fit.FitData(0) - - - COVARIANCE MATRIX CALCULATED SUCCESSFULLY FCN=3.54326 FROM MIGRAD STATUS=CONVERGED 128 CALLS 129 TOTAL EDM=6.43919e-06 STRATEGY= 1 ERROR MATRIX ACCURATE EXT PARAMETER STEP FIRST NO. NAME VALUE ERROR SIZE DERIVATIVE 1 T 1.62878e-01 1.10211e-01 2.32021e-04 -7.98809e-03 2 muB 3.58908e-02 1.91364e-02 1.68543e-05 4.05740e-03 3 muS 1.06828e-02 8.13945e-03 1.80744e-05 1.25485e-01 EXTERNAL ERROR MATRIX. NDIM= 25 NPAR= 3 ERR DEF=1 4.593e-03 1.289e-03 5.418e-04 1.289e-03 3.689e-04 1.548e-04 5.418e-04 1.548e-04 6.653e-05 PARAMETER CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS NO. GLOBAL 1 2 3 1 0.99017 1.000 0.990 0.980 2 0.99410 0.990 1.000 0.988 3 0.98814 0.980 0.988 1.000 FCN=3.54326 FROM MIGRAD STATUS=CONVERGED 128 CALLS 129 TOTAL EDM=6.43919e-06 STRATEGY= 1 ERROR MATRIX ACCURATE EXT PARAMETER PHYSICAL LIMITS NO. NAME VALUE ERROR NEGATIVE POSITIVE 1 T 1.62878e-01 1.10211e-01 5.00000e-02 1.80000e-01 2 muB 3.58908e-02 1.91364e-02 0.00000e+00 5.00000e-01 3 muS 1.06828e-02 8.13945e-03 0.00000e+00 5.00000e-01 Once completed, the associated parameter set contains the best-fit values for the fit parameters: root [ ] par.List() ************************* Thermal Parameters ************************ T = 0.162878 +- 0.110211 (FITTED!) start: 0.16 range: 0.05 -- 0.18 step: 0.001 muB = 0.0358908 +- 0.0191364 (FITTED!) start: 0.05 range: 0 -- 0.5 step: 0.001 muS = 0.0106828 +- 0.00813945 (FITTED!) start: 0 range: 0 -- 0.5 step: 0.001 muQ = 0 (FIXED) gammas = 1 (FIXED) radius = 0 (FIXED) muC = 0 (FIXED) gammac = 1 (FIXED) Parameters unconstrained ************************************************************************** Installation of THERMUS ======================= Having introduced the basic functionality of THERMUS in the previous section, we conclude by outlining the installation procedure.\ Since several functions in THERMUS use ‘Numerical Recipes in C’ code [@NRC] (which is under copyright), it is required that THERMUS users have their own copies of this software. Then, with ROOT [@Root] already installed, the following steps are to be followed to install THERMUS: - [Download the THERMUS source;]{} - [Set an environment variable ‘THERMUS’ to point at the top-level directory containing the THERMUS code;]{} - [Copy the following ‘Numerical Recipes in C’ [@NRC] functions to `$(THERMUS)/nrc`: ]{} - [Use the makefiles in `$(THERMUS)/functions`, `$(THERMUS)/nrc` and `$(THERMUS)/main` to build the `libFunctions.so`, `libNRCFunctions.so` and `libTHERMUS.so` shared object files (run `make all` in each of these directories);]{} - Finally, open a ROOT session, load the libraries and begin: root [ ] gSystem->Load("./lib/libFunctions.so"); root [ ] gSystem->Load("./lib/libNRCFunctions.so"); root [ ] gSystem->Load("./lib/libTHERMUS.so"); - - - [999]{} A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, Nucl. Phys. A772 (2006) 167. J. Cleymans, H. Oeschler, K. Redlich, S. Wheaton, Phys. Rev. C73 (2006) 034905. F. Becattini, J. Manninen, M. Gazdzicki, Phys. Rev. C73 (2006) 044905. For a recent review see F. Becattini, plenary talk presented at Quark Matter 2008, Jaipur, India, Feb 4 - 10, 2008. P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, J. Stachel, nucl-th/0304013 and in Quark Gluon Plasma 3, eds. R.C. Hwa and X.N. Wang, (World Scientific Publishing, 2004). G. Torrieri, S. Steinke, W. Broniowski, W. Florkowski, J. Letessier, J. Rafelski, Comput. Phys. Commun. [167]{} (2005) 229. G. Torrieri, S. Jeon, J. Letessier, J. Rafelski, Comput. Phys. Commun. [175]{} (2006) 635. A. Kisiel, T. Taluć, W. Broniowski, W. Florkowski, Comput. Phys. Commun. [174]{} (2006) 669. R. Brun and F. Rademakers, Nucl. Inst. & Meth. in Phys. Res. A [389]{} (1997) 81.\ See also http://root.cern.ch/. J. Cleymans, I. Kraus, H. Oeschler, K. Redlich and S. Wheaton, Phys. Rev. C [74]{} (2006) 034903. I. Kraus, J. Cleymans, H. Oeschler, K. Redlich and S. Wheaton, J. Phys. G[32]{} (2006) S495. H. Caines, J. Phys. G[32]{} (2006) S171. L.A. Stiles and M. Murray, nucl-ex/0601039. J. Takahashi (for the STAR Collaboration), nucl-ex/0711.2273. M. Murray (for the BRAHMS Collaboration), nucl-ex/0710.4576. M.I. Gorenstein, M. Hauer, O.N. Moroz, nucl-th/0708.0137. R. Witt, J. Phys. G[34]{} (2007) S921. B. Hippolyte, Eur. Phys. J. [C49]{} (2007) 121. J. Cleymans, R. Sahoo, D.P. Mahapatra, D.K. Srivastava and S. Wheaton, Phys. Lett. [B660]{} (2008) 172. M. Hauer, V.V. Begun and M.I. Gorenstein, nucl-th/0706.3290. M.I. Gorenstein, M. Hauer, D.O. Nikolajenko, Phys. Rev. C [76]{} (2007) 024901. V.V. Begun, M. Gaździcki, M.I. Gorenstein, M. Hauer, V.P. Konchakovski and B. Lungwitz, Phys. Rev. C [76]{} (2007) 024902. F. Becattini, Z. Phys. C [69]{} (1996) 485. F. Becattini and U. Heinz, Z. Phys. C [76]{} (1997) 269. J. Cleymans, D. Elliott, A. Keränen and E. Suhonen, Phys. Rev. C [57]{} (1998) 3319. K. Redlich, J. Cleymans, H. Oeschler and A. Tounsi, Acta Physica Polonica [B33]{} (2002) 1609. F. Becattini, J. Cleymans, A. Keränen, E. Suhonen, K. Redlich, Phys. Rev. C [64]{} (2001) 024901. P. Braun-Munzinger, I. Heppe, J. Stachel, Phys. Lett. [B465*]{} (1999) 15. P. Braun-Munzinger et al., Phys. Lett. [B344]{} (1995) 43, ibid.* [B365]{} (1996) 1. P. Braun-Munzinger, D. Magestro, K. Redlich and J. Stachel, Phys. Lett. [B518]{} (2001) 41. J. Sollfrank, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [23]{} (1997) 1903. W. Broniowski and W. Florkowski, Phys. Rev. C [65]{} (2002) 064905. W. Florkowski, W. Broniowski and M. Michalec, Acta Physica Polonica [B33]{} (2002) 761. N. Xu and M. Kaneta, Nucl. Phys. [A698]{} (2002) 306c. M. Kaneta (for the NA44 Collaboration), J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [23]{} (1997) 1865;\ M. Kaneta and N. Xu, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [27]{} (2001) 589. J. Cleymans and K. Redlich, Phys. Rev. Lett. [81]{} (1998) 5284;\ J. Cleymans and K. Redlich, Phys. Rev. C [60]{} (1999) 054908. A. Keränen and F. Becattini, nucl-th/0112021. P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Cleymans, H. Oeschler and K. Redlich, Nucl. Phys. [A697]{} (2002) 902. J. Cleymans, H. Oeschler and K. Redlich, Phys. Lett. [B485]{} (2000) 27;\ K. Redlich, S. Hamieh and A. Tounsi, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [27]{} (2001) 413. J. Cleymans, H. Oeschler and K. Redlich, Phys. Rev. C [59]{} (1999) 1663. J. Sollfrank, P. Koch and U. Heinz, Z. Phys. C [52]{} (1991) 593. M. Kaneta and N. Xu, nucl-th/0405068. J. Cleymans, B. Kämpfer, M. Kaneta, S. Wheaton and N. Xu, Phys. Rev. C [71]{} (2005) 054901. F. Becattini, M. Gaździcki and J. Sollfrank, Eur. Phys. J. C [5]{} (1998) 143. J. Rafelski, Phys. Lett. [B262]{} (1991) 333;\ P. Koch, B. Müller, J. Rafelski, Phys. Rep. [142]{} (1986) 167. J. Letessier, J. Rafelski, A. Tounsi, Phys. Rev. C [50]{} (1994) 405;\ C. Slotta, J. Sollfrank, U. Heinz, AIP Conf. Proc. (Woodbury) [340]{} (1995) 462. F. Becattini, M. Gaździcki, A. Keränen, J. Manninen and R. Stock, Phys. Rev. C [69]{} (2004) 024905. I.G. Bearden et al. (NA44), Phys. Rev. C [66]{} (2002) 044907. J. Cleymans, B. Kämpfer and S. Wheaton, Phys. Rev. C [65]{} (2002) 027901, nucl-th/0110035. J. Cleymans, B. Kämpfer and S. Wheaton, Nucl. Phys. [A715]{} (2003) 553c, hep-ph/0208247. J. Cleymans, B. Kämpfer, P. Steinberg and S. Wheaton, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [30]{} (2004) S595, hep-ph/0311020. J. Lettesier and J. Rafelski, Phys. Rev. C [59]{} (1999) 947. G.D. Yen, M.I. Gorenstein, W. Greiner and S.N. Yang, Phys. Rev. C [56]{} (1997) 2210. D.H. Rischke, M.I. Gorenstein, H. Stöcker and W. Greiner, Z. Phys. C [51]{} (1991) 485. J. Cleymans, M.I. Gorenstein, J. Stalnacke and E. Suhonen, Phys. Scr. [48]{} (1993) 277. K. Hagiwara et al., Phys. Rev. D [66]{} (2002) 010001. T. Sjöstrand et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. [135]{} (2001) 238. V. Magas, H. Satz, Eur. Phys. J. C [32]{} (2003) 115. W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, B. P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002). K. Wròblewski, Acta Physica Polonica [B16]{} (1985) 379. [^1]: It is a requirement that all ROOT classnames begin with a ‘T’. THERMUS classnames begin with ‘TTM’ for easy identification. [^2]: In order to have access to `TDatabasePDG` and related classes, one must first load `/$ROOTSYS/lib/libEG.so`	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - 'Yunyun Li, Nianbei Li, Ugur Tirnakli, Baowen Li, Constantino Tsallis' title: 'Thermal conductance of the coupled-rotator chain: Influence of temperature and size' --- Introduction ============ The breakdown of Fourier’s law in low-dimensional lattices has attracted much attention in recent years due to its fundamental importance within non-equilibrium thermodynamics and statistical mechanics [@Lepri; @Dhar; @Liu; @Casati; @Olivares2016; @Bagchi2017]. In the 1D Fermi-Pasta-Ulam (FPU-$\beta$) lattice, the thermal conductivities $\kappa$ diverge with system sizes $N$ as $\kappa\propto N^{\gamma}$, where $0<\gamma<1$; consequently its thermal conductance $\sigma \equiv \kappa/N$ vanishes in the $N\to\infty$ limit. However, there is still no clear conclusion about the physical ingredient responsible for this kind of anomalous heat conduction. It is believed that momentum conservation is the crucial reason for the anomalous heat conduction [@Li2; @Prosen; @Narayan], but normal heat conduction has been found in 1D coupled rotator lattice, which also is a momentum-conserved system [@Vassalli; @Gendelman]. Unlike the FPU-$\beta$-like lattices, the 1D coupled rotator lattice has periodic interatomic potential which is finite. As a result, the energy diffusion as well as the momentum diffusion are normal [@NJP]. In order to understand the effect of this finite interatomic potential, previous works focus on the temperature dependence of the thermal conductivities in 1D coupled rotator lattice [@Vassalli; @Gendelman]. In both works, the thermal conductivity was proposed to have an exponential dependence on temperature. But it is argued that $\kappa(T) \propto e^{\Delta V/T}$ where $\Delta V$ is proportional to the potential barrier height in [@Vassalli], while $\kappa(T) \propto e^{-T/A}$ with $A$ a fitting parameter in [@Gendelman]. It has only recently been found that the temperature dependence in 1D coupled rotator lattice follows a power-law behavior on temperature as $\kappa(T)\propto T^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha \simeq 3.2$ for intermediate temperatures [@EPJB]. Interestingly enough, this power-law dependence is qualitatively consistent with the theoretical prediction for the Chirikov standard map which is a single rotator model [@Chirikov1979pr; @MacKay1984pd]. On the other hand, the standard map, as well as several other dynamical complex systems, has recently been shown [@TirnakliBorges] to present non-Gaussian probability distributions for the sum of its position random variable. These distributions are approached extremely well by the $q$-Gaussian defined as $$\label{q-Gauss} P_q(x)=A_q \, e_q^{-B_qx^2} \equiv \frac{A_q}{[1+(q-1)B_q\, x^2]^{1/(q-1)}},$$ where $A_q$ is the normalization factor, $B_q >0$ is a parameter which characterizes the width of the distribution, and the index $q \ge 1$ [@Tsallis1988; @prato-tsallis-1999; @Tsallis2009]. In the $q\to 1$ limit, this expression recovers the standard Gaussian distribution. This family of distributions optimizes the nonadditive entropy $S_q =k \frac{1-\int dx\,[p(x)]^q}{q-1}$ with $S_1=S_{BG} \equiv -k \int dx\, p(x) \ln p(x)$ under appropriate constraints, where $k$ is Boltzmann constant, $p(x)$ is the probability distribution, and BG stands for Boltzmann-Gibbs.\ Model and Method ================ In this letter, we study a homogeneous 1D nonlinear lattice system with nearest neighbor interactions and try to see whether some of its properties also are consistent with $q$-Gaussians. For this lattice system, the Hamiltonian with the corresponding dimensionless units can be written in the general form $$\label{ham} H=\sum_{i=1}^N \left[\frac{p_{i}^2}{2} + V(q_{i+1}-q_{i}) + U(q_{i})\right] \; \label{Hamiltonian1}$$ where $p_i$ denotes the momentum for the $i$-th rotator. The set $q_i$ are the displacements from the equilibrium position for the $i$-th rotator; $V(q_{i+1}-q_{i})$ is the interaction potential between neighboring sites $i$ and $i+1$, and $U(q_{i})$ is the on-site potential, representing the interaction with the substrate. To focus on the momentum-conserving system, we set $U=0$. The potential we employ is in the form $$\label{V} V(x) = V_0(1-\cos x) \; \label{Hamiltonian2}$$ where $V_0$ is the interaction strength (without loss of generality we set $V_0=1$). In our simulation, a Langevin form of heat bath is used. For the chain with $N$ particles, only the first and last particles are coupled to the heat bath, with the temperature $T_L$ and $T_R$, respectively. The dynamics equations of the motion are read as $$\begin{aligned} \label{Dynamics} \dot{q_i}&=& p_i, i = 1,2, 3, ..., N,\\ \nonumber \dot{p_i}&=& F(q_{i}-q_{i-1})+F(q_{i+1}-q_{i}), \mathrm{i = 2, 3, ..., N-1},\\ \nonumber \dot{p_1}&=& F(q_{i})+F(q_{i+1}-q_{i})-\gamma p_1+\xi_1, \\ \nonumber \dot{p_N}&=& F(q_{i}-q_{i-1})+F(-q_{i})-\gamma p_N+\xi_N \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $F(x)=-\partial{V(x)}/\partial{q_i}$ and $\gamma$ is the friction coefficient; $\xi_1$, $\xi_N$ are Gaussian white noise with zero mean $<\xi_1(t)>=0$ and $<\xi_N(t)>=0$. The correlation function is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{random} <\xi_1(t)\xi_1(t^{\prime})>=2\gamma T_{L} \delta(t-t^{\prime}), \\ \nonumber <\xi_N(t)\xi_N(t^{\prime})>=2\gamma T_{R} \delta(t-t^{\prime}). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For simplicity, the temperatures are set as $T_{L/R} = T_0 (1 \pm \Delta)$, where $T_0$ is the average temperature and $\Delta$ is the temperature difference. Throughout our numerical simulations, $\Delta=0.1$ is restricted to the small perturbation regime and $\gamma=1$ is fixed. The evolution of dynamics (Eqs. (\[Dynamics\])) is integrated by the Verlet velocity algorithm and the time step $\Delta t=0.01$, which is small enough [@verlet]. All the results are analyzed for the time scale $10^7-10^8$, after the system release to the steady state.\ ![\[Q1\] (Color online) Heat flow at stationary state for typical lattice sizes. [Top:]{} Thermal conductivity $\kappa \equiv \sigma N$ (notice that data collapse occurs for the high-temperature region); [Bottom:]{} Thermal conductance $\sigma$ (notice that data collapse occurs for the low-temperature region). Different colors correspond to the lattice lengths $N=50$, 100, 200, 400, 800 and 2000. The slope $-3.2$ indicated in [@EPJB] is shown here for comparison. The dashed curves are guides to the eye.[]{data-label="original"}](Li-data-scale3.eps "fig:"){width="0.95\columnwidth"} ![\[Q1\] (Color online) Heat flow at stationary state for typical lattice sizes. [Top:]{} Thermal conductivity $\kappa \equiv \sigma N$ (notice that data collapse occurs for the high-temperature region); [Bottom:]{} Thermal conductance $\sigma$ (notice that data collapse occurs for the low-temperature region). Different colors correspond to the lattice lengths $N=50$, 100, 200, 400, 800 and 2000. The slope $-3.2$ indicated in [@EPJB] is shown here for comparison. The dashed curves are guides to the eye.[]{data-label="original"}](Li-data-original.eps "fig:"){width="0.95\columnwidth"} ![\[Q2\] (Color online) Data collapse for lattice sizes going from $N=25$ to $N=2000$. The continuous curve (green line) corresponds to $\sigma=A_q e_q^{-B_q\,(TN^{1/3})^2}$ with $(q,B_q,A_q)=(1.55,0.40,0.189)$. The asymptotic slope is given by $2/(1-q) \simeq - 3.64$, in contrast with the intermediate slope $-3.2$ indicated in [@EPJB] (see Fig. \[original\]).[]{data-label="collapse"}](Li-data-scale2.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"} Results and Discussion ====================== The thermal conductivity $\kappa$ is characterized by $$\label{kappa} \kappa(T)= \frac{JN}{T_L-T_{R}} \;$$ where $J=< J_i >$ is the average heat flux along the lattice and $J_i$ is the local heat flux. As already mentioned, the thermal conductance is defined as $\sigma \equiv \kappa/N$. The temperature dependence of thermal conductance is given in Fig. \[Q1\] for six different lattice sizes. The asymptotic power-law behavior is evident with an exponent $-3.2$. One can easily obtain a clear data collapse as shown in Fig. \[Q2\]. It is evident that the temperature dependence of thermal conductance can be satisfactorily approached by a $q$-Gaussian with $q=1.55$.\ In conclusion, we have numerically determined that the thermal conductance for the classical one-dimensional first-neighbor coupled planar-rotator (or [inertial XY ferromagnetic]{}) chain (Eqs. (\[Hamiltonian1\]) and (\[Hamiltonian2\]), with vanishing on-site potential $U(q_i)$ and unit potential strength $V_0$) is amazingly well described by the $q$-Gaussian $\sigma\propto e_{1.55}^{-0.40\,(TN^{1/3})^2}$ for wide ranges of temperatures $T$ and lattice sizes $N$. This result implies that, in the $(T N^{1/3}) \to\infty$ limit, we asymptotically expect $\sigma \propto [TN^{1/3}]^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha = 2/(q-1) \simeq 3.64$, close though different from the value 3.2 determined in [@EPJB] for intermediate temperatures. At thermal equilibrium (i.e., for $T_L=T_R$), it is clear that the present short-range-interacting model follows Boltzmann-Gibbs statistical mechanics. Why then, in the nonequilibrium stationary state characterized by $T_L \ne T_R$, such a strong suggestion of $q$-statistics emerges? This remains as a highly interesting and certainly intriguing open question, somewhat reminiscent of the aging and related phenomena in various systems: see for example [@cugliandolo1995] (its Fig. 1), [@Stariolo2003], and [@Fyodorov2015] (its Fig. 1, for instance); see also [@Doye] (its Fig. 3). It is of course not excluded that, due to the permanent unidirectional heat flow, the phase space of the chain is visited in an incomplete manner. Further understanding would of course be very welcome. Y. L., N. L. and B. L. are supported by the NSF China with grant No. 11334007. U. T. is a member of the Science Academy, Istanbul, Turkey. Two of us (U. T. and C. T.) acknowledge partial financial support from CNPq, Capes and Faperj (Brazilian agencies), as well as from the John Templeton Foundation (USA). [0]{} 1. 457. 337. 032134. 042117. 032102. 2992. 2857. 200601. 2144. 2381. 043064. 182. 263. 55. 23644. 479. . . . . . .	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We study sequences of analytic conjugacy classes of rational maps which diverge in moduli space. In particular, we are interested in the notion of rescaling limits introduced by Jan Kiwi. In the continuity of [@A2] we recall the notion of dynamical covers between trees of spheres for which a periodic sphere corresponds to a rescaling limit. We study necessary conditions for such a dynamical cover to be the limit of dynamically marked rational maps. With these conditions we classify them for the case of bicritical maps and we recover the second main result of Jan Kiwi regarding rescaling limits.' author: - Matthieu Arfeux title: \| Approximability of dynamical systems\ between trees of spheres --- Introduction ============ In [@Kiwi2], Jan Kiwi introduced the notion of rescaling limits as follows: For a sequence of rational maps $(f_n)_n$ of a given degree, a rescaling is a sequence of Moebius transformations $(M_n)_n$ such that there exist $k\in\N$ and a rational map $g$ of degree $\geq 2$ such that $$M_n\circ f_n^k\circ M_n^{-1}\to g$$ uniformly in compact subsets of $\S$ with finitely many points removed. If this $k$ is minimum then it is called the rescaling period for $(f_n)_n$ at $(M_n)_n$ and $g$ a rescaling limit for $(f_n)_n$. On the set of rescaling limits we recalled the two equivalence relations of : - equivalent rescalings and - dynamically dependent rescalings. Using the formalism of Berkovich spaces, he proved the two following theorems. \[alpha\] [@Kiwi2] For every sequence in $\Rat_d$ for $d\geq 2$ there are at most $2d-2$ dynamically independent rescalings classes with a non post-critically finite rescaling limit. \[omega\] [@Kiwi2] Every sequence in $rat_2$ admits at most 2 dynamically independent rescalings limits of period at least $2$. Furthermore, in the case that a rescaling of period at least $2$ exists, then exactly one of the following holds: 1. $(f_n)_n$ has exactly two dynamically independent rescalings, of periods $q'>q>1$. The period $q$ rescaling limit is a quadratic rational map with a multiple fixed point and a prefixed critical point. The period $q'$ rescaling limit is a quadratic polynomial, modulo conjugacy. 2. $(f_n)_n$ has a rescaling whose corresponding limit is a quadratic rational map with a multiple fixed point and every other rescaling is dynamically dependent to it. In [@A2] we proved the first theorem introducing the notion of dynamical systems between (stable) trees of spheres. More precisely we where interested in such dynamical systems approximable by dynamically marked rational maps. For these ones a cycle of spheres containing a critical sphere can be associated to a class of dynamically dependent rescalings. In this paper we prove some necessary conditions for a dynamical systems between trees of spheres in order to be approximable by dynamically marked rational maps. Using these conditions we classify the trees which are limits of rational maps with exactly two critical points respectively to the behavior of cycle of spheres containing a critical sphere and we recover Theorem \[omega\]. [Outline.]{} In section \[Prem\] we recall the main notions introduced in [@A2] and we add new ones in \[ann\]. More precisely we define branches as a connected component of a tree minus an internal vertex. We define annuli as the non empty intersection of two branches. For $v$ and $v'$ two internal vertices we denote by $[v,v']$ the path between them and by $]\!]v,v'[\![$ the annuli consisting on the intersection of branches on $v$ and $v'$ that has non empty intersection with $[v,v']$. We then prove some properties on branches and annuli of dynamical systems between trees of spheres. In section \[conNecess\], we establish some properties of the elements of $\partial\Rat_{{\bf F},X}$, the set of dynamical systems of trees of spheres of portrait ${\bf F}$ which are limits of dynamical systems of marked spheres diverging in $\Rat_{{\bf F},X}$. These properties are the following lemmas. \[branchcrit\] Let $(\F,\T^X)\in\partial\Rat_{{\bf F},X}$, let $v$ be a periodic internal vertex, let $a_0\in \S_v$ and $B$ be a branch on $v$ such that for all $k\in \N$, the branch of $T^Y$ attached to $f_v^k(a_0)$ maps inside the branch on $T^Z$ attached to $f_v^{k+1}(a_0)$. Then - $B$ does not contain critical periodic vertex ; - if $B$ contains a periodic internal vertex then its cycle has degree $1$ and $a_0$ is periodic. Suppose that $({ \F},{ \T}^X)\in\partial\Rat_{{\bf F},X}$ and that $v$ and $v'$ are distinct internal vertices of $\T^Y$ such that for $0\leq k\leq k_0-1$ the annulus $]\!]F^k(v),F^k(v')[\![^Y$ is defined and does not contain any critical leaf. - If $\F$ has degree more than $1$ on one of these $]\!]F^k(v),F^k(v')[\![^Y$, we never have $[v_{k_0},v'_{k_0}]\subseteq [v,v']$. - If this is not the case and if $[v_{k_0},v'_{k_0}]\subseteq [v,v'] \text{ or }[v,v']\subseteq [v_{k_0},v'_{k_0}]$ we have 1. either $v_{k_0}=v$ and $v'_{k_0} = v'$, then $i_v(v')$ and $i_{v'}(v)$ are fixed by $f_{v'}^{k_0}$ and the product of the associated multipliers is 1; 2. or $v_{k_0}=v'$ and $v'_{k_0} = v$, then $f_{v}^{k_0}$ exchanges $i_v(v')$ and $i_{v'}(v)$ and the multiplier of the associated cycle is 1. From this lemma, on Figure \[cexresc\], we provide an example of dynamical system between trees of spheres that is not a limit of dynamically marked rational maps. In section \[chap6\], we classify the dynamical systems between trees of spheres with exactly two critical leaves (bi-critical) according the existence of rescalings. \[thmkiw2\] Let ${\bf F}$ be a portrait of degree $d$ with $d+1$ fixed points and exactly $2$ critical points and let $({\cal F},{\cal T}^X)\in\partial\Rat_{{\bf F},X}$. Suppose that there exists $(\displaystyle f_n,y_n,z_n)\overset{\lhd}{\longrightarrow}{ \F}$ in $\Rat_{{\bf F},X}$ such that for all $n$, $x_n(X)$ contains all the fixed points of $f_n$. Then the map $\F$ has at most two critical cycles of spheres; they have degree $d$. Assume that there exits at least one rescaling limit. Then there is a vertex $ w_0$ separating three fixed points which is fixed and such that $f_{ w_0}$ has finite order $k_0>1.$ Denote by $v_0$ the critical vertex separating $w_0$ and the two critical leaves. 1. \[class2\] Either $v_0$ belongs to a critical cycle of period $k_0$ and 1. \[class2a\] its associated cover has a parabolic fixed point; 2. \[class2b\] if there is a second critical cycle then it has period $k'_0>k_0$, its associated cover has a critical fixed point with local degree $d$ and the one associated to $v_0$ has a critical point that eventually maps to the parabolic fixed point. 2. \[class11\] Or $v_0$ is forgotten by $F^k$ with $k<k_0$; in this case there is exactly one critical cycle; it has period $k'_0> k_0$ and its associated cover has a critical fixed point with local degree $d$. We then deduce from it a slight generalization of Theorem \[omega\] and what appears in [@A] to the bi-critical case : \[omega2\] Every sequence of bi-critical maps in $rat_d$ admits at most 2 dynamically independent rescalings limits of period at least $2$. Furthermore, in the case that a rescaling of period at least $2$ exists, then exactly one of the following holds: 1. $(f_n)_n$ has exactly two dynamically independent rescalings, of periods $q'>q>1$. The period $q$ rescaling limit is a degree $d$ rational map with a multiple fixed point and a prefixed critical point. The period $q'$ rescaling limit is a degree $d$ polynomial, modulo conjugacy. 2. $(f_n)_n$ has a rescaling whose corresponding limit is a degree $d$ rational map with a multiple fixed point and every other rescaling is dynamically dependent to it. To conclude, in section \[last\] we discuss questions about rescalings on an explicit example and we do a comparison between our approach and J.Milnor’s compactification in the special case of degree $2$. [Acknowledgments.]{} I would want to thanks my advisor Xavier Buff for helping me to make more clear my ideas. This work would not have been possible without a lot of interesting discussions during conferences and collaborations in Santiago de Chile with Jan Kiwi. Also I want to thank Charles Favre who has been spending time with me since the beginning of my PhD to teach me the Berkovich point of view. Preliminaries {#Prem} ============= Some definitions and notations ------------------------------ The reader that already read [@A2] can directly go to section \[ann\]. ### Cover between trees of spheres Let $X$ be a finite set with at least 3 elements. A (projective) tree of spheres ${\cal T}$ marked by $X$ is the following data : - a combinatorial tree $T$ whose leaves are the elements of $X$ and every internal vertex has at least valence $3$, - for each internal vertex $v$ of $T$, an injection $i_v:E_v\to {\cal S}_v$ of the set of edges $E_v$ adjacent to $v$ into a topological sphere ${\cal S}_v$, and - for every $v\in IV$ (internal vertex) of a projective structure on $\St_v$. We use the notation $X_v := i_v(E_v)$ and define the map $a_v:X\to {\cal S}_v$ such that $a_v(x) := i_v(e)$ if $x$ and $e$ lie in the same connected component of $T-\{v\}$. We denote by $[v,v']$ the path between $v$ and $v'$ including these vertices and by $]v,v'[$ the path $[v,v']$ minus the two vertices $v$ and $v'$. A particular case is the notion of spheres marked by $X$ defined below. A sphere marked (by $X$) is an injection $$x:X\to \mathbb S.$$ We identify trees with only one internal vertex with the marked spheres. In the same spirit we generalized the notion of rational maps marked by a portrait defined below : A rational map marked by ${\bf F}$ is a triple $(f,y,z)$ where - $f\in \Rat_d$ - $y:Y\to \S$ and $z:Z\to \S$ are marked spheres, - $f\circ y = z\circ F$ on $Y$ and - $\deg_{y(a)}f = \deg(a)$ for $a\in Y$. Where a portrait ${\bf F}$ of degree $d\geq 2$ is a pair $(F,\deg)$ such that - $F:Y\to Z$ is a map between two finite sets $Y$ and $Z$ and - $\deg:Y\to \N-\{0\}$ is a function that satisfies $$\sum_{a\in Y}\bigl(\deg(a) -1\bigr) = 2d-2\quad\text{and}\quad \sum_{a\in F^{-1}(b)} \deg(a) = d\quad\text{ for all } b\in Z.$$ If $(f,y,z)$ is marked by ${\bf F}$, we have the following commutative diagram : $\xymatrix{ Y \ar[r]^{y} \ar[d] _{{ F}} &\S \ar[d]^{f} \\ Z \ar[r]_{z} &\S }$ Typically, $Z\subset \S$ is a finite set, $F:Y\to Z$ is the restriction of a rational map $F:\S\to \S$ to $Y:=F^{-1}(Z)$ and $\deg(a)$ is the local degree of $F$ at $a$. In this case, the Riemann-Hurwitz formula and the conditions on the function $\deg$ implies that $Z$ contains the set $V_F$ of the critical values of $F$ so that $F:\S-Y\to \S-Z$ is a cover. The generalization of marked rational maps is the notion of (holomorphic) cover between trees of spheres. A cover ${\cal F}:{\cal T}^Y\to {\cal T}^Z$ between two trees of spheres marked by $Y$ and $Z$ is the following data - a map $F:T^Y\to T^Z$ mapping leaves to leaves, internal vertices to internal vertices, and edges to edges, - for each internal vertex $v$ of $T^Y$ and $w:=F(v)$ of $T^Z$, an holomorphic ramified cover $f_v:{\cal S}_v\to {\cal S}_w$ that satisfies the following properties: - the restriction $f_v : {\cal S}_v-Y_v\to {\cal S}_w-Z_w$ is a cover, - $f_v\circ i_v = i_w\circ F$, - if $e$ is an edge between $v$ and $v'$, then the local degree of $f_v$ at $i_v(e)$ is the same as the local degree of $f_{v'}$ at $i_{v'}(e)$. We saw that a cover between trees of spheres ${\cal F}$ is surjective, has a global degree, denoted by $\deg({\cal F})$. ### Dynamical systems between trees of spheres Suppose in addition that $X\subseteq Y\cap Z$ and we show that we can associate a dynamical system to some covers between trees of spheres. More precisely we will say that $({\cal F},{\cal T}^X)$ is a dynamical system of trees of spheres if : - ${\cal F}:{\cal T}^Y\to {\cal T}^Z$ is a cover between trees of spheres, - ${\cal T}^X$ is a tree of spheres compatible with ${\cal T}^Y$ and ${\cal T}^Z$, ie : - $X\subseteq Y\cap Z$ - each internal vertex $v$ of $T^X$ is an internal vertex common to $T^Y$ and $T^Z$, - ${\cal S}_v^X = {\cal S}_v^Y = {\cal S}_v^Z$ and - $a_v^X = a_v^Y\|_X = a_v^Z\|_X$. A very useful lemma about compatible trees is the following. \[definiX\] If $T^X$ is compatible with $T^Y$ and if an internal vertex $v\in IV^Y$ separates three vertices of $V^X$, then $v\in T^X$. With this definition we are able to compose covers along an orbit of vertices as soon as they are in $T^X$. When it is well defined we will denote by $f_v^k$ the composition $f_{F^{k-1}(v)}\circ\ldots\circ f_{F(v)}\circ f_v$. Dynamical covers between marked spheres can be naturally identified to dynamically marked rational maps: A rational map dynamically marked by $({\bf F},X)$ is a rational map $(f,y,z)$ marked by ${\bf F}$ such that $y\|_X=z\|_X$. We denote by $\Rat_{{\bf F},X}$ the set of rational maps dynamically marked by $({\bf F},X)$. Let $(\F,{\T}^X)$ be a dynamical system between trees of spheres. A period $p\geq 1$ cycle of spheres is a collection of spheres $({\cal S}_{v_k})_{k\in \Z/p\Z}$ where the $v_k$ are internal vertices of $T^X$ that satisfies $F(v_k)=v_{k+1}$. It is critical if it contains a critical sphere, ie a sphere $\St_v$ such that $\deg(f_v)$ is greater or equal to two. If a sphere $\St_v$ on a critical cycle contains a critical point of its respective $f_v$ that has infinite orbit, then the cycle is said non post-critically finite. ### Convergence notions and approximability Consider holomorphic covers between trees of spheres with a projective structure. We recall the three convergence notions introduced in [@A2]. A sequence ${\cal A}_n$ of marked spheres $a_n:X\to{\mathbb S}_n$ converges to a ${\cal T}^X$ if for all internal vertex $v$ of $\T^X$ , there exists a (projective) isomorphism $\phi_{n,v}:{\mathbb S}_n\to{\S}_v$ such that $\phi_{n,v} \circ a_n$ converges to $a_v$. We use the notation ${\cal A}_n\to {\cal T}^X$ or $\displaystyle {\cal A}_n\underset{\phi_n}\longrightarrow {\cal T}^X$. Let ${ \F}:{\T}^Y\to { \T}^Z$ be a cover between trees of spheres of portrait ${\bf F}$. A sequence ${ \F}_n:=(f_n,a_n^Y,a_n^Z)$ of marked spheres covers converges to ${ \F}$ if their portrait is ${\bf F}$ and if for all pair of internal vertices $v$ and $w:=F(v)$, there exists sequences of isomorphisms $\phi_{n,v}^Y:\S_n^Y\to \S_v$ and $\phi_{n,w}^Z:\S_n^Z\to \S_w$ such that - $\phi_{n,v}^Y\circ a_n^Y:Y\to \S_v$ converges to $a_v^Y:Y\to \S_v$, - $\phi_{n,w}^Z\circ a_n^Z:Z\to \S_w$ converges to $a_w^Z:Z\to \S_w$ and - $\phi_{n,w}^Z\circ f_n\circ (\phi_{n,v}^Y )^{-1}:\S_v\to \S_w$ converges locally uniformly outside $Y_v$ to ${f_v:\S_v\to \S_w}$. We use the notation $\F_n\rightarrow \F$ or $\F_n\underset{(\phi^Y_n,\phi^Z_n)}\longrightarrow \F.$ \[defcvdyn\] Let $({\F}:{ \T}^Y\to { \T}^Z,{ \T}^X)$ be a dynamical system of trees of spheres with portrait ${\bf F}$. A sequence $({ \F}_n,a_n^Y,a_n^Z)_n$ of dynamical systems of spheres marked by $({\bf F},X)$ converges to $({ \F},{ \T}^X)$ if $$\displaystyle { \F}_n\underset{\phi_n^Y,\phi_n^Z}\longrightarrow{ \F}\quad\text{with}\quad\phi_{n,v}^Y=\phi_{n,v}^Z$$ for all vertex $v\in IV^X$. We say that $({ \F},{ \T}^X)$ is dynamically approximable by $({ \F}_n)_n$. We write $\displaystyle { f}_n\overset{\lhd}{\underset{\phi_n^Y,\phi_n^Z}\longrightarrow}{ \F}$. Recall some properties of these convergences. \[noncomp\] Let $v$ and $v'$ be two distinct internal vertices of $\T^X$ (having each one at least three edges) and a sequence of marked spheres $(\cal A_n)_n$ such that $\cal A_n\underset{\phi_n}\longrightarrow \T^X$. Then the sequence of isomorphisms $(\phi_{n,v'} \circ \phi_{n,v}^{-1})_n$ converges locally uniformly outside $i_v(v')$ to the constant $ i_{v'}(v)$. \[cvu\] Let ${\cal F}:{\cal T}^Y\to{\cal T}^Z$ be a cover between trees of spheres with portrait ${\bf F}$ and of degree $D$. Let $v\in IV^Y$ with $\deg(v)=D$ and let ${\cal F}_n:=(f_n,a_n^Y,a_n^Z)$ be a sequence of covers between trees of spheres that satisfies $\displaystyle {\cal F}_n\underset{\phi^Y_n,\phi^Z_n}\longrightarrow{\cal F}$. Then the sequence $\phi_{n,F(v)}^Z\circ f_n\circ (\phi_{n,v}^Y)^{-1}:\S_v\to \S_{F(v)}$ converges uniformly to $f_v:\S_v\to \S_{F(v)}$. \[cvuutil\] Let $({\cal F},{\cal T}^X)$ be a dynamical system of trees of spheres of degree $D$, dynamically approximable by ${\cal F}_n:=(f_n,a_n^Y,a_n^Z)$. Suppose that $v\in IV^X$ is a fixed vertex such that $\deg(v) = D$. Then the sequence $[f_n]\in \rat_D$ converges to the conjugacy classe $[f_v]\in \rat_D$. \[convit\] Let $({ \F},{ \T}^X)$ be dynamically approximable by $({ \F}_n)_n$. If $v\in IV(F^k)$ and if $w:=F^k(v)$, then $(\phi_{n,w}\circ f_n^k\circ \phi_{n,v}^{-1})_n$ converges locally uniformly to $f_v^k$ outside a finite set. To these results of [@A2], we add the following corollary. \[divrev\] Let $({\cal F},{\cal T}^X)$ be dynamically approximable by $(\F_n)_n$. If ${v\in IV(F^k)}$ and if $F^k(v)\in B_w(e)$, then $(\phi_{n,w}\circ f_n^k\circ \phi_{n,v}^{-1})_n$ converges locally uniformly to the constant $i_w(e)$ outside a finite set. Indeed, we have $$\phi_{n,w}\circ f_n^k\circ \phi_{n,v}^{-1}=(\phi_{n,w}\circ\phi^{-1}_{n,F^k(v)})\circ(\phi_{n,F^k(v)}\circ f_n^k\circ \phi_{n,v}^{-1}).$$ According to lemma \[convit\], the map on the right converges locally uniformly outside $Y(f^k)$ to a map whose image does not intersect $Z_{F^k(v)}$ and according to lemma \[noncomp\], the map on the left converges locally uniformly to $i_w(e)$ outside $i_{F^k(v)}(w)$. Branches and annuli {#ann} ------------------- Given a tree $T$, the most natural open subgraphs to look at are the one defined in the following. For $v$ a vertex of a tree $T$ and for $\star\in T-\{v\}$, a branch of $\star$ on $v$ is the connected component of $T-\{v\}$ containing $\star$. It is denoted by $B_v(\star)$. \[defann\] If $v_1$ and $v_2$ are two distinct internal vertices of $T$, the annulus $A:=]\!]v_1,v_2[\![$ is the intersection of two branches $B_{v_1}(v_2)$ and $B_{v_2}(v_1)$. We define $$[\![v_1,v_2]\!]:=\overline A:=A\cup[v_1,v_2].$$ Note that $\overline A=A\cup\{v_1,v_2\}$. More generally, for every connected subset $T'$ of the tree $T$, we denote by $\overline T'$ the smallest subtree of $T$ containing $T'$. We proved in [@A2] that given $T''$ an open, non empty and connected subset of $T^Z$ and given $T'$ a connected component of $F^{-1}(T'')$ there is a natural cover $\overline {\cal F}:\overline {\cal T}'\to \overline {\cal T}''$ defined by - $\overline F:= F: \overline T'\to \overline T''$ and - $\overline f_v:= f_v$ if $v\in V'-Y'$ which is a cover between trees of spheres. Recall the Riemann-Hurwitcz for trees proven in [@A2]: \[RH\] Let ${\cal F}:{\cal T}^Y\to {\cal T}^Z$ be a cover between trees of spheres. Let $T''$ be a sub-tree of $T^Z$. Let $T'$ be a connected component of $F^{-1}(T'')$. Then we have $$\chi_{T^Y}(T')=\deg(\F\|_{\overline{\cal T'}})\cdot \chi_{T^Z}(T'')-\sum_{y\in \Crit\F\cap T'}\mult(y).$$ From this formula we deduce the following useful corollaries. \[branchdeg1\] If $B$ is a branch of $T^Y$ that does not contain any critical leaf, then its image $F(B)$ is a branch and $F:B\to F(B)$ is a bijection. Set $v\in V$ and $e$ such that $B=B_v(e)$. Let $T''$ be the branch of $F(e)$ containing $F(v)$ and $T'$ the component of $F^{-1}(T'')$ containing $v$. Then, $T'$ is a sub-tree of $B$ and it follows that $\mult T'=0$. From the Riemann-Hurwitz formula, $$\chi_{T^Y}(T') = {\rm deg}(F:T'\to T'')\cdot \chi_{T^Z}(T'') - \mult T' = {\rm deg}(F:T'\to T'')\cdot \chi_{T^Z}(T'').$$ It follows that ${\rm deg}(F:T'\to T'')=1$ and $\chi_{T^Y}(T')=1$. In particular, $T'$ is a branch so $B=T'$. Moreover, $F(B)=T''$ and the degree of $F:B\to F(B)$ is equal to $1$. Using the same ideas we can find a formula for annuli. \[anneaudeg1\] If $A$ is an annulus of $T^Y$ that does not contain a critical leaf, then its image $F(A)$ is an annulus and $A$ is a connected component of $F^{-1}(F(A))$. Moreover we have $F(\overline A)=\overline{F(A)}$. If in addition $A=]\!]v_1,v_2[\![$ does not contain critical element, then $F:A\to F(A)$ and $\overline F:\overline A\to \overline{F(A)}$ are bijections. Define $A=]\!]v_1,v_2[\![$. If $A=\{\{v_1,v_2\}\}$ then the result follows directly from the definition of combinatorial trees maps. Suppose that it is not the case. Recall that $\overline A$ is the sub-tree of $T^Y$ defined by adding $v_1$ and $v_2$ to the set of vertices of $A$. Let $e_1$ and $e_2$ be two edges connecting $v_1$ and $v_2$ to the rest of $\overline A$. Let $v$ be a vertex of $\overline A$, let $T''$ be the connected component of the graph $(V^Z, E^Z-\{F(e_1),F(e_2)\})$ containing $F(v)$ and $T'$ be the component of $F^{-1}(T'')$ containing $v$. Then $T'$ is a sub-tree of $\overline A$ and $\mult (T')=0$. From the Riemann-Hurwitz formula $$0=\chi_{T^Y}(\overline A)\geq \chi_{T^Y}(T') = {\rm deg}(\F:\T'\to \T'')\cdot \chi_{T^Z}(T'').$$ The connected components of the graph $(V^Z, E^Z-\{F(e_1),F(e_2)\})$ has characteristic positive or equal to zero in $T^Z$. Then, $$0=\chi_{T^Y}(A')=\chi_{T^Y}(T') =\chi_{T^Z}(T'').$$ This proves that $\overline A=T'$ and $F(\overline A)=T''$. Now suppose that $A$ does not contain any critical vertex. Then the edges $e_1$ and $e_2$ have degree one and the map $\overline {\cal F}:\overline {\cal T}'\to \overline{\cal T}''$ has no critical leaves. So it has degree one. This proves that $F:\overline A\to F(\overline A)$ is a bijection. In particular $F:A\to F(A)$ is a bijection. Given that images of two adjacent vertices are adjacent vertices, the results about the adherence follow. \[attachbranch\] Let $B$ be a branch on $v$ in $T^Y$ containing at most one critical leaf $c$. Then $F(B)$ is the branch on $F(v)$ attached at $ a_{F(v)}(F(c))$. According to lemma \[anneaudeg1\], $F([\![ v,c]\!])=[\![ F(v),F(c)]\!]$ so in particular $F(B)=F(]\!] F(v),F(c)[\![)\cup \{ F(c)\}$ which is a branch on $F(v)$. Otherwise the edge of $B$ on $v$ maps to the edge attached at $ a_{F(v)}(F(c))$. We remark that corollaries \[branchdeg1\] and \[anneaudeg1\] can be proved by using the following lemma which is going to be very useful. \[chemdeg1\] If $[v_1,v_2]$ is a path in $T^Y$ having only vertices of degree one, then $F$ is a bijection from it to $[F(v_1),F(v_2)]$. Let $T'$ be the sub-tree such $[v_1,v_2]$; then $F(T')$ is a sub-tree of $T^Y$. Take one of its leaves. There exists $v\in T$ such that it is $F(v)$. Suppose that $v\neq v_1$ and $v\neq v_2$. Then the two edges of $v$ in $T'$ map to the unique edge of $F(v)\in F(T')$ and as an attaching point of an edge maps to the attaching point of the image of this edge, there is a point of $\St_{F(v)}$ that has two preimages. This contradicts the fact that vertices of $T'$ have degree one. So $F(T')$ is a subtree with at most two leaves. It follows that $F(T')$ is constituted of all the vertices of $[v_1,v_2]$. Necessary conditions for approximability {#conNecess} ======================================== In this section we look at the properties of a dynamical system between trees of spheres which are dynamically approximable by a sequence of dynamically marked rational maps. Branches lemma -------------- In this section, we are interested in some properties of branches of (stable) covers between trees of spheres which are approximable by a sequence of dynamical systems of spheres. We prove the following result : \[branchcrit\] Let $(\F,\T^X)\in\partial\Rat_{{\bf F},X}$, let $v$ be a periodic internal vertex, let $a_0\in \S_v$ and $B$ be a branch on $v$ such that for all $k\in \N$, the branch of $T^Y$ attached to $f^k(a_0)$ maps inside the branch on $T^Z$ attached to $f^{k+1}(a_0)$. Then - $B$ does not contain critical periodic vertex ; - if $B$ contains a periodic internal vertex then its cycle has degree $1$ and $a_0$ is periodic. We first prove the general following lemma : \[corollaribilisation\] If a branch $B$ on a vertex $v$ maps to a branch, and if $d$ is the degree of the attaching point of the edge of $B$ on $v$, then the number of critical leaves in $B$, counting multiplicities, is $d-1$. We apply the Riemann-Hurwitz formula to $B$ then to $\overline B$ and the result follows directly. We are now ready to prove the branches lemma. We denote by $B_k^\star$ the branch attached to $f^k(a_0)$ in $T^\star$. Let $v'$ be a periodic vertex in $B^X_0$. Define $v_k:=F^k(v)$ and $v'_k:=F^k(v')$. As the iterates of $v'$ are in the $B_k^\star$, $a_0$ orbit under $f$ is periodic. Suppose that $a_0$ is periodic with period $k_0$ and that the vertex $v'$ has period $k'$ multiple of $k_0$. Then $v_0$ and $v'_0$ lie in $Z$, we find $z$ and $z'\in Z$ such that the path $[z,z']^Z$ passes through $v_0$ and $v'_0$ in this order. For $\star\in\{v_0,v'_0\}\subset T^Z$, we gives projective charts $\sigma_\star$ such that $$\sigma_\star\circ a_\star(z) = \infty\quad\text{and}\quad \sigma_\star\circ a_\star(z') = 0.$$ Take $\phi_n^Y$ and $\phi_n^Z$ like in definition \[defcvdyn\]. After post-composing the isomorphisms $\phi_{n,\star}^Z$ by automorphisms of $\S_\star$ tending to identity when $n\to \infty$, we can suppose that $$\phi_{n,\star}^Z\circ a_n(z) = a_\star(z)\quad\text{and}\quad \phi_{n,\star}^Z\circ a_n(z') = a_\star(z').$$ Define the projective charts on $\S_n$ by $\sigma_{n,\star}:=\sigma_\star\circ \phi_{n,\star}^Z$. The changes of coordinates $\sigma_{n,v'}\circ \sigma_{n,v}^{-1}$ fixe $0$ and $\infty$. So they are similitudes centered on $0$. We define $\lambda_n$ by $\sigma_{n,v'}=\lambda_n \sigma_{n,v}$. The vertices $v$ and $v'$ have at least three edges, so lemma \[noncomp\] assures that $\lambda_n\to \infty.$ Let $D\subset \S_v$ be a disk containing $a_v(z')$. Given that $f\|_{\Sigma^X}$ is continuous, we can suppose that $D$ is sufficiently small such that the set of its $k'$ iterates under $f$ contains at most a unique attaching point which is the iterate of $a_0$. Define $D_n:=(\phi^{Z}_{n,v})^{-1}(D)$. Now we show that in the chart $\sigma_{n,v}$, we can take $n$ large enough such that the map $f^{k'}_n$ has no poles on the disk $D_n$. For all $k>0$, given that $F(B_{k-1}^Y)\subseteq B^Z_{k}$, then for $n$ large enough the disk $D_{n,k}$ doesn’t intersect edges attaching points of elements $z\in Z-B^Z_{k}$. We have $\phi_{n,v}^Z(\partial D_{n,k})\to\partial D_k$, so from the maximum modulus principle we conclude that $ \phi_{n,v}^Z(D_{n,k})\to D_k$. By definition of $D$, $D_{0}=D$ does not contain poles of $f^{k'}$ so $D_n$ does not contain poles of $f^{k'}_n$. In the charts $\sigma_{n,v}$ and $\sigma_{n,v'}$, we can develop the map $f_n^{k'}:D_n\to \S_n-\{a_{n}(z)\}$ as a power series in $a_n(z')$ : $$\sigma_{n,v}\circ f_n^{k'}=\sum_{j\in \N} c_{n,j}\cdot \sigma_{n,v}^j \quad {\rm and}\quad\sigma_{n,v'}\circ f_n^{k'}=\sum_{j\in \N} c'_{n,j}\cdot{\sigma^j_{n,v'}}.$$ We have $\sigma_{n,v'} = \lambda_n \sigma_{n,v}$, so $$c'_{n,j} = \lambda_n^{i-j} c_{n,j}.$$ Considering the development in Laurent series of ${f^{ {k'}}:\S_v\to \S_v}$ in the neighborhood of $a_0=a_{v}(z')$ in the chart $\sigma_{v}$ and the one of $f^{ {k'}}:\S_{v'}\to \S_{v'}$ in the neighborhood of $a_{v'}(z')$ in the chart $\sigma_{v'}$, $$\sigma_{v} \circ f^{k'}= \sum_{j\in\Z} c_j\cdot\sigma_{v}^j\quad\text{ and }\quad\sigma_{v'}\circ f^{k'} = \sum_{j\in\Z} c'_j\cdot\sigma_{v'}^j.$$ If $F^{k}(v)=v$ then lemma \[convit\] asures that $\phi_{n,v} \circ f_n^k \circ \phi_{n,v}^{-1}$ converges locally uniformly to $\sigma_v\circ f^k\circ \sigma_v^{-1}$ on $D-\{a_v(z')\}$ so uniformly on $D$ by the maximum principle, given that these maps have no poles in $D$. In the chart $\sigma_v$, we then have the convergence $\ds c_{n,j}\underset{n\to \infty}\longrightarrow c_j$. If $F^k(v)\neq v$, lemma \[divrev\] allows to conclude that $\ds c_{n,j}\underset{n\to \infty}\longrightarrow 0=c_j$. Likewise, we have the convergence $\ds c'_{n,j}\underset{n\to \infty}\longrightarrow c'_j$. In particular, as $c'_{n,j} = 0$ for $j<0$, we have $c'_j=0$ and $c_j=0$ (we recovered the fact that $f^{k'}$ fixes $a_0$). If $F^k(v) \neq v$, all the coefficients $c_j$ are zero, so coefficients of $c'_j$ are zero : contradiction. We conclude that $F^k(v)=v$. If we denote by $d$ the local degree of $f^{k'}$ at $a_0$, then $c_j=0$ for $j<d$ and $c_d\neq 0$. If $n\to \infty$ on $c'_{n,j} = \lambda_n^{1-j} c_{n,j}$, then $\lambda_n\to \infty$, and we have $c'_1=c_1$ and $c'_j= 0$ if $j>1$. thus, if $d>1$, the coefficients $c'_j$ are again zero : contradiction. So the only possible case is $d=1$. But $d$ is the product of the $d_k$, where $d_k$ is the degree of the attaching point of the edge of $B_k^Y$. Thus, if $d=1$, then all the $d_k$ are 1, then all the branches $B_k^Y$ don’t contain critical vertices according to lemma \[corollaribilisation\] applied with $d=1$. Thus $f^{k'}$ has degree 1, then the map $f^{k'}:\S_{v'}\to \S_{v'}$ has degree 1 and this is absurd. Lemmas about annuli ------------------- In this part we continue the study of covers between trees of spheres which are approximable by a sequence of dynamical systems of marked spheres. We try to pass to the limit some usual properties on annuli. Recall that according to corollary \[anneaudeg1\], an annulus that does not contain critical leaves has a well defined degree. We prove the following lemma. \[annocritiq\]\[multiplic\] Suppose that $({ \F},{ \T}^X)\in\partial\Rat_{{\bf F},X}$ and that $v$ and $v'$ are distinct internal vertices of $\T^Y$ such that for $0\leq k\leq k_0-1$ the annulus $]\!]F^k(v),F^k(v')[\![^Y$ is defined and does not contain any critical leaf. - (Critical) If $\F$ has degree more than $1$ on one of these $]\!]F^k(v),F^k(v')[\![^Y$, we never have $[v_{k_0},v'_{k_0}]\subseteq [v,v']$. - (Non critical) If this is not the case and if $[v_{k_0},v'_{k_0}]\subseteq [v,v'] \text{ or }[v,v']\subseteq [v_{k_0},v'_{k_0}]$ we have 1. either $v_{k_0}=v$ and $v'_{k_0} = v'$, then $i_v(v')$ and $i_{v'}(v)$ are fixed by $f^{k_0}$ and the product of the associated multipliers is 1; 2. or $v_{k_0}=v'$ and $v'_{k_0} = v$, then $f^{k_0}$ exchanges $i_v(v')$ and $i_{v'}(v)$ and the multiplier of the associated cycle is 1. Note that figure \[cexresc\] show an example of a dynamical tree of sphere cover that does not satisfy the conclusion of the critical annulus lemma (\[annocritiq\]): the critical annulus between the full red and full black vertices has period 8. Before proving this result we must note an interesting and open question: Those two lemmas together with the branches lemma give some necessary conditions in order to be approximable by a sequence of dynamical systems of spheres. But are they sufficient conditions? ![An example of dynamical system of degree 2 that does not satisfy the conclusion of theorem \[class0\]. To the left $\T^X$, to the right upstair $\T^Y$ and downstair $\T^Z$. The leaves $c_i$ the period 8 cycle of the critical point. The vertices $a_i$ are a cycle of same period. On $\T^X$, the full red (resp. full black, full blue) vertex is critical and of period 8 (resp. 4, 2) which orbit is the set of red (resp. black, blue) vertices. The full green vertex is fixed. []{data-label="cexresc"}](cexresc.eps){width="12cm"} The rest of this section is dedicated to the proof of this lemma. We suppose that $({ \F}:{ \T}^Y\to { \T}^Z,{ \T}^X)$ is a trees of spheres dynamical system dynamically approximable by the sequence of dynamical systems between marked spheres $(f_n,a^Y_n,a^Z_n)$. [Choice of coordinates.]{} Define $w:=v_{k_0}$ and $w':=v'_{k_0}$. Suppose that ${[w,w']^Z\subseteq[v,v']^Z}$ or that $[v,v']^Z\subseteq [w,w']^Z$. In the not critical case, we have to prove that ${[w,w']^Z=[v,v']^Z}$ and in the critical case that ${[w,w']^Z\not\subseteq [v,v']^Z}$. Let $z,z'\in Z$ be such that the path $[z,z']^Z$ goes through $v$ and $v'$ in this order and through $w$ and $w'$, not necessarily in this order. For every internal vertex $\star$ on the path $[z,z']^Z$, we give projective charts $\sigma_\star$ such that $$\sigma_\star\circ a_\star(z) = 0\quad\text{and}\quad \sigma_\star\circ a_\star(z') = \infty.$$ Take $\phi_n^Y$ and $\phi_n^Z$ like in definition \[defcvdyn\]. Then, after post-composing the isomorphisms $\phi_{n,\star}^Z$ by automorphisms of $\S_\star$ tending to identity when $n\to \infty$, we can suppose that for every internal vertex $\star$ on the path $[z,z']$ we have $$\phi_{n,\star}^Z\circ a_n(z) = a_\star(z)\quad\text{and}\quad \phi_{n,\star}^Z\circ a_n(z') = a_\star(z').$$ We then define projective charts on $\S_n$ by $\sigma_{n,\star}:=\sigma_\star\circ \phi_{n,\star}^Z$. The changes of coordinate maps fixe $0$ and $\infty$ so they are similitudes centered on $0$. We define $\lambda_n$, $\mu_n$, $\rho_n$ and $\rho'_n$ by (cf figure \[bigdrawing\]): $$\begin{aligned} \sigma_{n,v'}=\lambda_n \sigma_{n,v}&\text{ and } \sigma_{n,w'}=\mu_n \sigma_{n,w}\\ \sigma_{n,v}=\rho_n \sigma_{n,w}&\text{ and } \sigma_{n,v'}=\rho'_n \sigma_{n,w'}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that as the vertices $v,w,v'$ and $w'$ have at least three edges, lemma \[noncomp\] impose the behavior of $\lambda_n, \mu_n,\rho_n$ and $\rho'_n$ according to the relative positions of the vertices. ![A simplified representation of notations in the proof of lemma \[multiplic\].[]{data-label="bigdrawing"}](bigdrawing.eps){width="6.5cm"} ![A simplified representation of notations in the proof of lemma \[multiplic\].[]{data-label="bigdrawing"}](drawing7.eps "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} \[drawing7\] [Behavior of annuli.]{} (cf figure \[bigdrawing\]) Recall that $Y(f^{k_0})$ is the set of points of $\Sigma_{k_0}$ for which the image by an iterate of $f^k$ with $k\in [1,k_0]$ is the attaching point of an edge in ${ \T}^Z$. This is a finite set containing $i_v(v')$ and $i_{v'}(v)$. Let $D\subset \S_v$ (respectively $D'\subset \S_{v'}$ be a disk containing $i_v(v')$ (respectively $i_v'(v)$) small enough such that its adherence does not contain any other point of $Y(f^{k_0})$ than $i_v(v')$ (respectively $i_{v'}(v)$) and that it does not contain $a_v(z)$ (resp. $a_{v'}(z')$). Define $$A_n:= (\phi_{n,v}^Y)^{-1}(D)\cap (\phi_{n,v'}^Y)^{-1}(D').$$ We are going to prove the following assertions : 1. \[blle1\] for $n$ large enough, $A_n$ is an annulus contained in $\S_n-\{a_n(z),a_n(z')\}$; 2. \[blle2\] $f_n^{k_0}(A_n)$ is contained in $\S_n-\{a_n(z),a_n(z')\}$; 3. \[blle3\] Every compact of $D-\{i_v(v')\}$ is included in $\phi_{n,v}(A_n)$ for $n$ large enough and $\phi_{n,w}\circ f_n^{k_0}\circ\phi_{n,v}^{-1}$ converges locally uniformly to $f^{k_0}$ in $D-\{i_v(v')\}$; 4. \[blle4\] Every compact sub-set of $D'-\{i_{v'}(v)\}$ is contained in $\phi_{n,v'}(A_n)$ for $n$ large enough and $\phi_{n,w'}\circ f_n^{k_0}\circ\phi_{n,v'}^{-1}$ converges locally uniformly to $f^{k_0}$ in $D'-\{i_{v'}(v)\}$. [ Point 1.]{} Define $M_n:=\phi_{n,v'}\circ \phi^{-1}_{n,v}$. According to lemma \[divrev\], for $n$ large enough, $M_n(\partial D)$ is contained in a neighborhood of $i_{v'}(v)$ that doesn’t intersect $\partial D'$. Then, $A_n$ is an annulus. when $n\to \infty$, $\phi_{n,v}\circ a_n(z)$ converges to $a_v(z)$ which is not in the adherence of $D$ according to hypothesis. Consequently, for $n$ large enough, $D_n$ does not contain $a_n(z)$. Likewise, for $n$ large enough, $D'_n$ does not contain $a_n(z'_n)$. Then, $A_n\subset \S_n-\{a_n(z),a'_n(z)\}$. [ Point 2.]{} Let $D_1\subset \S_{v_1}$ be a disk containing $f(D)$ but no other attaching point of any edge of ${\cal T}^Z$ than $f(i_v(v'))$. Let $D'_1\subset \S_{v'_1}$ be a disk containing $f(D')$ but no other attaching point of any edge of ${\cal T}^Z$ than $f(i_{v'}(v))$. Just like in the point 1, for $n$ large enough, $$A_{1,n}:=\phi_{n,v_1}(D_1)\cap \phi_{n,v'_1}^{-1}(D'_1)$$ is an annulus. Given that $\phi_{n,v_1}\circ f_n\circ \phi_{n,v}^{-1}$ converges uniformly to $f$ in the neighborhood of $\partial D$ and that $\phi_{n,v'_1}\circ f_n\circ \phi_{n,v'}^{-1}$ converges uniformly to $f$ in the neighborhood of $\partial D'$, for $n$ large enough we have $f_n(\partial A_n)\subset A_{1,n}$. Like for the point 1, for $n$ large enough, $A_n$ doesn’t intersect $a_n\bigl(Y-]\!]v,v'[\![\bigr)$ so, $f_n(A_n)$ doesn’t intersect $a_n\bigl(Z-]\!]v_1,v'_1[\![\bigr)$. Likewise, for $n$ large enough, $A_{1,n}$ doesn’t intersect $a_n\bigl(Z-]\!]v_1,v'_1[\![\bigr)$. In conclusion, $f_n(\partial A_n)\subset A_{1,n}$ and $f_n(A_n)$ doesn’t intersect at least one point in each component of $A_{1,n}$ complementary. It follows from the maximum modulus principle that $f_n(A_n)\subset A_{1,n}$. For $n$ large enough, $D-a_v(v')$ (resp. $D'-a_{v'}(v)$) doesn’t intersect the set $a_v\bigl(Y(f^{k_0})-]\!]v,v'[\![\bigr)$ (resp. the set $a_{v'}\bigl(Y(f^{k_0})-]\!]v,v'[\![\bigr)$), so $D_1-a_{F(v)}(F(v'))$ (resp. $D'_1-a_{F(v')}(F(v))$) doesn’t intersect $a_{F(v)}\bigl(Y(f^{k_0-1})-]\!]F(v),F(v')[\![\bigr)$ (resp $a_{F(v')}\bigl(Y(f^{k_0-1})-]\!]F(v),F(v')[\![\bigr)$). Thus we can do the same if we replace $D$ and $D'$ by $D_1$ and $D'_1$, the vertices $v$ and $v'$ by $v_1$ and $v'_1$ and iterate this $k_0-1$ times. This proves that $f_n^{k_0}(A_n)$ doesn’t intersect $a_n(Z-]\!]v_{k_0},v'_{k_0}[\![)$, in particular $a_n(z)$ and $a_n(z')$. [ Points 3 and 4.]{} These assertions follow from lemma \[convit\]. [Developing in Laurent series and convergence.]{} In the charts from $\sigma_{n,v}$ to $\sigma_{n,w}$, the map ${f_n^{k_0}:A_n\to \S_n-\{a_n(z),a_n(z')\}}$ has a Laurent series development: $$\sigma_{n,w}\circ f_n^{k_0}=\sum_{j\in \Z} c_{n,j}\cdot \sigma_{n,v}^j.$$ In the charts from $\sigma_{n,v'}$ to $\sigma_{n,w'}$, this Laurent series development become $$\sigma_{n,w'}\circ f_n^{k_0}=\sum_{j\in \Z} c'_{n,j}\cdot{\sigma^j_{n,v'}}.$$ As we have $$\sigma_{n,v'} = \lambda_n \sigma_{n,v}\quad\text{and}\quad \sigma_{n,w'}=\mu_n\sigma_{n,w},$$ it follows that $$c'_{n,j} = \frac{\mu_n}{\lambda_n^j} c_{n,j}.$$ Now consider the Laurent series development of $f^{ {k_0}}:\S_v\to \S_w$ in the neighborhood of $a_v{z}$ in the charts form $\sigma_{v}$ to $\sigma_{w}$ and $f^{ {k_0}}:\S_{v'}\to \S_{w'}$ development in the neighborhood of $a_{v'}(z')$ in the charts from $\sigma_{v'}$ to $\sigma_{w'}$ $$\sigma_{w} \circ f^{k_0}= \sum_{j\in\Z} c_j\cdot\sigma_{v}^j\quad, \quad\sigma_{w'}\circ f^{k_0} = \sum_{j\in\Z} c'_j\cdot\sigma_{v'}^j.$$ [Convergence.]{} Here we prove that $$c_{n,j}\underset{n\to \infty}\longrightarrow c_j\text{ and }c'_{n,j}\underset{n\to \infty}\longrightarrow c'_j.$$ As $\F_n\to\F$ and for all $0\leq k<k_0,\;\phi_{n,v_k}^{-1}(\partial D_{k,n})$ doesn’t intersect $Z_v$, we have $$\sigma_{v_{k+1}}\circ(\phi_{n,v_{k+1}}\circ f_n\circ\phi^{-1}_{n,v_k})\circ\sigma^{-1}_{v_k}\to \sigma_{v_{k+1}}\circ f_{v_k}\circ\sigma^{-1}_{v_k}$$ uniformly on $\sigma^{-1}_{v_k}(\phi_{n,v_k}^{-1}(\partial D_{k,n}))$. So by composition, we have $$\sigma_{w}\circ(\phi_{n,w}\circ f^{k_0}_n\circ\phi^{-1}_{n,v})\circ\sigma^{-1}_{v}\to \sigma_{w}\circ f^{k_0}\circ\sigma^{-1}_{v}$$ uniformly on $\sigma^{-1}_{v}(\partial D)$. Otherwise, we have $$(\sigma_w\circ\phi_{n,w})\circ f^{k_0}_n\circ(\phi^{-1}_{n,v}\circ\sigma^{-1}_v)=\sigma_{n,w}\circ f^{k_0}_n\circ\sigma^{-1}_{n,v}.$$ The uniform convergence implies the uniform convergence of the coefficients of Laurent series so we have $c_{n,j}\underset{n\to \infty}\longrightarrow c_j$. The proof is the same for $c'_{n,j}\underset{n\to \infty}\longrightarrow c'_j.$ [Conclusions and multipliers.]{} [Case A.]{} Suppose that the path connecting $z$ to $z'$ in $T^Z$ goes through $w$ and $w'$ in this order. On one hand, we have $\sigma_{n,w}=\rho_n\sigma_{n,v}$ with $\rho_n\in \C-\{0\}$ and according to lemma \[noncomp\]: - $\rho_n\to 0$ if and only if the path connecting $z$ to $z'$ goes through $v$ before going through $w$ and - $\rho_n\to \infty$ if and only if the path connecting $z$ to $z'$ goes through $w$ before going through $v$. Likewise, we have $\sigma_{n,w'}=\rho'_n\sigma_{n,v'}$ with $\rho'_n\in \C-\{0\}$ and - $\rho'_n\to 0$ if and only if the path de $x$ à $x'$ goes through $v'$ before going through $w'$ and - $\rho'_n\to \infty$ if and only if the path connecting $x$ to $x'$ goes through $w'$ before going through $v'$. Note that $$\rho_n \mu_n\sigma_{n,v} = \mu_n\sigma_{n,w} = \sigma_{n,w'} = \rho'_n\sigma_{n,v'} = \rho'_n \lambda_n\sigma_{n,v}$$ so $$\rho'_n = \frac{\mu_n}{\lambda_n} \rho_n.$$ On the other hand, the development of $f^{ {k_0}}:\S_v\to \S_w$ in the neighborhood of $z$ in the charts from $\sigma_{v}$ to $\sigma_{w}$ is the one of a function defined in the neighborhood of infinity and mapping infinity to infinity with local degree ${d_0}$. Consequently, $c_j=0$ if $j\geq {d_0}+1$ and $c_ {d_0}\neq 0$. Likewise, the development of $f^{ {k_0}}:\S_{v'}\to \S_{w'}$ in the neighborhood of $z'$ in the charts from $\sigma_{v'}$ to $\sigma_{w'}$ is the one of a function defined in the neighborhood of $0$ mapping $0$ to $0$ with local degree $ {d_0}$. Consequently, $c'_j=0$ if $j\leq {d_0}-1$ and $c'_ {d_0}\neq 0$. Under hypothesis of lemma \[multiplic\], as $d_0=1$ $$c'_{n, {1}} = \frac{\mu_n}{\lambda_n^{ {1}}}c_{n, {1}}, \text{ so }\frac{\mu_n}{\lambda_n}\underset{n\to \infty}\longrightarrow\frac{c'_{ 1}}{c_{ 1}}\in \C-\{0\}.$$ It follows that $\rho_n\to 0$ if and only if $\rho'_n\to 0$. Likewise, $\rho_n\to \infty$ if and only if $\rho'_n\to \infty$. Given that $[w,w']^Z\subseteq [v,v']^Z$ or $ [v,v']^Z\subseteq [w,w']^Z$, the only possibility is that $\rho_n$ and $\rho'_n$ tend neither to $0$ or to infinity, which implies that $v=w$ and $v'=w'$. Then we can chose $\sigma_{v}=\sigma_{w}$ and $\sigma_{v'}=\sigma_{w'}$, which implies that $\lambda_n=\mu_n$ so $c_1=c'_1$. The multiplier of $f^{ {k_0}}$ at $z$ is $1/c_1$ and the multiplier of $f^{ {k_0}}$ at $z'$ is $c'_1$. The multiplier product is $1$ as required. Under hypothesis of lemma \[annocritiq\], we have $d_0>1$ so $$c'_{n, {d_0}} = \frac{\mu_n}{\lambda_n^{ {d_0}}}c_{n, {d_0}} \text{ so } \frac{\rho'_n}{\rho_n}\approx \lambda_n^{d_0-1} \left( \frac{c'_{d_0}}{c_{d_0}}\right).$$ Thus if we suppose that $w\in[v,v']$, ie $\rho_n\to\C^\star\cup\{\infty\}$, we can deduce that $\rho'_n\to\infty$, ie $w'\notin[v,v']$. The case $w'\in[v,v']$ is symetric. [Case B.]{} Suppose that the path connecting $z$ to $z'$ in $T^Z$ goes through $w'$ and $w$ in this order. On one hand, we have $\sigma_{n,w}=\rho_n\sigma_{n,v'}$ with $\rho_n\in \C-\{0\}$. Likewise, we have $\sigma_{n,w'}=\rho'_n\sigma_{n,v}$ with $\rho'_n\in \C-\{0\}$. Note that $$\rho'_n\sigma_{n,v} = \sigma_{n,w'} =\mu_n \sigma_{n,w} =\mu_n \rho_n\sigma_{n,v'} = \mu_n \rho_n \lambda_n\sigma_{n,v}$$ so $$\rho'_n = \mu_n \rho_n\lambda_n .$$ On the other hand, the development of $f^{ {k_0}}:\S_v\to \S_w$ in the neighborhood of $z$ in the charts from $\sigma_{v}$ to $\sigma_{w}$ is the one of a function defined in the neighborhood of infinity and that maps infinity to $0$ with local degree ${d_0}$. Consequently, $c_j=0$ if $j\geq {d_0}-1$ and $c_{-d_0}\neq 0$. Likewise, the development of $f^{ {k_0}}:\S_{v'}\to \S_{w'}$ in the neighborhood of $z'$ in the charts from $\sigma_{v'}$ to $\sigma_{w'}$ is the one of a function defined in the neighborhood of $0$ and that maps $0$ on infinity with local degree $d_0$. Consequently, $c'_j=0$ if $j\leq -(d_0+1)$ and $c'_{-d_0}\neq 0$. Under hypothesis of lemma \[multiplic\], as $d_0=1$ we have $$c'_{-1}\underset{n\to \infty}\longleftarrow c'_{n,-1} = \mu_n\lambda^{-1}_n c_{n,-1}\underset{n\to \infty}\longrightarrow c_{-1},$$ so $$\mu_n\lambda_n\underset{n\to \infty}\longrightarrow\frac{c'_{-1}}{c_{-1}}\in \C-\{0\}.$$ Then $\rho_n\to 0$ if and only if $\rho'_n\to 0$. Likewise, $\rho_n\to \infty$ if and only if $\rho'_n\to \infty$. given that $[w,w']^Z\subseteq [v,v']^Z$ or $ [v,v']^Z\subseteq [w,w']^Z$, the only possibility is that $\rho_n$ and $\rho'_n$ tend neither to $0$ or infinity, which according to lemma \[noncomp\] implies that $v=w'$ and $v'=w$. Then we can chose $\sigma_{v}=\sigma_{w'}$ and $\sigma_{v'}=\sigma_{w}$, which implies that $\lambda_n \mu_n=1$ so the cycle multiplier, ie $c'_{-1}/c_{-1}$ is $1$ as required. Under hypothesis of lemma \[annocritiq\], as $d_0>1$ we have $$\mu_n\lambda_n=\lambda^{d_0-1} \left(\frac{c'_{n,-d_0}}{ c_{-d_0}}\right) \text{ so } \frac{\rho'_n}{\rho_n}\approx \lambda_n^{d_0-1} \left( \frac{c'_{d_0}}{c_{d_0}}\right).$$ Thus supposing that $w\in[v,v']$, ie $\rho_n\to\C^\star\cup\{\infty\}$, as $\lambda_n^{d_0-1}\to\infty$ then we have $\rho'_n\to\infty$, ie $w'\notin[v,v']$. The case $w'\in[v,v']$ is symetric. Bi-critical case {#chap6} ================ We now want to study rescaling-limits in the case of rational maps of degree $d$ with exactly two critical points (including for example the case of degree two rational maps). In this case the critical points have exactly multiplicity $d-1$. Such maps are said bicritical. In this subsection we prove the following theorem and conclude with the proof of Theorem \[omega\]: \[class0\] Let ${\bf F}$ be a portrait of degree $d$ with $d+1$ fixed points and exactly $2$ critical points and let $({\cal F},{\cal T}^X)\in\partial\Rat_{{\bf F},X}$. Suppose that there exists $(\displaystyle f_n,y_n,z_n)\overset{\lhd}{\longrightarrow}{ \F}$ in $\Rat_{{\bf F},X}$ such that for all $n$, $x_n(X)$ contains all the fixed points of $f_n$. Then the map $\F$ has at most two critical cycles of spheres; they have degree $d$. Assume that there exits at least one rescaling limit. Then there is a vertex $ w_0$ separating three fixed points which is fixed and such that $f_{ w_0}$ has finite order $k_0>1.$ Denote by $v_0$ the critical vertex separating $w_0$ and the two critical leaves. 1. \[class2\] Either $v_0$ belongs to a critical cycle of period $k_0$ and 1. \[class2a\] its associated cover has a parabolic fixed point; 2. \[class2b\] if there is a second critical cycle then it has period $k'_0>k_0$, its associated cover has a critical fixed point with local degree $d$ and the one associated to $v_0$ has a critical point that eventually maps to the parabolic fixed point. 2. \[class11\] Or $v_0$ is forgotten by $F^k$ with $k<k_0$; in this case there is exactly one critical cycle; it has period $k'_0> k_0$ and its associated cover has a critical fixed point with local degree $d$. Our interest for these maps comes from the following lemma. That makes this case easier to understand. \[ptscrit\] Let ${\cal F}:{\cal T}^Y\to {\cal T}^Z$ be a cover between trees of spheres. Every critical vertex lies in a path connecting two critical leaves. Each vertex on this path is critical. Let $v$ be a critical vertex of ${\cal F}$. Then $f_v$ has at least two distinct critical points. There are at least two distinct edges attached to $v$. So $v$ is on a path of critical vertices. Let $[v_1,v_2]$ be such a path with a maximal number of vertices. From this maximality property, we see that there is only one critical edge (edge with degree strictly greater than one) attached to $v_1$. If $v_1$ is not a leaf then $f_{v_1}$ has just one critical point and that is not possible. So $v_1$ is a leaf. As well, $v_2$ is a leaf. We will denote by $c$ and $c'$ the two critical leaves. Then according to lemma \[ptscrit\] the critical vertices are the vertices of $C_d:=[c,c']$. We will use the notation $c_k:=F^k(c)$ and $c'_k:=F^k(c')$ when they are defined. [The fixed vertex $w_0$ in Theorem \[class0\].]{} We will call a principal branch every branch attached to a critical vertex in $\T^Y$ with vertices of degree one and containing a fixed leaf. If $v_0$ is critical then every branch containing a fixed leave maps bijectively to its image? First prove that there are two fixed leaves lying in the same principal branch and that the vertex separating them and $C_d$ is fixed. [Case1.]{}At least two fixed leaves are not critical. [Case1a.]{} Two non critical leaves $\alpha$ and $\beta$ lie in the same principal branch. We will see that it is the only non absurd case. Denote by $w_0$ the vertex separating $\alpha$, $\beta$ and a critical leave. Then $w_0$ is not critical and both of the critical leaves lie in the same branch on it. Let $v_0$ be the vertex separating $w_0$ and the two critical leaves. Then $A:=[w_0,v_0]\cup C_d$ maps bijectively to its image which is inside a branch $B$ on $F(w_0)$. The iterates of $w_0$ lie in $]\alpha,\beta[$. Suppose that $w_0$ is not fixed and for example that $w_0$, $F(w_0)$ and $\beta$ lie on $]\alpha,\beta[$ in this order. Then the only pre-image of $a_{F(w_0)}(\alpha)$ is $a_{w_0}(\alpha)$. It follows that $F(B_{w_0}(\beta))\subset B_{w_0}(\beta)$ and that $B\subset B_{w_0}(\beta)$ so $B$ cannot contain any critical periodic vertex. Thus $F(w_0)=w_0.$ As $w_0\in [\alpha,\beta]$, it follows that $f_{w_0}$ is conjugated to a rotation. If it has not finite order, then the iterates of $B$ are branches attached at the iterates of $f_{w_o}(a_{w_0}(v_0))$ which are all distinct and contains the iterates of $C_d$ which is absurd. So $w_0$ has finite order. [Case1b.]{} All the critical leaves lie in different principal branches. Let $\alpha$ and $\beta$ be two critical leaves. Then there exists a critical vertex $w_0$ in $]\alpha,\beta[$, the closest to $\alpha$. The vertex $w_0$ is not fixed. We can prove that there exists a fixed leave $\gamma$ such that ${B_{F(w_0)}(\gamma)\subset B_{w_0}(\gamma)}$. Indeed,suppose that there is not such a $\gamma$. For every fixed leave $\delta$, the point $a_{w_0}(\delta)$ is a preimage of $a_{F(w_0)}(v_0)$. Either one of the fixed leave $c$ is critical so the $a_{w_0}(c)$ the $a_{w_0}(\alpha) (\neq a_{w_0}(c))$ would be $d+1$ preimage of $a_{F(w_0)}(v_0)$ counting with multiplicities. Or all the fixed leaves lie in different branches on $w_0$; thus as $f_{w_0}$ is the uniform limit of $\phi_{n,F(w_0)}^{-1}\circ f_n\circ \phi_{n,w_0}$ in the neighborhood of the $a_{w_0}(\delta)$, the the $a_{w_0}(\delta)$ would be again exactly $d+1$ preimage of $a_{F(w_0)}(v_0)$ counting with multiplicities. In both cases we conclude a contradiction. Define $B_0:=B_{w_0}(\gamma)$, we have $F(B_0)\subset B_0$. Then $F(C_d)\subset B_0$ because if not $c_0$ is a critical leave then $$f(a_{w_0}(c_0))=a_{F(w_0)}(w_0)=F(a_{w_0}(\alpha))$$ so $a_{F(w_0)}(w_0)$ would have at least $d+1$ preimages counted with multiplicities which is absurd. It follows that every periodic vertex lies in $B_0$. Suppose that $v$ is a periodic critical internal vertex. If $F(w_0)\notin C_d$ then $v\notin B_0$ but $F(v)\in B_0$. But $F(B_0)\subset B_0$ so $v$ cannot be periodic which is absurd. Thus $F(w_0)\in C_d$ and it follows that $B_v(F(v))$ maps to a branch on $F(v)$ so maps inside itself. But $F(v)\neq v$ so $v$ cannot be periodic which is absurd. [Case2.]{} There is just one non critical fixed leave $\alpha$. Then the vertex separating $\alpha$ and the two critical leaves is fixed and has maximal degree so, according to lemma \[cvuutil\], the approximating sequence converges in $\rat_d$. Absurd. [Case3.]{} All fixed leaves are critical. Then $C_d$ maps bijectively to itself. Denote by $v$ the periodic critical internal vertex. As the approximating sequence does not converge in $\rat_d$ then $v$ is not fixed. From the critical annulus lemma (\[annocritiq\]) $F^2(v)\notin [v,F(v)]$. As $C_d$ maps bijectively to itself the order of the vertices $v,F(v)$ and $F^2(v)$ has to be preserved so $v$ cannot be periodic. This is absurd. [Conclusion.]{} We are in Case1a and this conclude the proof of this point. The vertex $w_0$ has a finite order that we denote by $k_0$. The vertex $w_0$ is not critical, so it doesn’t lie in $C_d$. We denote by $v_0\in T^X$ the vertex separating $c,c'$ and $w_0$. \[rembij\] Suppose that $v'$ is a critical periodic internal vertex. Denote by $ B^Y_0$ the branch on $w_0$ containing the two critical points (so $v'$ too) and for $1\leq k\leq k_0$, denote by $ B_k^\star\in IV^\star$ the branch attached to $a^\star_{w_0}(F^k(v'))$. We have $F: B^Y_k\to B^Z_{k+1}$ is a bijection. [Point \[class2a\] of Theorem \[class0\].]{} Here we suppose that $v_0$ is not forgotten by $F_{k_0}$. The annulus $A_0:=]\!] { w_0},{v_0}[\![$ does not contain vertices of degree $d$ so from corollary \[anneaudeg1\] we know that $F$ is injective on $\overline{A}_0$. Moreover, elements of $C_d$ have maximum degree, so $F$ is injective on $A_0\cup C_d$. According to remark \[rembij\], $F$ is bijective from $ B^Y_k$ to $ B^Z_{k+1}$ for $1\leq k< k_0$, thus, the vertex $v_k:=F^k({v_0})\in B^Z_k $ so $v_{k_0}\in B_0$. We have three cases: $v_{k_0}\in[ { w_0},{v_0}], {v_0}\in[ { w_0}, v_{k_0}]$ or $v_{k_0}\in A_0-[ { w_0},{v_0}]$. In he two first cases, as we know that $F^k(A_0\cup C_d)$ for $1\leq k< k_0$ is included in $ B_k$ which contains only vertices of degree 1, then the non critical annulus lemma (\[multiplic\]) applied to $F^k(A_0)$ assures that $v_{k_0}={v_0}$. So the vertex ${v_0}$ is periodic with period $k_0$. It is the only vertex of degree $d$ in its cycle. As $a_{w_0}(v_0)$ is a fixed point of $f^{k_0}$ with multiplier 1, according to the same lemma the rational map $f^{k_0}:\S_{v_0}\to \S_{v_0}$ has a parabolic fixed point at $i_{{v_0}}( { w_0})$. According to corollary \[cvuutil\] we have $k_0>1$. ![Example of the absurd case of the proof of point \[class2\] with $k_0=3$[]{data-label="absurde"}](absurde.eps){width="9cm"} To finish the proof we show that this third case is absurd. Indeed, in this case, $v_{k_0}, {v_0}$ and $ { w_0}$ are not on a common path. So there is a vertex $\hat v_0\in [w_0,v_0]$ that separates $v_{k_0}$, $v_0$ and $w_0$. Otherwise, every critical cycle of spheres has to correspond to a cycle of vertices that intersects $C_d$ because by definition a critical cycle of spheres doesn’t have degree 1. Let $v'_0$ be a vertex in this intersection. The vertices $v'_0$ and ${v_0}$ lie on a same branch of $\hat {v_0}$ disjoint from the one containing $v_{k_0}$. As $A_0\cup C_d$ and its iterates map bijectively to their image, we know that $v_{k_0}$ and $v'_{k_0}$ lie on a same branch of $\hat {v_0}$ so $\hat {v_0}$ separates the vertices $ { w_0}, v'_0$ and $v'_{k_0}$. These four vertices lie in $A_0$ and are not forgotten by $F^{k_0}$, so according to lemma \[definiX\] the $k_0$ iterates of $\hat {v_0}$ are well defined. As $A'_0:=]\!] { w_0},\hat {v_0}[\![\subset A_0$, its $k_0$ iterates map bijectivement to their images which are the $]\!] { w_0},\hat {v_k}[\![$ which all contain vertices of degree one exept maybe $]\!] w_0,\hat v_{k_0}[\![$. But $w_0$, $\hat v_0$ and $v_0$ are aligned in this order, so for $0\leq k\leq k_0$, it is the same for $w_0$, $\hat v_k$ and $v_k$ then both $\hat v_0$ and $\hat v_{k_0}$ lie on the path $[w_0,v_{k_0}]$. So we have the inclusion $]\!] w_0,\hat v_0 [\![\subset]\!] w_0,v_{k_0} [\![ $ or the inverse inclusion. Thus according to the non critical annulus lemma (\[multiplic\]) we have $\hat {v_0}=\hat v_{k_0}$. Then the situation is similar to the one on figure \[absurde\]. As we did in previous cases for ${v_0}$, we can prove that the cover associated to the cycle containing $\hat {v_0}$ has a fixed point with multiplier 1 using the non critical annulus lemma. As $\hat {v_0}$ has degree 1, this cover in a projective chart is the identity or a translation. If it is a translation then the branch $B_{\hat {v_0}}(v'_{k_0})$ would be of infinite orbit which contradicts the existence of $v'_{k_0}$ lying on it and which is periodic. If it is the identity then $F(B_{\hat {v_0}}(v'_{k_0}))\subset B_{\hat {v_0}}(v'_{k_0})$, this contradicts the fact that $v'_0$ lies in the orbit of $v'_{k_0}$. So it is again absurd. As on figure \[Rescaling3\], we define $D^\star_i:=T^\star- D^\star_{v_i}(v_0)$. Denote by ${\alpha:=a_{v_0}(w_0)}$ the parabolic fixed point and $\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_{d-1}$ its preimages by $f^{k_0}$. If there is a branch in $T^Y$ attached to $\beta_i$ on ${v_0}$, we denote it by ${B'_i}$. If it is not the case, we set ${B'_i}=\emptyset$. \[remresc\] As $D^\star_k\subset B^\star_k$, according to remark \[rembij\] we have $F:D^Y_k\to D^Z_{k+1}$ is a bijection for $1\leq k<k_0$. Because $\alpha$ is not critical, the ${B'_i}$ contain only elements of degree 1 so from corollary \[branchdeg1\], we know that $F({B'_i})$ is the branch on $v_1$ attached to $f(\alpha)$. This means $F({B'_0})=B_{v_0}(w_0)$. We deduce that ${B'_i}\neq\emptyset$. Moreover, as $F:T^Y\to T^Z$ is surjective, we have $F(D_0-{B'_i})=D_1$. As $k_0>1$ we can deduce from the last remark that there are no critical fixed leaves. \[autreptcrit\] There exists a critical leaf $c_0$ such that $B_{v_0}(c_0)$ does not contain any critical spheres cycle. The orbit of a critical point $z_0$ lies in the basin of the parabolic fixed point $f(\alpha)$ of $f^{k_0}:\S_{v_0}\to \S_{v_0}$ (cf [@DynInOne] for example). The branch $B$ of $T^Y$ on $ v_0$ corresponding to this critical point contains a critical leaf $c_0$. If $B$ contains a periodic vertex, then its iterates are defined as soon as they are branches. Iterates of $a_{v_0}(c_0)$ doesn’t intersect $\alpha$, because this one is prefixed so all the iterates of $B$ are branches. Indeed, either they lie in $D_0-{\bigcup B'_i}$ and we can apply corollary \[attachbranch\], or they lie in the $D_i$ with $i>0$ and then we have corollary \[branchdeg1\]. From this we deduce by lemma \[branchcrit\] that $B$ does not contain critical spheres cycle. From now, we will denote by $c'$ this critical leaf and $c$ the other. ![Simplified representation of a tree $\T^X$ for an example of cover ${\F:\T^Y\to \T^Z}$ limit of degree $2$ rational maps having a two critical spheres cycle. One of these has period 3 and the other period 5 with the notations introduced in the proof of Theorem \[class0\].[]{data-label="Rescaling3"}](Rescaling3.eps){width="15cm"} [Point \[class2b\] of Theorem \[class0\].]{} Every critical spheres cycle has at least degree $d$ so it has a vertex $v'_0$ in $C_d$. We define $v'_k:= F^k(v'_0)$ and $k'_0$ the period of this cycle. Define $D'_k:=T^Y- B_{v'_k}(w_0)$. Let prove that $F(D'_k)=D'_{k+1}$ and that ${f(a_{v'_k}(w_0))=a_{v'_{k+1}}(w_0)}$. According to remark \[remresc\], it is true for all $k$ when $v'_k \notin {B'_0}$ and we always have $f(a_{v'_k}(w_0))=a_{v'_{k+1}}(w_0)$. Suppose that there exists i such that $v'_k \in {B'_i}$. As we have ${D'_k=B_{v_0}(v'_k)-]\!] v_0,v'_k[\![}$ and $F$ is bijective on $B_{v_0}(v'_k)$, we deduce that $$F(D'_k)=B_{v_1}(v'_{k+1})-]\!] v_1,v'_{k+1}[\![=D'_{k+1}.$$ Moreover $F$ is a bijection between the edges of $v'_k$ and the one of $v'_{k+1}$. We deduce that $f(a_{v'_k}(w_0))=a_{v'_{k+1}}(w_0)$. From $F(D'_k)=D'_{k+1}$ we conclude by lemma \[branchcrit\] that $D'_0$ does not contain any critical periodic internal vertex so after supposing that $v'_0$ is the degree $d$ sphere of the cycle the closest to $ { w_0}$, we deduce that $v'_0$ is the only critical vertex of the cycle. Thus the associated cover has degree 1. As $f(a_{v'_k}(w_0))=a_{v'_{k+1}}(w_0)$ and $a_{v'_{0}}(w_0)$ is critical, this cover is conjugated to a degree $d$ polynomial. Now prove that $k'_0>k_0$. As $f_{{v_0}}$ has degree $d$, a critical point of degree $d$ cannot be a preimage of the parabolic fixed point. So $v'_0\in D_0- {\bigcup B'_i}$. Thus according to remark \[remresc\] the $v'_k$ lie in the $D_k$ for $0\leq k\leq k_0$ so $k'_0\geq k_0$. If there is equality then we have $F(]\!] { v_0},v'_0[\![)=]\!]F^k(v_0),F^k(v'_0)[\![=]\!]v_0,F^k(v'_0)[\![$ which contradicts lemma \[annocritiq\]. Suppose that one of the iterates of $v'_0$ lies in some ${B'_i}$. Let $v'_i$ be the first iterate of $v'_0$ in ${B'_i}$. According to the above, for $0\leq k< k+k_0\leq i$ we have ${F^{ k_0}:]\!]{v_0},v'_k[\![\to ]\!]{v_0}, v'_{k+k_0} [\![}$ is a bijection. Thus $$f^{k_0+i}\circ a_{{v_0}}(v'_0)=f^{k_0}\circ f^i\circ a_{{v_0}}(c_0)=f^{k_0}\circ a_{{v_0}}(v_i)=f^{k_0}(\beta_i)=\alpha.$$ So a preimage of the parabolic fixed point is a critical point. Let prove by the absurd that one of the iterates of $v'_0$ lies in some ${B'_{i_0}}$, which will finish the proof. If it is not the case, we can apply lemma \[branchcrit\] to the branch $B:=B_{v_0}(c)$ because the iterates of $B$ lie in the $D_i$ for $i\neq 1$ or in $D_0-{\bigcup B'_i}$ according to remark \[remresc\] and because these iterates are disjoints to $B_{v_0}(c')$. [End of point \[class2\] (Number of rescalings).]{} We prove that in the case \[class2\], there are at most two critical cycles of spheres. We have $C_d=[c',v_0]\cup[v_0,v'_0]\cup[v'_0,c]$. But $[c',v_0]-\{v_0\}$ does not contain periodic vertices. According to corollary \[autreptcrit\], it is the same for $[v_0,v'_0]-\{v_0,v'_0\}$ by definition of $v'_0$ and $[v'_0,c]$ because $[v'_0,c]\subset D'_0$ so $C_d$ contains only two periodic vertices. [Point \[class11\] of Theorem \[class0\].]{} First recall the following lemma from [@A2]. \[ext22\] Suppose that $\displaystyle { f}_n\overset{\lhd}{\longrightarrow}{ \F}$ and $z\in Z\setminus X$ then after passing to a subsequence there exists extensions $(f_n, y_n, z_n)_n\lhd(\tilde f_n,\tilde y_n,\tilde z_n)_n$ with $z\in \tilde X$ and $\forall n\in\N, \tilde x_n(z)=z_n(z)$ and $\tilde \F$ such that $\displaystyle {\tilde f}_n\overset{\lhd}{\longrightarrow}{\tilde \F}$ and - $\T^X\lhd\T^{\tilde X}$, $\T^Y\lhd\T^{\tilde Y}$, and $\T^X\lhd\T^{\tilde Z}$, - $\forall v\in IV^{ Y}, F(v)\in T^X\implies \tilde f_v=f_v$. Denote by $v'$ a periodic critical internal vertex. According to this lemma, after considering a subsequence, we can find such a $(\tilde \F,\T^{\tilde X})$ such that ${ \tilde X}$ contains the $k_0$ first iterates of $c'$ (where $c'$ is the critical leaf such that $v'\notin]c',v_0[$). Then we can show for $k$ from $1$ to $k_0$ that the vertex $\tilde F^k(v_0)$ separate the vertices $w_0$, $\tilde F^k( c')$ and $\tilde F^k(v')$. It follows from lemma \[definiX\] that $v_0$ is not forgotten by $\tilde F^{k_0}$. Then we conclude by applying point \[class2\] and using the fact that in this case there can be just two different critical cycles of spheres. It follows again that in this case there cannot be more than two critical cycles of spheres. We just proved that with the hypothesis of Theorem \[class0\], if there exists a critical cycle of spheres with a polynomial associated cover then, after passing to a subsequence, we are in case \[class2\]. [Proof of Theorem \[omega2\].]{} First recall the following theorem from [@A2]. \[proparbrplin\] Given a sequence $(f_n)_n$ in $\Rat_d$ for ($d\geq2$) with $p\in \N^$ classes $M_1,\ldots,M_p$ of rescalings. Then, passing to a subsequence, there exists a portrait ${\bf F}$, a sequence ${(f_n,y_n,z_n)_n\in\Rat_{{\bf F},X}}$ and a dynamical system between trees of spheres $(\F,\T^{ X})$ such that - $\displaystyle { f}_n\overset{\lhd}{\underset{\phi_n^Y,\phi_n^Z}\longrightarrow}{ \F}$ and - $\forall i\in[\!\![1,p]\!\!], \exists v_i\in\T^Y$, $M_i\sim(\phi^Y_{n,v_i})_n$. Take a sequence of bi-critical maps in $Rat_d$ and suppose that it admits $p\geq 2$ dynamically independent rescalings of period at least $2$. Applying this theorem, passing to a subsequence we obtain such a $(\F,\T^{ X})$. Then according to lemma \[ext22\] we can suppose after passing to a subsequence that the portrait ${\bf F}$ satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem \[class0\]. Then the conclusions follow immediately. The case of degree $2$ {#last} ====================== Example {#decompmilnor} ------- In this part we propose to understand on a concrete example how to compute rescaling limits in the case of degree 2. Theorem \[class0\] allows to know how to find them but not how to prove that they exist. In [@RemarksQuad] J. Milnor notices that we have the following surprising relation : the set of rational maps of degree 2 having a period 2 cycle with multiplier $-3$ (denoted by $Per_2(-3)$) has always a period 3 cycle with multiplier 1 (so is included in $Per_3(1)$). During a MRC program session in June 2013 organized in Snowbird, Laura De Marco and Jan-Li Lin tried to understand this decomposition and studied the family $Per_2(-3)$. We have a parametrization (not injective) of this family given by $$f_a := \frac{(1+3a)(-a+z)}{(1-a)(3az+z^2)}.$$ Here, the 2-cycle with multiplier $-3$ is $\{0,\infty\}$. When $a\to 1$, the family $f_a$ diverges and $[f_a]$ diverges in $rat_2$. In this case we can find two rescaling limits and the knowledge of the limiting dynamics gives us the good rescalings that we have to look in order to compute them. As we have a persistent period 2 cycle that converges when $a\to1$, we know that for some normalization the second iterate of $f_a$ converges to a quadratic rational map with a parabolic fixed point and that it separates critical points. As critical points of $f_a$ are $-a$ and $3a$ and converge to different limits, we are in this normalization. After computations we verify that $$f^2_a\to f^2_1:=z(3+z)/(z-1) \text{ when } a\to 1\quad\text{(cf figure \ref{ExMilnor2})}.$$ ![The yellow is fixed and the associated cover is $-Id$. The green spheres have period 2 and are adjacent to a period 2 cycle ($a1\to a2\to a1$) with multiplier $-3$. On the green sphere on the right, the rescaling limit has a parabolic fixed point at infinity.[]{data-label="ExMilnor2"}](ExMilnor2.eps){width="8.5cm"} Infinity is a parabolic fixed point for $f^2_1$. We can also verify that the fixed sphere is in the branch attached at infinity (two of the three fixed points of $f_a$ converge to infinity). The third fixed point is constant equal to $1$ which is the second preimage of infinity for $f^2_1$. Otherwise we note that $-1$ is a critical point of $f^2_1$ and that $f^2_1(-1)=1$ so $-1$ is prefixed (so the other critical point $3$ lies in the parabolic basin of infinity). So there is no contradictions for the existence of a second resealing limit. J.Milnor’s remark suggest to see if there is not a rescaling limit of period 3 marked by a period 3 cycle. We would be in the configuration of figure \[exmil\]. ![The yellow sphere is fixed and the cover associated is $-Id$. The green spheres have period 2 and are adjacent to a period 2 cycle ($a1\to a2\to a1$) with multiplier $-3$. On the green sphere on the right, the rescaling limit has a parabolic fixed point at infinity, $c1$ is in its direct basin and $c0$ maps after two iterates to infinity. The red spheres are a cycle of period 3 and are adjacent to a period three cycle with multiplier 1 ($p1\to p2\to p3 \to p1$). The rescaling limit associated to the up and right sphere is a quadratic polynomial.[]{data-label="exmil"}](ExMilnor.eps){width="12.5cm"} We know that such a sphere would be marked by the critical point tending to $1$ and an element of this orbit. Thus we are looking for a point of period three $f_a$ that tends to $-1$ and after calculus we see that there exists exactly one like it that we will denote by $p3_a$. We chose the Moebius transformation $M_a$ such that $$M_a(3a)=\infty, M_a(-a)=0\text{ and }M_a(p3_a)=1,$$ ie : $$M_a(z)=\frac{z+a}{z-3a}\cdot \frac{p3_a-3a}{p3_a+a}~.$$ Thus if such a rescaling limit exists, then the branch containing one of the critical points would be at infinity and fixed and the other one would be at $0$, so we would obtain a quadratic polynomial of the form $z^2+C$ with $c\in \C$. After computation we find: $$\lim_{a\to 1}M_a\circ f^3_a\circ M_a^{-1}(z)=z^2+1/4.$$ We can see that in this case, if we didn’t mark the cycle $a_1,a_2$ then we are in the case \[class11\] of Theorem \[thmkiw2\]. In figure \[ExMilnor2\] we are in the case \[class2a\] of Theorem \[thmkiw2\] and in figure \[exmil\], in the case \[class2b\] of Theorem \[thmkiw2\]. Comparison with J.Milnor’s compactification {#last2} ------------------------------------------- [J. Milnor’s point of view.]{} In [@RemarksQuad], J. Milnor provides a parametrization of $\rat_2$ by looking at two of the symmetric functions of the multipliers at the fixed points. Such a way, $\rat_2$ can be viewed as a subset of $\C^2$ and be compactified as a subset of $\C P^2$. Every rational map $f$ of degree 2 that has three distinct fixed points $a,b,c$, is after a conjugacy by a Moebius transformation,of the form $$f(z)=z\frac{z+\alpha}{\beta z+1} \text{ with } \alpha\beta\neq1,$$ where $\alpha, \beta,\gamma$ are the respective multipliers of $a=0,b=\infty$ and $c$. Thus if a sequence of degree 2 rational maps $(f_n)_n$ diverges, one of the multipliers diverges. Suppose for example that $\gamma_n\to \infty$. The index formula assures that $$\frac{1}{1-\alpha_n}+\frac{1}{1-\beta_n}+\frac{1}{1-\gamma_n}=1\text{ so }\alpha_n\beta_n\to 1.$$ Suppose that $\beta_n\to\beta_\infty\in\C^\star$. Then $f_n\to(\beta_\infty \cdot Id)$ locally uniformly outside a point which is the limit of the critical points of the $f_n$. J. Milnor proved that the intersection points between the boundary of $\rat_2$ and the curves corresponding to rational maps with a cycle of given period and multiplier are the points where two of the multipliers are conjugated roots of unity. [Our point of view on $\rat_2$.]{} ![Enumeration of the possible configurations (after permutations of the labelings) of the convers between trees of spheres with a portrait corresponding to a rational map $f$ of degree 2 with non super-attractive fixed points $\alpha,\beta$ and $\gamma$ and two critical points $c$ and $c'$. We use the notations $v:=f(c)$ and $v':=f(c)$. The tree $T^Y$ is on the left and the corresponding tree $T^Z$ is on its right. The pre-fixed leaves of $F$ are not labeled. []{data-label="tarbr3fix"}](tarbr3fix1.eps){width="11cm"} Consider a rational map $f$ of degree 2 with 3 distinct and non super-attractive fixed points $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$. We define $X=\{ \alpha,\beta,\gamma\}$. By the Riemann-Hurwitz formula we know that $f$ has exactly two critical points, that we will denote by $c$ and $c'$, so two critical values $v:=f(c)$ and $v':+f(c')$. We set $Z:=X\cup \{v,v' \}$ and $Y:=f^{-1}(Z)$. We define ${\bf F}:=(f\|_Y,deg_f\|_Y)$ the corresponding portrait. Consider the set of rational maps of degree 2 with 3 distinct and non super-attractive fixed points. We can define three injections injections $x,y$ and $z$ such that these rational maps are marked by $(f,y,z)$ and such that we have $y\|_X=z\|_X$. All these rational maps have same portrait ${\bf F}$ and we will denote it by $\Rat_{{\bf F},X}$. Note that $\Rat_{{\bf F},X}\subset\Rat_2$ but this inclusion is strict. Indeed, this set does not contains: - the rational maps with a critical fixed points (conjugated to a polynomial in $\rat_2$); - the rational maps with a simple parabolic point; - the rational maps with a double parabolic point. We are going to see that all of these missing elements appear in some way in $\partial\Rat_{{\bf F},X}$. We take $\F$ a dynamical system between trees of spheres with portrait ${\bf F}$. The cover $\F$ has degree 2. According to lemma \[ptscrit\], $\F$ has two critical leaves $c$ and $c'$ and all the other critical vertices lie on the path connecting them. Figure \[tarbr3fix\] represent all the different possible applications of combinatorial trees for such a $\F$ (after a change of the fixed or critical leaves labels). The vertex $w_0$ separating the three fixed leaves is represented in cyan. It is surrounded by some yellow when it is critical and fixed, ie in the configurations [B, Pol]{} and [Triv]{}. According to corollary \[cvuutil\], the covers are converging in $\rat_2$ in those cases. In the cases [Pol]{} and [Triv]{}, we recognize the limits which are respectively the class of the polynomial maps and of the rational maps which have no super-attractve fixed points and no parabolic fixed points. In the case [B]{}, we recognize the class of the polynomial maps with a super -attractive fixed point, ie the class of $z\to z^2$. The vertex $w_0$ is not fixed in the configurations [A1,C1]{} and [W]{} so there is no rescaling limits in these cases. Denote by $v_0$ the critical vertex which is the closest to $w_0$. In the configurations [C2]{} and [Parb]{}, the vertex $v_0$ and its image are on the path $[w_0,\alpha]$, so we can apply the annulus lemma in the non critical case and conclude that $v_0$ is fixed, thus according to corollary \[cvuutil\] we are in the adherence of $\rat_2$. In the case [C2]{} we remark that the critical point which is the attaching point of the branch of $c'$ on $v_0$ is fixed and it is the limit of a fixed point so we are in the case of the polynomial maps class and there is in addition a double fixed point so this polynomial is conjugated to $z\to z^2+1/4$. In the case [Parb]{} there is again a double fixed point and a third non critical fixed point so we are in the parabolic rational map class which have no super-atractive fixed point. The configurations [DParb, A2]{} and [A3]{} are a bit more complicated to identify. For this suppose that these covers a dynamical limits of dynamical systems between spheres covers with portrait ${\bf F}$. Then according to the last lemma of [[@A2]]{}, after passing to a subsequence and the changing the portrait, we can suppose that $v_0$ and $F(v_0)$ are in $T^X$. Suppose that $w_0$, $v_0$ and $F(v_0)$ are on a same path then, as the vertex $w_0$ is fixed (and the associated cover is the identity because it fixes the attaching points of the branches containing the fixed points and they have degree one), according to the annuli lemma we have $v_0=F(v_0)$ and thus from corollary \[cvuutil\], the sequence converges uniformly to $[f_{v_0}]$ in $\rat_2$. So they are in the adherence of $\rat_2$ and the limit is a class of non polynomial covers with a triple fixed point in the cases [DParb]{} and [A2]{} or double fixed point in the case [A3]{}. Reciprocally, we know that such elements in $\Rat_2$ are limits of dynamical systems between spheres covers with portrait ${\bf F}$ and it is clear that we obtain such dynamical covers as their limits. Suppose by contradiction that $w_0$, $v_0$ and $F(v_0)$ are not on a same path then, using the annuli lemma in the non critical case, we prove that the vertex separating them is fixed and the corresponding cover is the identity and it follows that $v_0=F(v_0)$ which is absurd. In configuration [Stand]{}, the cover associated to $w_0$ is not the identity because the attaching point of the branch containing $\alpha$ doesn’t maps to itself. We deduce that the vertex $v_0$ is not fixed. If this cover is a dynamical limits of dynamical systems between spheres covers with portrait ${\bf F}$ and if there is a rescaling limit, then it has period more than $1$ and, according to Theorem \[thmkiw2\], the map $f_{w_0}$ has finite order so the multipliers at the fixed points $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are conjugated roots of unity. [Comments.]{} First we can see that a main missing tool is a sufficient condition for a dynamical system in order to be a dynamical limit of dynamical systems between trees of spheres. The second comment is that we can do is that we the assumptions we did, all the elements of $\Rat_2\setminus \Rat_{{\bf F},X}$ can be found in $\partial\Rat_{{\bf F},X}$. The third important remark is that our space contains the elements than J.Milnor’s compactification and contains in addition a blow up at the points corresponding to the rational map with a triple fixed point. Moreover, our space recover the fact that dynamically interesting points can be find we at the limit the multipliers of two fixed points are conjugated roots of unity. Note that J.Milnor did the same kind of remarks about the space of bicritical rational maps of degree $d>2$ and from Theorem \[thmkiw2\] we can do the same remark about the multipliers in this case. [105]{} , [Dynamique holomorphe et arbres de sphères]{}, Thèse de l’université Toulouse III. , [Dynamics on trees of spheres]{}, on arXiv. , [Compactification and trees of spheres covers]{}, in progress. , [Puiseux series polynomial dynamics and iteration of complex cubic polynomials]{}, Annales de l’Institut de Fourier, 2006. , [Puiseux Series Dynamics of Quadratic Rational Maps]{}, to appear in Israel Journal of Math. , [Rescaling Limits of Complex Rational Maps]{}, on arXiv. , [Geometry and Dynamics of Quadratic Rational Maps]{}, Experimental,Volume 2, Issue 1,1993. , [Dynamics in One Complex Variable*]{}, Annals of Mathematics Studies, third edition, Princeton University Press, 2006.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We observed the isolated neutron star [RX J0720.4-3125]{} with [[Chandra]{}]{}’s Low Energy Transmission Grating Spectrometer, following the [[XMM-Newton]{}]{} discovery of long term spectral evolution of this source. The new observation shows that the spectrum of [RX J0720.4-3125]{}has continued to change in the course of 5 months. It has remained hard, similar to the last [[XMM-Newton]{}]{} observation, but the strong depression observed with [[XMM-Newton]{}]{}at long wavelengths has disappeared. Contrary to the [[XMM-Newton]{}]{} observations, the new [[Chandra]{}]{} observation shows that the flux increase at short wavelengths and the decrease at long wavelengths do not necessarily occur simultaneously.' author: - 'Jacco Vink, Cor P. de Vries, Mariano Méndez' - Frank Verbunt title: 'The continued spectral evolution of the neutron star [RX J0720.4-3125]{}' --- Introduction ============ [RX J0720.4-3125]{} [@haberl97], is one of the best studied isolated neutron stars whose X-ray emission is dominated by radiation from the hot neutron star surface. Their X-ray spectra are best described by blackbody emission with $kT_\infty \sim 70$ eV, but the emitting areas seem to be significantly smaller than the canonical neutron star surface. This suggests that the X-ray emission is coming from a small, hot, fraction of the neutron star [@motch03; @kaplan03b], or may not be pure blackbody radiation, but instead the result of emission from a reflective condensed matter surface [@lenzen78; @turolla04]. Recently it was observed that the isolated neutron stars RX J1308.6+2127 and RX J1605.3+3249 exhibit broad absorption features that may be caused by proton cyclotron absorption [@haberl03a; @vankerkwijk04]. The spectral behavior of [RX J0720.4-3125]{} is even more surprising. Early observations with [[Chandra]{}]{} [@kaplan03b] and [[XMM-Newton]{}]{} [@paerels01] are consistent with a blackbody-like spectrum, but subsequent observations by [[XMM-Newton]{}]{} indicate a slow evolution of the spectrum between 10-38 Å, resulting in deviations from a Planckian spectrum. The deviations consist of a flux decrease at wavelengths longer than $\sim 23$Å, and a flux increase at shorter wavelengths [@devries04]. The nature of the emerging spectrum is not clear (modified blackbody, cyclotron absorption in combination with a hotter blackbody?), nor is it clear what causes the emission properties to change. In @devries04 we suggested that [RX J0720.4-3125]{} is precessing, which causes us to observe the hot region of the star under a continuously different angle. This requires that the surface emission is anisotropic, and may alter as result of traversing a magnetized atmosphere [@ho04]. Whatever the underlying mechanism, it is clear that the spectral evolution of [RX J0720.4-3125]{}potentially provides clues to the nature of the X-ray surface emission from isolated neutron stars, whereas the fact that the spectrum evolves may have implications for the structure of neutron stars, e.g. if the evolution is a consequence of precession. In order to further monitor its spectral evolution, and to investigate the spectrum for $\lambda > 38$ Å with high spectral resolution, we were granted Director’s Discretionary Time (DDT) on [[Chandra]{}]{} for observing [RX J0720.4-3125]{} with the Low Energy Transmission Grating Spectrometer (LETGS) in combination with the HRC-S (High Resolution Camera) microchannel plate detector. In this letter we report on the analysis of this observation. We show that the spectrum has continued to evolve: it has further hardened, but the attenuation at long wavelengths has disappeared. Observation and data analysis ============================= [[Chandra]{}]{} observed [RX J0720.4-3125]{} for 35 ks on February 27, 2004 (Obs. ID 5305) as part of its DDT program. For our analysis we used the cleaned event list available from the [[Chandra]{}]{} X-ray Center. Spectral extraction and ancillary response files were made using the standard [[Chandra]{}]{} reduction package CIAO v.3.0.2. For comparison we also analyzed the longest archival LETGS observation, made on February 2, 2000 [Obs. ID 745, see also @kaplan03b], and the six archival [[XMM-Newton]{}]{} Reflective Grating Spectrometer (RGS) data sets discussed in @devries04. The LETGS DDT spectrum is shown in Fig. \[ddt\]. The spectrum is clearly harder than the LETGS spectrum of February 2000. This confirms the discovery of spectral evolution of [RX J0720.4-3125]{} [@devries04]. However, it is clear that the source has continued to evolve since the last [[XMM-Newton]{}]{} observation of 27 October 2003, as the attenuation of the emission above 23 Å, which increased with time and was very prominent in the last RGS spectrum, has almost disappeared. In fact, unlike the last RGS spectrum both LETGS spectra can be fitted reasonably well with pure blackbody models, but with different temperatures. The new spectrum requires a hotter blackbody temperature of $kT_\infty \sim 100$ eV than that of February 2000, which is best fitted with a temperature of $\sim 85$ eV. The precise values for temperature depend on the modeling assumptions (Table \[bbody\]), e.g. whether we allow the interstellar absorption to vary from one observation to another (columns [[$N_{\rm H}$]{}]{} free) or whether we fit the two spectra simultaneously, forcing the absorption parameters for the two models to be equal. [lllll]{} & &\ Parameter & [[$N_{\rm H}$]{}]{} free & & [[$N_{\rm H}$]{}]{} free\ $kT_{\infty}$ (eV)& $82.9\pm1.5$ &$86.4\pm2.4$ &$100.6\pm1.1$& $103.4\pm1.3$\ $R$ (km) & $5.36\pm0.12$ &$4.63\pm0.07$&$3.43\pm0.04$& $3.13\pm0.05$\ [[$N_{\rm H}$]{}]{} ($10^{20}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}$) & $1.28\pm0.12$ & & $0.63\pm0.09$\ C-statistic/\#bins& 727.5/720 & 735.8/719 & 780.6/719 &771.3/719\ We note that the spectral fitting can be further improved for both LETGS spectra by an additional soft [emission]{} component, which contributes to $\lambda > 50$ Å. However, we do not want to overemphasize this. First, it may be the result of calibration uncertainties regarding the instrument sensitivity. Secondly, assuming that the additional component is real and caused by thermal emission, a very cool blackbody is required ($kT_\infty \sim 23$ eV), with an emitting area too large for a neutron star, corresponding to a radius of $\sim 400$ km [following @kaplan03b we assume here, and throughout the rest of the text a distance of 300 pc]. The observed increase of the emission above 23 Å with respect to the last RGS observation is very interesting, but also somewhat unfortunate, as the broad spectral range of the LETGS would have allowed to put better constraints on the spectral shape of the low energy attenuation. For instance, @devries04 showed that the deviations from a blackbody spectrum apparent from the [[XMM-Newton]{}]{}-RGS spectra, could be either modeled by a broad Gaussian absorption component, or by a blackbody modified by a multiplicative power law. @devries04 favored the characterization by a power law times a blackbody, as it provided good fits to the data with fewer parameters: Apart from the blackbody parameters, only the power-law slope had to be determined. Although there is no clear physical rational for such a model, the spectral evolution could be characterized by just one parameter: the power-law slope. Changing the power-law slope results in a simultaneous hardening and supression of long wavelength emission, which describes well the spectral evolution up to October, 2003, see Fig. \[flux\]. [^1] The alternative spectral model discussed in @devries04, a blackbody with Gaussian absorption, e.g. caused by proton cyclotron absorption, has three additional parameters: central energy, $E_0$, width, $\sigma_E$, and normalization. Such a model has been considered by @vankerkwijk04 for RX J1605.3+3249, and for [RX J0720.4-3125]{} by @haberl03b, who found a central energy of 271 eV and width $\sigma_E = 64$ eV. Reanalyzing the RGS spectra for this study, and simultaneously fitting all spectra with a blackbody model with Gaussian absorption with one central energy and width gives $E_0 = 306\pm 8$ eV (40.5 Å) and $\sigma_E = 137\pm8$ eV. The central energy is outside the RGS spectral range and the width is so large that, as far as the RGS spectra are concerned, the Gaussian absorption component is indistinguishable from an exponential absorption feature. However, the RGS spectra are inconsistent with the best-fit Gaussian parameters found by @haberl03b, mainly because the RGS spectra require a broader absorption feature than a Gaussian absorption with $\sigma_E = 64$ eV. Whatever the best model to describe the deviations from a blackbody spectrum, the new LETGS spectrum breaks the trend that a spectral hardening is accompanied by a decrease of long wavelength emission. The flux in the spectral range from 10-90 Å has slightly increased since February 2000 by 8%, but the best-fit parameters of the blackbody model imply that the total blackbody flux has hardly changed. Taken at face value this would imply that the emission area must have decreased (Table \[bbody\]). It is of interest that apart from a long term change in the spectrum, [[XMM-Newton]{}]{} CCD spectroscopy indicates that the spectral shape is also a function of pulse phase [@cropper01; @haberl03b], and is in itself also subject to evolution [@devries04]. Unfortunately, the RGS timing resolution ($\sim$4 s) is not sufficient to check the shape of the long wavelength attenuation as a function of pulse phase. On the other hand, the timing resolution of [[Chandra]{}]{}’s HRC-S detector is $\sim4$ ms. We therefore folded the events of both the February 2000 and 2004 observation with the 8.3911 s period [see @cropper04 for the latest timing results], and added a timing offset in order to align the folded light curves so that the maximum emission occurs at phase 0.25 and the minimum at 0.75. We then extracted spectra for the phase bins 0.125 - 0.375 and 0.625-0.875 (Fig. \[phases\]). Apart from an obvious variation in brightness between on and off peak, the overall shapes of the spectra do not change much. In order to test this we statistically compared the two spectra for each observation by direct comparison of the countrates per spectral bin. We assumed that the spectra are the same in both phase bins, except for a normalization factor. The best fitting normalization factors, i.e. the ratio in flux between on and off peak emission, are $1.19\pm0.06$ (Feb. 2000) and $1.22\pm0.05$ (Feb 2004), which is consistent with previous published pulse profiles [@cropper01; @devries04]. Comparing the on peak spectra with the off peak spectra multiplied by the normalization factor we obtained respectively $\chi^2/dof = 23.38/15$ and $\chi^2/dof = 17.77/15$, which corresponds to probabilities of 8% and 27% that on and off peak spectra are similar. Our limits for variations are still consistent with the results of @cropper01, who found variable absorption of the order of $\Delta$[[$N_{\rm H}$]{}]{}$ = 4\times10^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$. Note that although the LETGS has a higher spectral resolution, the [[XMM-Newton]{}]{} CCD instruments have a much higher effective area. Phase resolved spectroscopy with the LETGS does, however, indicate that whatever the phase dependent spectral changes, they must be rather subtle and are probably caused by broad features. Discussion ========== Following the discovery of long term spectral changes in the X-ray emission of [RX J0720.4-3125]{} by [[XMM-Newton]{}]{}, the new [[Chandra]{}]{} DDT observation shows that the X-ray spectrum of [RX J0720.4-3125]{} has continued to evolve. In particular the spectrum has remained hard from October 2003 to February 2004, but, somewhat unexpected, the attenuation of emission at wavelengths longer than 23 Å has disappeared. A simple minded explanation would be that part of [RX J0720.4-3125]{} surface must have heated up in the course of the last 4 years, initially accompanied by absorption, but which disappeared between October 2003 and February 2004. The absorption mechanism could be proton cyclotron absorption, as was invoked to explain the broad absorption features in the spectra of other isolated neutron stars. However, such an explanation is not completely consistent with the evolution of the spectrum of [RX J0720.4-3125]{}. First of all, if the surface is heated up by a starquake [@larson02], or by increased accretion from the interstellar medium, we would expect that an additional hot spot at the surface would appear, or that the existing hot spot would become hotter. As a result the total blackbody flux would increase. This is, however, in disagreement with our best-fit blackbody parameters and the flux decrease between 45-55 Å (Fig. \[ddt\]). Note that heating as a result of accretion from the interstellar medium is also unlikely given the the high proper motion of the neutron star [$97\pm12$ mas/yr, @motch03]. Our suggestion that the spectral evolution of [RX J0720.4-3125]{} is due to precession [@devries04], can at least qualitatively explain the results. It assumes that the emission remains unchanged, but that we see the hot spot under different viewing angles. Free precession has been observed in some pulsars [e.g. @stairs]. Recently @wasserman03 has calculated the expected precession period caused by an oblique magnetic field and magnetic stresses in the neutron crust. His model requires a Type II superconducting interior. The expected precession period scales as $P_p\propto P_0B^{-1}$, with $P_0$ the rotation period. For [RX J0720.4-3125]{}, which has an inferred magnetic field of $B=3\times 10^{13}$ G [@cropper04], the expected precession period is $P_p\sim4$ yr, which is consistent with the timescale of the spectral evolution. Moreover, [[XMM-Newton]{}]{} CCD spectra indicate that a modulation of the spectrum with pulse phase is present, and the fact that pulsation can be observed at all requires anisotropic surface emission [@cropper01]. As the phase modulation of the spectrum also implies a spectral change with viewing angle, it is not unreasonable to assume that precession gives rise to a similar modulation of the spectrum with precession phase. Theoretically a strong effect of the viewing angle on the observed spectrum from a highly magnetized atmosphere is to be expected. The reason is that protons and electrons in the neutron star atmosphere are constrained to move along the magnetic field lines. This results in radiation that is strongly polarized and angle dependent. This is further enhanced for magnetic fields $B \gtrsim 10^{13}$ G, for which vacuum polarization becomes important. This is a quantum electrodynamics effect that changes the polarization mode as the photon traverses a density gradient [@oezel01; @ho04]. The new [[Chandra]{}]{} observation is not able to confirm that the attenuation has an approximate Gaussian shape, as may be expected for proton cyclotron absorption. However, as the spectrum of [RX J0720.4-3125]{}continues to evolve, future [[Chandra]{}]{}-LETGS observations may be able to constrain the spectral model further. Long term monitoring is necessary to test the precession idea, since it implies a cyclic spectral evolution. @kaplan03b suggested that [RX J0720.4-3125]{} is an off-beam radio pulsar. If it is indeed precessing, there is a possibility that at some point during its cycle the radio beam will be directed toward the earth. Finally, we point out that other isolated neutron stars may show similar behavior, indicative of precession. Further observations of those sources is therefore important for increasing our understanding of both the hot surface of neutron stars and for probing their internal structure. We thank Dr. Harvey Tananbaum for allowing [RX J0720.4-3125]{} to be observed as part of the DDT program, and for his continued interest in the results. We thank Rob van der Meer for his assistance with the LETGS data analysis. [19]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{} , K. A. 1996, in ASP Conf. Ser. 101: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, Vol. 5, 17 , W. 1979, , 228, 939 Cropper, M., Haberl, F., Zane, S., & Zavlin, V. 2004 , M., [Zane]{}, S., [Ramsay]{}, G., [Haberl]{}, F., & [Motch]{}, C. 2001, , 365, L302 , C. P., [Vink]{}, J., [M[' e]{}ndez]{}, M., & [Verbunt]{}, F. 2004, , 415, L31 , F., [Motch]{}, C., [Buckley]{}, D. A. H., [Zickgraf]{}, F.-J., & [Pietsch]{}, W. 1997, , 326, 662 , F., [Schwope]{}, A. D., [Hambaryan]{}, V., [Hasinger]{}, G., & [Motch]{}, C. 2003, , 403, L19 Haberl, F., Zavlin, V. E., Truemper, J., & Burwitz, V. 2003 Ho, W. C. G. & Lai, D. 2004, (in press) , D. L., [van Kerkwijk]{}, M. H., [Marshall]{}, H. L., [Jacoby]{}, B. A., [Kulkarni]{}, S. R., & [Frail]{}, D. A. 2003, , 590, 1008 , M. B. & [Link]{}, B. 2002, , 333, 613 , R. & [Truemper]{}, J. 1978, , 271, 216 , C., [Zavlin]{}, V. E., & [Haberl]{}, F. 2003, , 408, 323 , F. 2001, , 563, 276 , F. [et al.]{} 2001, , 365, L298 , I. H., [Lyne]{}, A. G., & [Shemar]{}, S. L. 2000, , 406, 484 , R., [Zane]{}, S., & [Drake]{}, J. J. 2004, , 603, 265 van Kerkwijk, M. H., Kaplan, D. L., Durant, M., Kulkarni, S. R., & Paerels, F. 2004 , I. 2003, , 341, 1020 [^1]: In order to reduce the effects of x\[systematic uncertainties in the sensitivity of the two instruments, we have normalized the fluxes to those of the first observation with each instrument. The normalized fluxes can be converted to absolute fluxes by multiplication with $(4.3\pm0.1)\times10^{-12}$ ergs$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$ (23-38 Å) and $(1.7\pm0.2)\times10^{-12}$ ergs$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$ (10-23 Å).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| An exact path integral treatment of a particle in a deformed radial Rosen-Morse potential is presented. For this problem with the Dirichlet boundary conditions, the Green’s function is constructed in a closed form by adding to $V_{q}(r)$ a $\delta -$function perturbation and making its strength infinitely repulsive. A transcendental equation for the energy levels $E_{n_{r}}$ and the wave functions of the bound states can then be deduced. PACS: 03.65.-w Quantum mechanics 03.65.Ca-Formalism 03.65.Db-Functional analytical methods Keywords: Rosen-Morse potential; Green’s function; Path integral; Bound states. \Corresponding author, E-mail: [email protected] author: - \| A Kadja, F Benamira and L Guechi\\ Laboratoire de Physique Théorique, Département de Physique, - 'Faculté des Sciences Exactes, Université des frères Mentouri,' - 'Route d’Ain El Bey, Constantine, Algeria.' title: 'Path integral solution for a deformed radial Rosen-Morse potential' --- Introduction ============ The so-called Rosen-Morse potential is a one-dimensional potential function introduced by Rosen and Morse in 1932 to study the vibrational states of poly-atomic molecules [@Rosen] . Since then, it has attracted a lot of interest due to its numerous applications in several branches of physics [@Townes; @Smondyrev]. It has also been used as an illustrative example in different methods such as the factorization method [@Infeld; @Amani], the prepotential approach [@Ho], the path integral technique [Junker,Grosche,Mustapic,Kleinert]{}, the supersymmetry in quantum mechanics and the shape invariance [@Cooper; @Yilmaz] and the Nikiforov-Uvarov method [@Egrifes1; @Egrifes2; @Egrifes3]. There is also the spherically symmetric Rosen-Morse potential which has been discussed by many authors [@Taskin; @Jia; @Diaf1; @Diaf2; @Antia] in recent years without distinguishing between the one-dimensional potential and the radial potential problem. Consequently, the solutions which have been obtained until now are not satisfactory. The purpose of the present work is to re-examine and rederive, within the framework of path integrals, the correct solutions of the problem of the non relativistic particle of mass $M$ moving in the $q-$deformed radial Rosen-Morse potential denoted by $$V_{q}\left( r\right) =-\frac{V_{1}}{\cosh _{q}^{2}\left( \frac{r}{a}\right) }% +V_{2}\tanh _{q}\left( \frac{r}{a}\right) \label{RM.1}$$where $V_{1},V_{2},a$ and $q$ are four potential parameters. It is defined in terms of the $q-$deformed hyperbolic functions $(q>0)$ $$\sinh _{q}x=\frac{e^{x}-qe^{-x}}{2},\text{ \ }\cosh _{q}x=\frac{e^{x}+qe^{-x}% }{2},\text{ \ }\tanh _{q}x=\frac{\sinh _{q}x}{\text{\ }\cosh _{q}x} \label{RM.1a}$$ which have been introduced for the first time by Arai [@Arai]. The introduction of the parameter $q$ may be used as an additional parameter in the description of inter-atomic interactions, in particular, when the particle motion takes place in a half-space different from the half-space $% r>0$, i. e., the center of mass location of the molecule is not at the coordinate origin. In Fig. \[Fig.1\] the potential (\[RM.1\]) is plotted for four different $q$ values. $$\FRAME{itbpFU}{2.7095in}{2.0686in}{0in}{\Qcb{Fig. \protect\ref{Fig.1}: A plot of the Rosen-Morse potential (\protect\ref{RM.1}) for different $q$ values. Here $V_{2}=V_{1}/4$. The potential $V_{q}\left( r\right) $ is scaled in units of $V_{1}$, and the coordinate $r$ is scaled in units of $a.$% }}{\Qlb{Fig.1}}{swp11.jpg}{\special{language "Scientific Word";type "GRAPHIC";maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE;display "USEDEF";valid_file "F";width 2.7095in;height 2.0686in;depth 0in;original-width 2.6671in;original-height 2.0306in;cropleft "0";croptop "1";cropright "1";cropbottom "0";filename 'swp11/swp11.jpg';file-properties "NPEU";}}$$ To do that, in section 2, the evaluation procedure of the Green’s function via the path integral approach for a potential with Dirichlet boundary conditions is used. We use a trick which consists in incorporating a $\delta -$ function perturbation as an additional potentiel. After calculating the Green’s function in closed form, i.e., in a form that involves no summation, we shall make the strength of the $\delta -$ function perturbation infinitely repulsive to obtain the Green’s function associated with the $s$ waves for the potential (\[RM.1\]). Then in section 3, we derive a transcendental equation for the energy levels and the wave functions of the bound states. In section 4, the standard radial Rosen-Morse ($q=1$) is considered as particular case. The section 5 will be a conclusion. Green’s function ================= The propagator for a particle of mass $M$ in the deformed radial Rosen-Morse (\[RM.1\]) is written in spherical coordinates as $$K^{q}\left( \overrightarrow{r}^{\prime \prime },\overrightarrow{r}^{\prime };T\right) =\frac{1}{r^{\prime \prime }r^{\prime }}\sum\limits_{l=0}^{\infty }\frac{2l+1}{4\pi }K_{l}^{q}\left( r^{\prime \prime },r^{\prime };T\right) P_{l}\left( \frac{\overrightarrow{r}^{\prime \prime }.\overrightarrow{r}% ^{\prime }}{r^{\prime \prime }r^{\prime }}\right) , \label{RM.2}$$ where $P_{l}\left( \frac{\overrightarrow{r}^{\prime \prime }.\overrightarrow{% r}^{\prime }}{r^{\prime \prime }r^{\prime }}\right) $ is the Legendre polynomial of degree $l$ in $\frac{\overrightarrow{r}^{\prime \prime }.% \overrightarrow{r}^{\prime }}{r^{\prime \prime }r^{\prime }}=\cos \theta ^{\prime \prime }\cos \theta ^{\prime }+\sin \theta ^{\prime \prime }\sin \theta ^{\prime }\cos (\phi ^{\prime \prime }-\phi ^{\prime })$. The radial propagator is given by the path integral representation [@Peak] $$K_{l}^{q}\left( r^{\prime \prime },r^{\prime };T\right) =\text{ }\underset{% N\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\prod\limits_{j=1}^{N}\left[ \frac{M}{2i\pi \hbar \varepsilon }\right] ^{\frac{1}{2}}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{N-1}\left[ \int dr_{j}\right] \exp \left[ \frac{i}{\hbar }\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N}S(j,j-1)% \right] , \label{RM.3}$$ in which the action for each short-time interval is defined by $$S(j,j-1)=\frac{M}{2\varepsilon }\left( \Delta r_{j}\right) ^{2}+\varepsilon \frac{l(l+1)\hbar ^{2}}{2Mr_{j}r_{j-1}}+\varepsilon \left( \frac{V_{1}}{% \cosh _{q}^{2}\left( \frac{r_{j}}{a}\right) }-V_{2}\tanh _{q}\left( \frac{% r_{j}}{a}\right) \right) , \label{RM.4}$$ with the usual notation $r_{j}=r(t_{j}),\triangle r_{j}=r_{j}-r_{j-1},\varepsilon =t_{j}-t_{j-1}=T/N,t^{\prime }=t_{0},t^{\prime \prime }=t_{N}$ and $T=t^{\prime \prime }-t^{\prime }$. By assuming that the system has only a discrete spectrum, expression (\[RM.4\]) corresponds to the propagator expressed in spectral expansion as $$K_{l}^{q}\left( r^{\prime \prime },r^{\prime };T\right) =\sum\limits_{n_{r}}\varphi _{n_{r},l}^{q\ast }(r^{\prime })\varphi _{n_{r},l}^{q}(r^{\prime \prime })e^{\frac{i}{\hbar }E_{n_{r},l}T};\text{ }% T>0, \label{RM.5}$$ where $\varphi _{n_{r},l}^{q}(r)$ is the reduced radial wave function, $% E_{n_{r},l}$ are the energy eigenvalues and $n_{r}$ denotes the number of the nodes of the radial wave functions. Our aim is to find $E_{n_{r}}$ and $% \varphi _{n_{r}}^{q}(r)$ for $l=0$ by evaluating (\[RM.3\]). Since the radial path integral (\[RM.3\]) cannot directly be calculated, we consider the radial Green’s function (Fourier transform of the radial propagator): $$G_{0}^{q}\left( r^{\prime \prime },r^{\prime };E\right) =\int_{0}^{\infty }dT\exp \left( \frac{i}{\hbar }ET\right) K_{0}^{q}\left( r^{\prime \prime },r^{\prime };T\right) . \label{RM.6}$$ With the new variable $u=\frac{r}{a}-\ln \sqrt{q}$ and the new pseudo-time $% s=\frac{t}{a^{2}}$, the radial Green’s function (\[RM.6\]) becomes$$G_{0}^{q}\left( r^{\prime \prime },r^{\prime };E\right) =a\widetilde{G}% _{RM}\left( u^{\prime \prime },u^{\prime };E\right) \label{RM.7}$$and$$\widetilde{G}_{RM}\left( u^{\prime \prime },u^{\prime };E\right) =\int_{0}^{\infty }dS\exp \left( \frac{i}{\hbar }a^{2}ES\right) K_{0}(u^{\prime \prime },u^{\prime };S), \label{RM.7bis}$$where$$K_{0}(u^{\prime \prime },u^{\prime };S)=\int Du(s)\exp \left\{ \frac{i}{% \hbar }\int_{0}^{S}\left( \frac{M}{2}\overset{.}{u}^{2}-V(u)\right) ds\right\} , \label{RM.8}$$with $$V(u)=a^{2}\left( V_{2}\tanh u-\frac{V_{1}}{q\cosh ^{2}u}\right) ;\text{ \ \ }% u\geq -\ln \sqrt{q}. \label{RM.9}$$The propagator (\[RM.8\]) has the same form as the path integral associated with the Rosen-Morse potential $V_{RM}(u)$ for $u\in %TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }% %BeginExpansion \mathbb{R} %EndExpansion $, but, in the present case, we have converted the path integral for the deformed radial potential (\[RM.1\]) into a path integral for a Rosen-Morse potential type by means of the transformation $r\rightarrow r(u)$, which maps $% %TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }% %BeginExpansion \mathbb{R} %EndExpansion ^{+}\rightarrow \left] -\ln \sqrt{q},+\infty \right[ $. This means that the motion of the particle takes place on the half line $u\geq u_{0}=-\ln \sqrt{q% }.$ As a direct path integration is not possible, the problem can be solved with the help of a trick which consists in adding an auxiliary $\delta -$function term to the action contained in Eq. (\[RM.7bis\]) to form an impenetrable wall [@Clark] at $u=u_{0}=-\ln \sqrt{q}$ by letting the strength of the $\delta -$function be infinitely repulsive. Then, in this case, the Green’s function is given by $$G_{0}^{\delta }\left( u^{\prime \prime },u^{\prime };E\right) =\int_{0}^{\infty }dS\exp \left( \frac{i}{\hbar }a^{2}ES\right) K_{0}^{\delta }(u^{\prime \prime },u^{\prime };S) \label{RM.10}$$where$$K_{0}^{\delta }(u^{\prime \prime },u^{\prime };S)=\int Du(s)\exp \left\{ \frac{i}{\hbar }\int_{0}^{S}\left( \frac{M}{2}\overset{.}{u}^{2}-V^{\delta }(u)\right) ds\right\} \label{RM.11}$$is the propagator for a one-dimensional system bounded by a potential of the form: $$V^{\delta }(u)=V_{RM}(u)-\lambda \delta \left( u-u_{0}\right) ;\text{ \ \ \ }% u\in %TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }% %BeginExpansion \mathbb{R} %EndExpansion , \label{RM.12}$$in which $V_{RM}(u)$ is the standard Rosen-Morse potential. As the path integration of (\[RM.11\]) cannot directly be performed, we apply the perturbative approach by expanding $\exp \left( \frac{i}{\hbar }\lambda \int_{s^{\prime }}^{s^{\prime \prime }}\delta \left( u-u_{0}\right) ds\right) $ into the power series. This gives the following series expansion [@Grosche1; @Hibbs; @Lawande] : $$\begin{aligned} K_{0}^{\delta }(u^{\prime \prime },u^{\prime };S) &=&K_{RM}(u^{\prime \prime },u^{\prime };S) \notag \\ &&+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\infty }{\sum }}\frac{1}{n!}\left( \frac{i}{\hbar }\lambda \right) ^{n}\int \mathit{D}u(s)\exp \left[ \frac{i}{\hbar }% \int_{0}^{S}\left( \frac{M}{2}\overset{.}{u}^{2}-V_{RM}(u)\right) ds\right] \notag \\ &&\times \int_{0}^{S}\delta \left( u_{1}-u_{0}\right) ds_{1}...\int_{0}^{S}\delta \left( u_{n}-u_{0}\right) ds_{n} \label{RM.13}\end{aligned}$$ where $K_{RM}(u^{\prime \prime },u^{\prime };S)$ is the propagator for the standard Rosen-Morse potential. With the time-ordering $s^{\prime }=s_{0}=0<s_{1}<s_{2}<...<s_{n}<s^{\prime \prime }=S$, the propagator ([RM.13]{}) can be rewritten as the Feynman-Dyson perturbation series $$\begin{aligned} K_{0}^{\delta }(u^{\prime \prime },u^{\prime };S) &=&K_{RM}(u^{\prime \prime },u^{\prime };S) \notag \\ &&+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\infty }{\sum }}\frac{1}{n!}\left( \frac{i}{\hbar }\lambda \right) ^{n}\overset{n}{\underset{j=1}{\prod }}\left[ \int_{s^{\prime }}^{s_{j+1}}ds_{j}\int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }du_{j}\right] \notag \\ &&\times K_{RM}(u_{1},u^{\prime };s_{1}-s^{\prime })\delta \left( u_{1}-u_{0}\right) K_{RM}(u_{2},u_{1};s_{2}-s_{1}) \notag \\ &&\times ...\times \delta \left( u_{n-1}-u_{n-2}\right) K_{RM}(u_{n},u_{n-1};s_{n}-s_{n-1}) \notag \\ &&\times \delta \left( u_{n}-u_{n-1}\right) K_{RM}(u^{\prime \prime },u_{n};s^{\prime \prime }-s_{n}) \notag \\ &=&K_{RM}(u^{\prime \prime },u^{\prime };S)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\infty }{% \sum }}\frac{1}{n!}\left( \frac{i}{\hbar }\lambda \right) ^{n}\int_{s^{\prime }}^{s^{\prime \prime }}ds_{n} \notag \\ &&\times \int_{s^{\prime }}^{s_{n}}ds_{n-1}...\int_{s^{\prime }}^{s_{2}}ds_{1}K_{RM}(u_{1},u^{\prime };s_{1}-s^{\prime }) \notag \\ &&\times K_{RM}(u_{2},u_{1};s_{2}-s_{1})\times ...\times K_{RM}(u^{\prime \prime },u_{n};s^{\prime \prime }-s_{n}). \notag \\ && \label{RM.14}\end{aligned}$$In order to perform the successive integrations over the time variables $% s_{j}$ in (\[RM.14\]), we insert (\[RM.14\]) into (\[RM.10\]), and making use the convolution theorem of the Fourier transformation, we arrive at $$G_{RM}^{\delta }(u^{\prime \prime },u^{\prime };E)=G_{RM}(u^{\prime \prime },u^{\prime };E)-\frac{G_{RM}(u^{\prime \prime },u_{0};E)G_{RM}(u_{0},u^{\prime };E)}{G_{RM}(u_{0},u_{0};E)-\frac{1}{% \lambda }}, \label{RM.15}$$where $G_{RM}(u^{\prime \prime },u^{\prime };E)$ is the Green’s function relative to the Rosen-Morse potential in the entire space $% %TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }% %BeginExpansion \mathbb{R} %EndExpansion $, and, as is known from the literature [@Mustapic; @Kleinert], its closed expression is given by $$\begin{aligned} G_{RM}(u^{\prime \prime },u^{\prime };E) &=&-\frac{iM}{\hbar }\frac{\Gamma (M_{1}-L_{\nu _{q}})\Gamma (L_{\nu _{q}}+M_{1}+1)}{\Gamma (M_{1}+M_{2}+1)\Gamma (M_{1}-M_{2}+1)} \notag \\ &&\times \left( \frac{1-\tanh u^{\prime }}{2}.\frac{1-\tanh u^{\prime \prime }}{2}\right) ^{\frac{M_{1}+M_{2}}{2}} \notag \\ &&\times \text{ }\left( \frac{1+\tanh u^{\prime }}{2}.\frac{1+\tanh u^{\prime \prime }}{2}\right) ^{\frac{M_{1}-M_{2}}{2}} \notag \\ &&\times \text{ }_{2}F_{1}\left( M_{1}-L_{\nu _{q}},L_{\nu _{q}}+M_{1}+1,M_{1}-M_{2}+1;\frac{1}{2}(1+\tanh u_{>})\right) \notag \\ &&\times \text{ }_{2}F_{1}\left( M_{1}-L_{\nu _{q}},L_{\nu _{q}}+M_{1}+1,M_{1}+M_{2}+1;\frac{1}{2}(1-\tanh u_{<})\right) , \notag \\ && \label{RM.16}\end{aligned}$$ with the following abbreviations$$\left\{ \begin{array}{c} L_{\nu _{q}}=\frac{1}{2}\left( \nu _{q}-1\right) , \\ \nu _{q}=\sqrt{1+\frac{8Ma^{2}V_{1}}{\hbar ^{2}q}}, \\ M_{1,2}=\sqrt{\frac{Ma^{2}}{2\hbar ^{2}}}\left( \sqrt{V_{2}-E}\pm \sqrt{% -V_{2}-E}\right) .% \end{array}% \right. \label{RM.17}$$The $_{2}F_{1}(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,u)$ are the hypergeometric functions. The symbols $u_{>}$ and $u_{<}$ denote $\max (u^{\prime \prime },u^{\prime }) $ and $\min (u^{\prime \prime },u^{\prime })$, respectively. Now, in the limit $\lambda \rightarrow -\infty $, the physical system is forced to move in the potential $V_{RM}(u)$ bounded by an infinitely repulsive barrier [@Clark; @Grosche1] located at $u=u_{0}$. In this case, the Green’s function is given by $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{G}_{RM}(u^{\prime \prime },u^{\prime };E) &=&\underset{\lambda \rightarrow -\infty }{\lim }G_{RM}^{\delta }(u^{\prime \prime },u^{\prime };E) \notag \\ &=&G_{RM}(u^{\prime \prime },u^{\prime };E)-\frac{G_{RM}(u^{\prime \prime },u_{0};E)G_{RM}(u_{0},u^{\prime };E)}{G_{RM}(u_{0},u_{0};E)} \notag \\ && \label{RM.18}\end{aligned}$$ Energy spectrum and wave functions of bound states ================================================== The energy spectrum for the bound states can be obtained from the poles of the Green’s function (\[RM.18\]), i.e. by the equation $% G_{RM}(u_{0},u_{0};E)=0$, or as well by the transcendental equation$$\text{ }_{2}F_{1}\left( M_{1}(E_{n_{r}})-L_{\nu _{q}},L_{\nu _{q}}+M_{1}(E_{n_{r}})+1,M_{1}(E_{n_{r}})+M_{2}(E_{n_{r}})+1;\frac{q}{q+1}% \right) =0. \label{RM.19}$$The energies $E_{n_{r}}$ of the bound states can be determined by solving numerically this equation and the wave functions satisfying the boundary conditions $\varphi _{n_{r}}^{q}(0)=\varphi _{n_{r}}^{q}(+\infty )=0$ are given by. $$\begin{aligned} \varphi _{n_{r}}^{q}(r) &=&C\text{ }\left( \frac{q}{e^{r/a}+q}\right) ^{% \frac{M_{1}(E_{n_{r}})+M_{2}(E_{n_{r}})}{2}}\left( \frac{e^{2r/a}}{e^{r/a}+q}% \right) ^{\frac{M_{1}(E_{n_{r}})-M_{2}(E_{n_{r}})}{2}} \notag \\ &&\times \text{ }_{2}F_{1}\left( M_{1}(E_{n_{r}})-L_{\nu _{q}},L_{\nu _{q}}+M_{1}(E_{n_{r}})+1,M_{1}(E_{n_{r}})+M_{2}(E_{n_{r}})+1;\frac{q}{% e^{2r/a}+q}\right) , \notag \\ && \label{RM.20}\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is a constant factor. Radial Rosen-Morse potential ============================ By setting $q=1$ in the expression (\[RM.1\]), we obtain the so-called radial Rosen-Morse potential $$V(r)=-\frac{V_{1}}{\cosh ^{2}\left( \frac{r}{a}\right) }+V_{2}\tanh \left( \frac{r}{a}\right) . \label{RM.21}$$ The $L_{\nu _{q}}$ and $\nu _{q}$ parameters defined by expressions ([RM.17]{}) can be written $$\left\{ \begin{array}{c} L_{\nu _{1}}=\frac{1}{2}\left( \nu _{1}-1\right) , \\ \nu _{1}=\sqrt{1+\frac{8Ma^{2}V_{1}}{\hbar ^{2}}}.% \end{array}% \right. \label{RM.22}$$ In this case, it follows from (\[RM.19\]) and (\[RM.20\]) that the transcendental quantization condition for the bound state energy levels $% E_{n_{r}}$ and the wave functions are $$\text{ }_{2}F_{1}\left( M_{1}(E_{n_{r}})-L_{\nu _{1}},L_{\nu _{1}}+M_{1}(E_{n_{r}})+1,M_{1}(E_{n_{r}})+M_{2}(E_{n_{r}})+1;\frac{1}{2}% \right) =0, \label{RM.23}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \varphi _{n_{r}}^{1}(r) &=&C\text{ }\left( \frac{1}{e^{r/a}+1}\right) ^{% \frac{M_{1}(E_{n_{r}})+M_{2}(E_{n_{r}})}{2}}\left( \frac{e^{2r/a}}{e^{r/a}+1}% \right) ^{\frac{M_{1}(E_{n_{r}})-M_{2}(E_{n_{r}})}{2}} \notag \\ &&\times \text{ }_{2}F_{1}\left( M_{1}(E_{n_{r}})-L_{\nu _{1}},L_{\nu _{1}}+M_{1}(E_{n_{r}})+1,M_{1}(E_{n_{r}})+M_{2}(E_{n_{r}})+1;\frac{1}{% e^{2r/a}+1}\right) . \notag \\ && \label{RM.24}\end{aligned}$$ Conclusion ========== In this paper we have discussed the path integral problem for a deformed radial Rosen-Morse potential which is a potential with the Dirichlet boundary conditions. Our approach shows that the path integral in the present case is more rigorous in comparison to other methods. The derivation of the exact Green’s function for this potential problem contained in this study is obtained for the first time. The poles and the residues gave a transcendental quantization condition involving the hypergeometric function and the wave functions corresponding to the energy levels $E_{n_{r}}$ of the $s-$states. The transcendental equation can be solved numerically. [99]{} N Rosen and P M Morse Phys. Rev. 42 210 (1932) C H Townes and A L Schawlow Microwave Spectroscopy (New York : Mc Graw-Hill ) (1955) M A Smondyrev, B Gerlach and M O Dzero Phys. Rev. B 62 16692 (2000) L Infeld and T E Hull Rev. Mod. Phys. 23 21 (1951) A R Amani J. Phys. : Conf. Series 622 012045 (2015) C L Ho Ann. Phys. 324 1095 (2009) G Junker and A Inomata A.,* Path Integral From meV To MeV* (eds) M C Gutzwiller, A Inomata, J R Klauder and L Streit (Singapore : World Scientific) (1986) C Grosche J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 23 5205 (1990) H Kleinert and I Mustapic* J. Math. Phys. *33 643 (1992) H Kleinert Path integrals in quantum mechanics, statistics polymer physics and financial markets ( Singapore : World Scientific) (2009) F Cooper, A Khare and U Sukhatme Supersymmetry in Quantum Mechanics (Singapore : World Scientific) (2001) H Yilmaz, D Demirhan and F Büyükkiliç J. Math. Chem. 47 539 (2010) F Büyükkiliç, H Egrifès and D Demirhan* Theor. Chem. Acc.* 98 192 (1997) H Egrifès, D Demirhan and F Büyükkiliç Phys. Scr. 60 195 (1999) H Egrifès, D Demirhan and F Büyükkiliç Phys. Lett. A 275 229 (2000) F Taskin Int. J. Theor. Phys. 48 2692 (2009) C S Jia, T Chen, L Z Yi and S R Lin J. Math. Chem. 51 2165 (2013) A Diaf and M Hachama Can. J. Phys. 91 1 (2013) A Diaf and M Hachama J. Phys.: Conf. Series 490 012049 (2014) A D Antia Am. J. Phys. Chem. 4 38 (2015) A Arai* J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.* 34 4281 (2001) D Peak and A Inomata J. Math. Phys. 10 1422 (1969) T E Clark, R Menikoff and D H Sharp Phys. Rev. D 22 3012 (1980) C Grosche Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 1 (1993) R P Feynman and A Hibbs Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals (New York : Mc Graw Hill) (1965) S V Lawande and K V Bhagwat Phys. Lett. A 131 8 (1988)	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We give a few explicit examples which answer an open minded question of Professor Igor Dolgachev on complex dynamics of the inertia group of a smooth rational curve on a projective K3 surface and its variants for a rational surface and a non-projective K3 surface.' address: 'Mathematical Sciences, the University of Tokyo, Meguro Komaba 3-8-1, Tokyo, Japan and Korea Institute for Advanced Study, Hoegiro 87, Seoul, 133-722, Korea' author: - Keiji Oguiso title: 'A few explicit examples of complex dynamics of inertia groups on surfaces - a question of Professor Igor Dolgachev' --- Introduction ============ In this note we work over ${{\mathbb C}}$. Our main results are Theorems \[thm1\], \[thm2\], \[cor1\], \[thm3\]. Let $V$ be a smooth projective variety and $C$ a subvariety of $V$. We define the subgroups of ${\rm Aut}\, (V)$ called the [decomposition group]{} of $C$ and the [inertia group]{} of $C$, respectively by $${\rm Dec}\,(C) := \{f \in {\rm Aut}\, (V)\, \|\, f(C) = C\}\,\, ,\,\, {\rm Ine}\,(C) := \{f \in {\rm Dec}\, (V)\, \|\, f\|_{C} = id_C\}\,\, .$$ The aim of this note is to add some answers to the following open minded question and its variants. The question has been asked by Professor Igor Dolgachev in his openning talk at the conference “Algebraic Geometry in honnor of Professor JongHae Keum’s 60-th birthday”: \[ques1\] It is challenging to find (further) pairs $(S, C)$ of a projective K3 surface and a smooth rational curve $C \subset S$ such that ${\rm Ine}\,(C)$ contains an element with positive topological entropy. Though it is not the definition, the [topological entropy]{} $h_{{\rm top}}(f)$ of an automorphism $f \in {\rm Aut}\, (V)$ is given by: $$h_{{\rm top}}(f) = \log \rho(f) \ge 0\,\, .$$ Here $\rho(f)$ is the spectral radius of the action of $f$ on the group of the numerical equivalence classes of algebraic cocycles $\oplus_{p=0}^{\dim\, V} N^p(V)$ when $V$ is projective. More generally, $\rho (f)$ is the spectral radius of the action of $f$ on $\oplus_{p=0}^{\dim\, V}H^{p, p}(V)$, and these two quantities coincides if $V$ is projective. Originally, $h_{{\rm top}}(f)$ is defined as a fundamental measure “how fast forward orbits $\{f^n(x) \| n \ge 1\}$, $\{f^n(y) \| n \ge 1\}$ of two general points $x, y \in V$ spread out” and therefore it is considered as a fundamental measure of the complexity of complex dynamics given by the forward iterations of $f$ (see [@Gr87], [@KH95], [@DS05], [@Tr15] for more details). We have $h_{{\rm top}}(f) = 0$ if it is tame and $h_{{\rm top}}(f) > 0$ if it is wild. So, Question \[ques1\] asks two extreme aspects; complex dynamics of $f$ on $S \setminus C$ have to be rather wild, while it is trivial on $C$. In a deeper level, the equidistribution of [isolated]{} fixed sets $Q_n$ of $f^n$ under $n \to \infty$ for any surface automorphism $f$ of positive entropy is discovered in the survey [@DS16 Theorem 5.6]. The difficulty in the proof is caused by fixed curves. Pairs $(S, C)$ in Question \[ques1\] provide explicit examples of equidistribution theorem with fixed curves. This is also an interesting dynamical feature of Question \[ques1\]. We remark that the higher dimensional case is an open problem (see eg. [@DS16]). It is also natural to study the action of $f$ on the normal bundle $N_{S\|C}$. In our construction, it is trivial in Theorems \[thm1\] \[thm2\] \[cor1\] (projective cases) and it is the multiplication by a Salem number in Theorem \[thm3\] (non-projective case). Following [@DZ01], we call a smooth rational surface $W$ a [Coble surface]{} if $\|-K_W\| = \emptyset$ and $\|-2K_W\| \not= \emptyset$. Let $B \subset {{\mathbb P}}^2$ be a sextic plane curve with $10$ nodes, $T$ the blow up of ${{\mathbb P}}^2$ at the $10$ nodes and $C \subset T$ the proper transform of $B$. Then ${{\mathbb P}}^1 \simeq C \in \|-2K_T\|$ and $T$ is a Coble surface called [classical]{} ([@DZ01]). $T$ admits a finite double cover $\pi : S \to T$ branched along $C$. Then $S$ is a projective K3 surface, which we call [of classical Coble type]{}. We denote the ramification curve $(\pi^C)_{\rm red} \subset S$ by the same letter $C$. In his talk, Professor Igor Dolgachev, among other things, showed that the pair $(S, C)$ of a K3 surface $S$ of classical Coble type and its ramification curve $C$ gives an affirmative answer to Question \[ques1\]. He shows first that $(T, C)$ satisfies a similar property and then lifts to $(S, C)$. The aim of this note is to remark the following theorems (Theorems \[thm1\], \[thm2\], \[cor1\], \[thm3\]): \[thm1\] Question \[ques1\] is affirmative for a smooth Kummer surface ${\rm Km}\, (E\times F)$ associated to the product abelian surface of elliptic curves $E$ and $F$, i.e., there is a smooth rational curve $C \subset {\rm Km}\, (E\times F)$ such that ${\rm Ine}\, (C)$ has an element of positive topological entropy. If in addition $E$ and $F$ are not isogenous, then there is a smooth rational curve $C \subset {\rm Km}\, (E\times F)$ satisfying the following two properties: 1. $[{\rm Aut}\,({\rm Km}\, (E\times F)) : {\rm Dec}\,(C)] < \infty$ and $[{\rm Dec}\,(C) : {\rm Ine}\, (C)] = \infty$ and 2. There is $f \in {\rm Ine}\, (C)$ with $h_{{\rm top}}(f) > 0$. The properties (1) and (2) claim that ${\rm Dec}\, (C)$ is almost the same as ${\rm Aut}\, (S)$ and ${\rm Ine}\, (C)$ is much smaller than ${\rm Dec}\, (C)$ but ${\rm Ine}\, (C)$ yet enjoys rich dynamics as explained above. Note that if $E$ and $F$ are not isogenous, then ${\rm Km}\, (E\times F)$ is a $2$-elementary K3 surface in the sense of [@Ni81], and at the same time, it is a finite double cover of a non-classical Coble surface in the sense of [@DZ01]. So, it is very close to Professor Igor Dolgachev’s example, even though our proof is completely different. We prove Theorem \[thm1\] in Section \[sect3\]. Let $\zeta_3 = (-1 + \sqrt{-3})/2 \in {{\mathbb C}}$ be a primitive third root of unity and $E_{3}$ the elliptic curve of period $\zeta_3$. Then $E_3 \times E_3$ has an automorphism $\tau_3$ of order three defined by $$\tau_3^(x, y) =(\zeta_3 x, \zeta_3^2y)\,\, .$$ Here $(x, y)$ are the standard coordinates of the universal covering space ${{\mathbb C}}\times {{\mathbb C}}$ of $E_3 \times E_3$. The minimal resolution $S_3$ of the quotient surface $(E_3 \times E_3)/\langle \tau_3 \rangle$ is a projective K3 surface called (one of) the most algebraic K3 surfaces ([@Vi83]). \[thm2\] Question \[ques1\] is affirmative for the most algebraic K3 surface $S_3$. More precisely, there is a smooth rational curve $C \subset S_3$ satisfying the following two perperties: 1. $[{\rm Aut}\,(S_3) : {\rm Dec}\,(C)] < \infty$ and $[{\rm Dec}\,(C) : {\rm Ine}\, (C)] = \infty$ and 2. There is $f \in {\rm Ine}\, (C)$ with $h_{{\rm top}}(f) > 0$. As an application of Theorem \[thm2\], we also show the following: \[cor1\] There are a smooth rational surface $W$ and a smooth rational curve $C \subset W$ such that 1. $[{\rm Aut}\,(W) : {\rm Dec}\,(C)] < \infty$ and $[{\rm Dec}\,(C) : {\rm Ine}\, (C)] = \infty$; 2. There is $f \in {\rm Ine}\, (C)$ with $h_{{\rm top}}(f) > 0$; and 3. $\|mK_W\| = \emptyset$ for $m = -1$ and $-2$, while $\|-3K_W\|$ consists of a unique element. In particular, $W$ is not isomorphic to any Coble surface. We construct $W$ as the minimal resolution of a suitable quotient of $S_3$. Compare Theorem \[cor1\] with results due to McMullen [@Mc07], rich rational surface dynamics arizing from the decomposition group of the aniti-canonical cuspidal curve and Bedford-Kim [@BK09], rich rational surface dynamics with no stable curve. In Section \[sect4\], we prove Theorems \[thm2\] and derive Theorem \[cor1\] from Theorem \[thm2\]. As a referee asked, it is interesting to see “how large the subset $\{f \in {\rm Ine}\, (C)\,\, \|\,\, h_{{\rm top}}(f) > 0\}$ of ${\rm Ine}\, (C)$ is” for each of our constructions above. The author feels that the subset should be “quite large” but he has no good idea to formulate precisely. \[thm3\] Question \[ques1\] is affirmative for some K3 surface $S$ with no non constant global meromorphic function, i.e., of algebraic dimension $0$. More precisely, there are a K3 surface of algebraic dimension $0$ and smooth rational curves $C \subset S$ and $D \subset S$ satisfying the following perperties: 1. ${\rm Aut}\,(S) = {\rm Dec}\,(C) = {\rm Ine}\, (C)$, and there is $f \in {\rm Ine}\, (C)$ with $h_{{\rm top}}(f) > 0$; 2. ${\rm Aut}\,(S) = {\rm Dec}\,(D)$ and ${\rm Ine}\, (D) = \{id_S\}$. As a candidate $S$ in Theorem \[thm3\], we choose a K3 surface constructed in [@Og10]. Note that $\{f \in {\rm Ine}\, (C)\,\, \|\,\, h_{{\rm top}}(f) > 0\} = {\rm Ine}\, (C) \setminus \{id_S\}$ in (2), as ${\rm Aut}\, (S) \simeq {{\mathbb Z}}$ (\[Og10\]). Our proof is based on a very special feature occuring only on a non-projective K3 surface. We prove Theorem \[thm3\] in Section \[sect5\]. In Question \[ques1\], there are two essential issues to consider; “How to find an automorphisms of positive entropy” and “How to find a candidate curve $C$”. Our main approach in Theorems \[thm1\], \[thm2\] is to seek two different elliptic fibrations with positive Mordell-Weil rank. In Section \[sect2\], we briefly recall an existing method (Proposition \[prop21\]) and synthesize it with the inertia group of some smooth rational curve in fibers (Proposition \[prop22\]). Proposition \[prop22\] is the main tool in our proof of Theorems \[thm1\], \[thm2\]. For Theorem \[thm3\], we use a non-symplectic automorphism of a K3 surface whose character of the action on the space of the global holomorphic $2$-forms is not root of unity but a Galois conjugate of a Salem number, [a very special property occuring only on non-projective K3 surfaces]{}. It is worth recalling that this property also played an essential role in constructing automorphisms of (necessarily non-projective) K3 surfaces with Siegel disk by McMullen ([@Mc02], see also [@Og10]). [Acknowledgements.]{} First of all, I would like to express my thanks to Professor Igor Dolgachev for his inspiring talk, interest in this work and valuable discussions. I would like to thank Professors Viacheslav Nikulin, Yuya Matsumoto, Shigeru Mukai, Matthias Schuett, Nessim Sibony, Xun Yu and referees for valuable suggestions, comments and careful reading and Professor JongHae Keum for his interest in this work. I would like to express my thanks to the organizers of Professor JongHae Keum’s 60th birthday conference for invitation. Some basic terminologies for lattices and K3 surfaces {#sect01} ===================================================== In this section, we briefly recall basic terminologies concerning lattices and K3 surfaces, which are used throughout this note. We call a pair $(L, (, ))$ of a free ${{\mathbb Z}}$-module $L$ of positive finite rank $r$ and a symmetric bilinear form $(, *) : L \times L \to {{\mathbb Z}}$ [a lattice of rank]{} $r$. We often write the lattice $(L, (, *))$ simply by $L$ when no confusion arizes. For any ring $A$, we denote by $L_{A}$ the $A$-module $L \otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}} A$. We call the lattice $L = (L, (, *))$ is hyperbolic (resp. negative definite) if the signature of the bilinear form $(, *)$ is $(1, r-1)$ and $r \ge 2$ (resp. $(0, r)$ and $r \ge 1$), considered as the real symmetric bilinear form on $L_{{{\mathbb R}}}$. We call a lattice $L$ non-degenerate, if there is no $x \in L \setminus \{0\}$ such that $(x, y) = 0$ for all $y \in L$. Let $L$ be a hyperbolic lattice. Under the Eucldean topology of $L_{{{\mathbb R}}}$, the subset $\tilde{P}(L) := \{x \in L_{{{\mathbb R}}}\, \|\, (x, x) > 0\}$ has two connected components. We choose and fix ${P}(L)$, which is any one of the two connected components of $\tilde{P}(L)$, and call it the positive cone. We denote by ${\rm O}(L)$ the orthogonal group of a lattice $L$ $${\rm O}(L) := \{f \in {\rm GL}\, (L)\,\|\, (f(x), f(y)) = (x, y)\,\, \forall x, y \in L\}$$ and by ${\rm O}^{+}(L)$ the subgroup of ${\rm O}\, (L)$ consisting $f \in {\rm O}\, (L)$ such that $f_{{{\mathbb R}}} := f \otimes id_{{{\mathbb R}}} \in {\rm GL}\, (L_{{{\mathbb R}}})$ preserves the positive cone $P(L)$. We denote the boundary of $P(L)$ in $L_{{{\mathbb R}}}$ by $\partial P(L)$. Then $f_{{{\mathbb R}}}(\partial P(L)) = \partial P(L)$ if $f \in {\rm O}^{+}(L)$. Let $S$ be a K3 surface. We denote a nowhere vanishing global holomorphic $2$-form on $S$ by $\omega_S$. By definition of K3 surface, $\omega_S$ is unique up to ${{\mathbb C}}^{\times}$. Important lattices in this note are the second cohomology lattice $H^2(S, {{\mathbb Z}})$, the Néron-Severi lattice ${\rm NS}\, (S)$ and the transcendental lattice $T(S) := {\rm NS}\, (S)^{\perp}$ in $H^2(S, {{\mathbb Z}})$ for a K3 surface $S$. The symmetric bilinear form on these lattices are the intersection form. $T(S)$ is also the minimal primitive sublattice of $H^2(S, {{\mathbb Z}})$ such that ${{\mathbb C}}\omega_S \subset T(S)_{{{\mathbb C}}}$. Note also that if ${\rm NS}\, (S)$ is non-degenerate, then ${\rm NS}\, (S) \oplus T(S) \subset H^2(S, {{\mathbb Z}})$ and $[H^2(S, {{\mathbb Z}}) : {\rm NS}\, (S) \oplus T(S)] < \infty$. We refer to [@BHPV04] for basic facts on K3 surfaces and surfaces. Complex dynamics arizing from two different elliptic fibrations {#sect2} =============================================================== Our main result of this section is Proposition \[prop22\]. Let $X$ be a projective K3 surface. We call a surjective morphism $\varphi : X \to {{\mathbb P}}^1$ an elliptic fibration if the generic fiber $X_{\eta}$ is an elliptic curve defined over the function field ${{\mathbb C}}({{\mathbb P}}^1)$ of the base. We always choose the orgin $O$ of $X_{\eta}$ in $X_{\eta}({{\mathbb C}}({{\mathbb P}}^1))$. The set $X_{\eta}({{\mathbb C}}({{\mathbb P}}^1))$ then forms an additive group ${\rm MW}\,(\varphi)$ with unit $O$, called the Mordell-Weil group of $\varphi$. As $\varphi : X \to {{\mathbb P}}^1$ is relatively minimal, the birational automorphism of $X$ given by the translation on $X_{\eta}$ by $P \in {\rm MW}\,(\varphi)$ is a biregular automorphism of $X$, i.e., ${\rm MW}\,(\varphi) \subset {\rm Aut}\, (X)$. By definition, ${\rm MW}\, (\varphi)$ is an abelian group and coincides with the group of translations of global sections of $\varphi$, under the natural bijective correspondence between $X_{\eta}({{\mathbb C}}({{\mathbb P}}^1))$ and the set of global sections of $\varphi$. In this section, we are interested in a projective K3 surface in the following: \[st21\] $X$ is a projective K3 surface admitting two different elliptic fibrations $\varphi_i : X \to {{\mathbb P}}^1$ ($i =1$, $2$) whose Mordell-Weil group ${\rm MW}(\varphi_i)$ has an element $f_i$ [of infinite order]{} for each $i = 1$, $2$. Here two elliptic fibrations $\varphi_i$ ($i=1$, $2$) are said to be different if the generic point of the generic fiber, in the sense of scheme, are different (non-closed) points of $X$. We say that a property (P) (concerning closed points of $X$) holds for very general points if there is a countable union $B$ of proper closed subvarieties of $X$ such that the property (P) holds for any closed point $x \in X \setminus B$. K3 surfaces in Set-up \[st21\] have rich complex dynamical properties, as the next proposition shows: \[prop21\] Under Set-up \[st21\], the following holds: 1. The orbit $\langle f_1, f_2 \rangle \cdot x$ is dense in $X$ for very general points $x \in X$. Here topology of $X$ is not the Zariski topology but the Euclidean topology (cf. [@Mc02 Questions, Page 206] for a relevant open question). 2. There is a positive integer $n$ such that $\langle f_1^n, f_2^n \rangle = \langle f_1^n \rangle \langle f_2^n \rangle \simeq {{\mathbb Z}}* {{\mathbb Z}}$ (the free product). 3. There is $f \in \langle f_1, f_2 \rangle$ such that $h_{{\rm top}}(f) > 0$. The assertion (1) is observed by [@Ca01]. The assertion (2) is proved by [@Og08] in a more general setting and is also related to Tits’ aternative for the automorphism group of a compact Kähler manifold ([@Zh09] and references therein). The assertion (3) is implicit in [@Og07]. As the assertion (3) is crucial in this note, we shall give a complete proof here. Let $v_i \in {\rm NS}\, (X)$ be the fiber class of $\varphi_i$ ($i=1$, $2$). Then $v_i$ ($i=1$, $2$) are primitive integral nef classes and they are ${{\mathbb Q}}$-linearly independent in ${\rm NS}\,(X)_{{{\mathbb Q}}}$ as $\varphi_i$ are different. Now assuming to the contrary that $h_{{\rm top}}(f) = 0$ for all $f \in \langle f_1, f_2 \rangle$, we shall derive a contradiction. We use the following theorem proved in [@Og07]: \[thm21\] Let $L$ be a hyperbolic lattice and $G < {\rm O}^+\, (L)$ a subgroup of ${\rm O}^+\, (L)$. Assume that the natural logarithm of spectral radius of $g$ is $0$ for all $g \in G$. Then, there are a subgroup $N$ of $G$ such that $[G:N] < \infty$ and a primitive integral element $v \in L \cap \partial P(L) \setminus \{0\}$ such that $g(v) = v$ for all $g \in N$. As $X$ is a smooth projective surface, ${\rm NS}\, (X)$ is a hyperbolic lattice of signature $(1, \rho(X) -1)$. Here $\rho(X)$ is the Picard number of $X$ and $\rho(X) \ge 2$ as an ample class of $X$ and the fiber class $v_1$ are ${{\mathbb Q}}$-linearly independent in ${\rm NS}\, (X)_{{{\mathbb Q}}}$. As usual, we choose the positive cone $P({\rm NS}\, (X))$ so that $P({\rm NS}\, (X))$ contains the ample cone of $X$. Then $\langle f_1, f_2 \rangle$ preserves the positive cone, i.e., $\langle f^_1, f^_2 \rangle < {\rm O}^{+}({\rm NS}\, (X))$. Here $f^$ is the natural action of $f$ on ${\rm NS}\, (X)$. As we assume that $h_{{\rm top}}(f) = 0$ for all $f \in \langle f_1, f_2 \rangle$, i.e., the natural logarithm of the spectral radius of $f^_{{{\mathbb C}}}$ is $0$ for all $f^* \in \langle f^_1, f^_2 \rangle$, it follows from Theorem \[thm21\] that there is a finite index subgroup $N$ of $\langle f^_1, f^_2 \rangle$ and an integral primitive element $v \in {\rm NS}\, (X) \cap \partial P({\rm NS}\, (X)) \setminus \{0\}$ such that $f^(v) = v$ for all $f \in N$. As $N$ is a finite index subgroup of $\langle f^_1, f^_2 \rangle$ and $f^_1, f^_2 \in \langle f^_1, f^_2 \rangle$, there is a positive integer $n$ such that $(f^_1)^n, (f^_2)^n \in N$. Then $(f_i^)^n(v_i) = v_i$ and $(f_i^)^n(v) = v$. As $v_1$ and $v_2$ are ${{\mathbb Q}}$-linearly independent in ${\rm NS}\, (X)_{{{\mathbb Q}}}$, it follows that either $v_1$ and $v$ are ${{\mathbb Q}}$-linearly independent or $v_2$ and $v$ are ${{\mathbb Q}}$-linearly independent. By changing the order if necessary, we may assume that $v_1$ and $v$ are ${{\mathbb Q}}$-linearly independent. Then $(v_1 + v)^2 > 0$ by the Hodge index theorem. As $(f_i^)^{n}(v_1 + v) = v_1 + v$, it follows that $(f_i^)^n$ is of finite order on ${\rm NS}\, (X)$. This is because the orthogonal complement of $v_1 + v$ in ${\rm NS}\, (X)$ is negative definite by the Hodge index theorem and it is preserved by $(f_1^)^n$. (Note that ${\rm O}\, (L, (, ))$ is finite if the integral bilinear form $(, *)$ is negative definite.) As $X$ is a [projective]{} K3 surface, it follows that $f_1$ is of finite order also as an element of ${\rm Aut}\, (X)$. This is because $f_1$ is then an automorphism of $X$ as a polarized manifold and $X$ has no global vector field. However, this contradicts to our assumption that $f_1$ is of infinite order in ${\rm MW}\, (\varphi_1) < {\rm Aut}\, (X)$. The next proposition synthesizes Proposition \[prop21\] (3) and the inertia group of a smooth rational curve that we are looking for: \[prop22\] Under Set-up \[st21\], we assume further that there is a smooth rational curve $C \subset X$ such that $\varphi_i$ has a singular fiber $F_i$ in which $C$ is an irreducible component meeting at least three other irreducible components of $F_i$, i.e., $F_i$ is of Kodaira type $I_{b}^{}$, $II^{}$, $III^{}$ or $IV^$ for both $i=1$ and $2$. Then there is $f \in {\rm Ine}\, (C)$ such that $h_{{\rm top}}(f) > 0$. (See [@Ko63 Page 565] for the notation. For instance, if $F_1$ is of Kodaira type $IV^$ and $F_2$ is of Kodaira type $III^$, then $C$ is the irreducible component of multiplicity $3$ of $F_1$ and at the same time the irreducible component of multiplicity $4$ of $F_2$.) Let $C_{ij}$ ($1 \le j \le n_i$) be the set of irreducible components of $F_i$ ($i=1$, $2$). Then we have a natural group homomorphism $$\tau_i : {\rm MW}\, (\varphi_i) \to {\rm Aut}_{{\rm set}}(\{S_{ij}\}_{1 \le j \le n_i}) \simeq \Sigma_{n_i}\,\, .$$ Here $\Sigma_n$ is the symmetric group of $n$ letters. As $n_i$ is a natural number, ${\rm Ker}\, \tau_i$ is a finite index subgroup of ${\rm MW}(\varphi_i)$. Recall that ${\rm MW}\, (\varphi_i)$ ($i=1$, $2$) has an element of infinite order. Then there is $f_i \in {\rm Ker}\, \tau_i$ such that $f_i$ is of infinite order as well. By definition, we have $f_i(C_{ij}) = C_{ij}$ for all $j$. Thus $f_i(C) = C$ and $f_i(P_{i,k}) = P_{i, k}$ ($k = 1$, $2$, $3$). Here $P_{i,k} \in C$ ($k =1$, $2$, $3$) are the intersection points of $C$ with other (at least) three irreducible components of $F_i$. As $C \simeq {{\mathbb P}}^1$ and $P_{i, k}$ ($k =1$, $2$, $3$) are mutually distinct closed points on $C$, it follows that $f_i\|_{C} = id_{C}$, i.e., $f_i \in {\rm Ine}\,(C)$. Hence $$\langle f_1, f_2 \rangle \subset {\rm Ine}\, (C)\,\, .$$ By Proposition \[prop21\] (3), there is $f \in \langle f_1, f_2 \rangle$ such that $h_{{\rm top}}(f) > 0$. This $f$ satisfies all the requirements. Proof of Theorem \[thm1\] {#sect3} ========================= In this section, we prove Theorem \[thm1\]. Throughout this section, we denote by $S = {\rm Km}\, (E \times F)$ the Kummer surface associated to the product of two elliptic curves $E$ and $F$. Let $\{P_i\}_{i=1}^{4}$ (resp. $\{Q_i\}_{i=1}^{4}$) be the $2$-torsion subgroup of $F$ (resp. $E$). Then $S$ contains $24$ [visible]{} smooth rational curves. They are $8$ smooth rational curves $E_i$, $F_i$ ($1 \le i \le 4$) arizing from $8$ elliptic curves $E \times \{P_i\}$, $\{Q_i\} \times F$ on $E \times F$ and $16$ exceptional curves $C_{ij}$ over the $16$ singular points of type $A_1$ on the quotient surface $E \times F/\langle -id_{E \times F}\rangle$. We use the same notation as in [@Og89 Page 655]. See Figure \[fig1\] for the configuration of these $24$ visible smooth rational curves on $S$. 0.1in (25.000000,24.000000)(-1.000000,-23.500000) (4.500000, -22.000000)[(0,0)\[rb\][$F_1$]{}]{}(9.500000, -22.000000)[(0,0)\[rb\][$F_2$]{}]{}(14.500000, -22.000000)[(0,0)\[rb\][$F_3$]{}]{}(19.500000, -22.000000)[(0,0)\[rb\][$F_4$]{}]{}(0.250000, -18.500000)[(0,0)\[lb\][$E_1$]{}]{}(0.250000, -13.500000)[(0,0)\[lb\][$E_2$]{}]{}(0.250000, -8.500000)[(0,0)\[lb\][$E_3$]{}]{}(0.250000, -3.500000)[(0,0)\[lb\][$E_4$]{}]{}(6.000000, -16.000000)[(0,0)\[lt\][$C_{11}$]{}]{}(6.000000, -11.000000)[(0,0)\[lt\][$C_{12}$]{}]{}(6.000000, -6.000000)[(0,0)\[lt\][$C_{13}$]{}]{}(6.000000, -1.000000)[(0,0)\[lt\][$C_{14}$]{}]{}(11.000000, -16.000000)[(0,0)\[lt\][$C_{21}$]{}]{}(11.000000, -11.000000)[(0,0)\[lt\][$C_{22}$]{}]{}(11.000000, -6.000000)[(0,0)\[lt\][$C_{23}$]{}]{}(11.000000, -1.000000)[(0,0)\[lt\][$C_{24}$]{}]{}(16.000000, -16.000000)[(0,0)\[lt\][$C_{31}$]{}]{}(16.000000, -11.000000)[(0,0)\[lt\][$C_{32}$]{}]{}(16.000000, -6.000000)[(0,0)\[lt\][$C_{33}$]{}]{}(16.000000, -1.000000)[(0,0)\[lt\][$C_{34}$]{}]{}(21.000000, -16.000000)[(0,0)\[lt\][$C_{41}$]{}]{}(21.000000, -11.000000)[(0,0)\[lt\][$C_{42}$]{}]{}(21.000000, -6.000000)[(0,0)\[lt\][$C_{43}$]{}]{}(21.000000, -1.000000)[(0,0)\[lt\][$C_{44}$]{}]{} Thoughout this section, we set: $$C := E_4 \subset S\,\, .$$ \[prop31\] $[{\rm Dec}\, (C) : {\rm Ine}\, (C)] = \infty$ and there is $f \in {\rm Ine}\, (C)$ such that $h_{{\rm top}}(f) > 0$. Consider the following three divisors of Kodaira type $IV^$ on $S$: $$D_1 := F_1 + 2C_{14} + F_2 + 2C_{24} + F_3 + 2C_{34} + 3E_4\,\, ,$$ $$D_2 := F_1 + 2C_{14} + F_2 + 2C_{24} + F_4 + 2C_{44} + 3E_4\,\, ,$$ $$D_3 := E_4 + 2C_{44} + E_3 + 2C_{43} + E_2 + 2C_{42} + 3F_4\,\, .$$ Then the linear system $\|D_k\|$ is a free pencil and defines an elliptic fibration $$\varphi_k : S \to {{\mathbb P}}^1$$ with a singular fiber $D_k$ of Kodaira type $IV^$, for each $k =1$, $2$, $3$. Notice that the three fibrations $\varphi_k$ are mutually different and each $\varphi_k$ admits a section as we shall see. First, we show that $[{\rm Dec}\, (E_{4}) : {\rm Ine}\, (E_{4})] = \infty$. Recall that we set $C = E_{4}$. The curves $C_{14}$ and $C_{24}$ are disjoint sections of $\varphi_3$ meeting the same irreducible component $E_4$ of the fiber $D_3$ of $\varphi_3$. We choose $C_{14}$ as the zero section of $\varphi_3$. Then the section $C_{24}$ defines $f_3 \in {\rm MW}(\varphi_1)$, which preserves each irreducible component of $D_3$. In particular, $f_3(E_4) = E_4$. Note that $$E_4^{0} := E_4 \setminus C_{44} = {{\mathbb C}}\,\, .$$ Then, by [@Ko63 Table 1, Page 604], if we set $$0 := C_{14} \cap E_4^{0} \subset E_4^{0} = {{\mathbb C}}\,\, ,$$ $$a := C_{24} \cap E_4^{0} \subset E_4^{0} = {{\mathbb C}}\,\, ,$$ then $f_3(E_4) = E_4$ and $f_3$ acts on $E_4^0 = {{\mathbb C}}$ by the addition $x \mapsto x+a$. As $C_{14} \cap C_{24} = \emptyset$, it follows that $a \not= 0$, hence $f_3$ is of infinite order on $E_4$. As $f_3 \in {\rm Dec}\, (E_{4})$ and $f_3\|_{E_4}$ is of infinite order on $E_4$, it follows that the class $f_3$ is of infinite order in the quotient group ${\rm Dec}\, (E_{4})/{\rm Ine}\, (E_{4})$. Hence $[{\rm Dec}\, (E_{4}) : {\rm Ine}\, (E_{4})] = \infty$. Next we show that there is $f \in {\rm Ine}\, (C)$ such that $h_{{\rm top}}(f) > 0$. Note that $C = E_4$ is the irreducible component of both $D_1$ and $D_2$ meeting three other irreducible components of both $D_1$ and $D_2$. Note also that $C_{11}$ and $C_{12}$ are disjoint section of both $\varphi_k$ ($k=1$, $2$), meeting the same irreducible component $F_1$ of the fiber $D_k$. Thus, for the same reason above, $C_{11}$ and $C_{12}$ define the element $f_k \in {\rm MW}\, (\varphi_k)$ of infinite order for each $k =1$ and $2$. As $C = E_{4}$ is the irreducible component of both $D_k$ ($k=1$, $2$) meeting three other irreducible components of $D_k$, there is then $f \in {\rm Ine}\, (E_4)$ such that $h_{{\rm top}}(f) > 0$ by Proposition \[prop22\]. The following proposition completes the proof of Theorem \[thm1\]: \[prop32\] Let $S = {\rm Km}\, (E \times F)$ and ${{\mathbb P}}^1 \simeq C = E_4 \subset S$ as before. Assume that the elliptic curves $E$ and $F$ are not isogenous. Then $[{\rm Aut}\, (S) : {\rm Dec}\, (C)] < \infty$. Consider the element $\iota \in {\rm Aut}\, (S)$ of order $2$, induced by the element $(-id_E, id_F) \in {\rm Aut}\, (E \times F)$. As $E$ and $F$ are not isogenous, it follows from [@Og89 Lemma 1.4] that $\iota$ is in the center of ${\rm Aut}\, (S)$ and the pointwisely fixed locus of $\iota$ is $$S^{\iota} = \cup_{i=1}^{4} E_i \cup \cup_{i=1}^{4} F_i\,\, .$$ Thus $S^{\iota}$ is preserved by ${\rm Aut}\, (S)$ and we obtain a natural group homomorphism $$\tau : {\rm Aut}\, (S) \to {\rm Aut}_{{\rm set}}(\{E_i, F_i\}_{i=1}^{4}) \simeq \Sigma_8\,\, .$$ Here, as before $\Sigma_n$ is the symmetric group of $n$ letters. As $\Sigma_8$ is a finite group, it follows that $[{\rm Aut}\, (S) : {\rm Ker}\, \tau] < \infty$. By definition of ${\rm Dec}\, (E_4)$, we have $${\rm Ker}\, \tau < {\rm Dec}\, (E_4) < {\rm Aut}\, (S)\,\, .$$ Thus $[{\rm Aut}\, (S) : {\rm Dec}\, (E_4)] < \infty$ as well. \[rem32\] Let $S := {\rm Km}\, (E \times E)$. Then $[{\rm Aut}\, (S) : {\rm Dec}\, (C)] = \infty$ ($C = E_4$). This is observed as follows. Let $\Delta \in {\rm Aut}\, (E \times E)$ defined by $(x, y) \mapsto (x, y+x)$. Consider the automorphism $\delta \in {\rm Aut}\, (S)$ induced by $\Delta$. Then $\delta$ is of infinite order but $\delta^n(E_4) = E_4$ only if $n = 0$. \[rem31\] A projective K3 surface $V$ is called [$2$-elementary]{} if $V$ has an automorphism $\iota$ of order $2$ such that $\iota^\omega_V = -\omega_V$, or equivalently $\iota^\|_{T(S)} = -id_{T(V)}$, and $\iota^ = id$ on ${\rm NS}\, (V)$. The name comes from the fact that the discriminant group ${\rm NS}\, (V)^/{\rm NS}\, (V)$ is then isomorphic to some $2$-elemenray group $({{\mathbb Z}}/2)^{\oplus a(V)}$. $2$-elemenray K3 surfaces are intensively studied by Nikulin ([@Ni81]). The involution $\iota$ is in the center of ${\rm Aut}\, (V)$ and the fixed locus of $\iota$ is preserved under ${\rm Aut}\, (V)$. By the classification in [@Ni81], if a $2$-elementary K3 surface has a smooth rational curve $C$ and an automorphism of positive entropy, then $V^{\iota}$ has to be either empty or consists of smooth rational curves (which are necessarily disjoint). The second case occurs exactly when $\rho(V) + a(V) = 22$ by [@Ni81]. Kummer surfaces ${\rm Km}\, (E \times F)$ of non-isogenous $E$ and $F$ and K3 surfaces of classical Coble type are two special cases of $2$-elementary K3 surfaces with $(\rho(V), a(V)) = (18, 4)$, $(11, 11)$ respectively. It may be interesting to check if any $2$-elementary K3 surface with $\rho(V) + a(V) = 22$ has a smooth rational curve $C$ whose inertia group has an automorphism of positive entropy or not. See also Remark \[rem41\]. Proof of Theorems \[thm2\] and \[cor1\] {#sect4} ======================================= In this section, we show Theorems \[thm2\] and \[cor1\]. Throughout this section, $\zeta_3 := (-1 + \sqrt{-3})/2$ is a primitive 3rd root of unity, $E = E_{3}$ is the ellitic curve of period $\zeta_3$ and $S = S_3$ is the minimal resolution of the quotient surface $(E \times E)/\langle (\zeta_3, \zeta_3^2) \rangle$. Then $S$ is a projective K3 surface with $24$ [visible]{} smooth rational curves $F_i$, $G_i$ ($i = 1$, $2$, $3$), $E_{ij}$, $E_{ij}'$ ($i =1$, $2$, $3$, $j=1$, $2$, $3$) whose configuration is in Figure \[fig2\]. We follow [@OZ96 Page 1281] for the notation of these $24$ curves. 0.1in (25.000000,24.000000)(-1.000000,-23.500000) (4.500000, -23.000000)[(0,0)\[rb\][$F_1$]{}]{}(9.500000, -23.000000)[(0,0)\[rb\][$F_2$]{}]{}(14.500000, -23.000000)[(0,0)\[rb\][$F_3$]{}]{} (-0.250000, -18.500000)[(0,0)\[lb\][$G_1$]{}]{}(-0.250000, -13.500000)[(0,0)\[lb\][$G_2$]{}]{}(-0.250000, -8.500000)[(0,0)\[lb\][$G_3$]{}]{} (3.000000, -16.500000)[(0,0)\[bt\][$E_{11}'$]{}]{}(3.000000, -11.500000)[(0,0)\[bt\][$E_{12}'$]{}]{}(3.000000, -6.500000)[(0,0)\[bt\][$E_{13}'$]{}]{} (8.000000, -16.500000)[(0,0)\[bt\][$E_{21}'$]{}]{}(8.000000, -11.500000)[(0,0)\[bt\][$E_{22}'$]{}]{}(8.000000, -6.500000)[(0,0)\[bt\][$E_{23}'$]{}]{} (13.000000, -16.500000)[(0,0)\[bt\][$E_{31}'$]{}]{}(13.000000, -11.500000)[(0,0)\[bt\][$E_{32}'$]{}]{}(13.000000, -6.500000)[(0,0)\[bt\][$E_{33}'$]{}]{} (6.500000, -20.000000)[(0,0)\[bt\][$E_{11}$]{}]{}(6.500000, -15.000000)[(0,0)\[bt\][$E_{12}$]{}]{}(6.500000, -10.000000)[(0,0)\[bt\][$E_{13}$]{}]{} (11.500000, -20.000000)[(0,0)\[bt\][$E_{21}$]{}]{}(11.500000, -15.000000)[(0,0)\[bt\][$E_{22}$]{}]{}(11.500000, -10.000000)[(0,0)\[bt\][$E_{23}$]{}]{} (16.500000, -20.000000)[(0,0)\[bt\][$E_{31}$]{}]{}(16.500000, -15.000000)[(0,0)\[bt\][$E_{32}$]{}]{}(16.500000, -10.000000)[(0,0)\[bt\][$E_{33}$]{}]{} Throughout this section, we also denote by $g = g_3$ the automorphism of $S$ of order $3$, induced by the automorphism $\tilde{g} \in {\rm Aut}\, (E \times E)$ defined by $$\tilde{g}^{}(x, y) = (x, \zeta_3 y)\,\, .$$ Here $(x, y)$ are the standard coordinates of the universal covering space ${{\mathbb C}}\times {{\mathbb C}}$ of $E \times E$. Then by an explicit computation or by using [@OZ96 Example 1, Theorem 3, Lemma 2.3], we have the following: \[prop41\] The pair $(S,g)$ satisfies the following: 1. Each of the $24$ visible smooth rational curves above, say $D$, is preserved by $g$, i.e., $g \in {\rm Dec}\, (D)$. Moreover the fixed locus $X^g$ consists of $6$ smooth rational curves $F_i$, $G_i$ and $9$ isolated points $P_{ij} = E_{ij} \cap E_{ij}'$ ($1 \le i, j \le 3$). 2. $\rho(S) = 20$, $g^* = id$ on ${\rm NS}\, (S)$ and $g^\omega_S = \zeta_3 \omega_S$. Set ${\rm Aut}^0\, (S) := \{f \in {\rm Aut}\, (S)\, \|\, f^\omega_S = \omega_S\}$. As $S$ is projective, the pluricanonical representation of ${\rm Aut}\, (S)$ is of finite order ([@Ue75 Theorem 14.10]). Thus ${\rm Aut}^0\, (S)$ is a normal subgroup of ${\rm Aut}\, (S)$ of finite index. From now until the end of this section, we set $$C = G_3 \simeq {{\mathbb P}}^1\,\, .$$ We show that $C$ satisfies the requirements in Theorem \[thm2\]. \[prop42\] $[{\rm Aut}\,(S) : {\rm Dec}\, (C)] < \infty$. As ${\rm Aut}^0\, (S)$ is a normal subgroup of ${\rm Aut}\, (S)$ of finite index, it suffices to show that $$[{\rm Aut}^0\, (S) : {\rm Aut}^0\, (S) \cap {\rm Dec}\, (C)] < \infty\,\, .$$ Indeed, for a group $G$ and a normal subgroup $N <G$ and a subgroup $H < G$, we have an obvious inequality: $$[G : W] \le [N : N \cap W] \cdot [G : N]\,\, .$$ As $g^* = id$ on ${\rm NS}\, (S)$ by Proposition \[prop41\] (2), and $f^* = id$ on $T(S)$ for $f \in {\rm Aut}^0\, (S)$, it follows that $(f\circ g)^* = (g \circ f)^$ on ${\rm NS}\, (S) \oplus T(S)$ for $f \in {\rm Aut}^0\, (S)$. As ${\rm NS}\, (S) \oplus T(S)$ is a finite index subgroup of $H^2(S, {{\mathbb Z}})$, it follows that $(f \circ g)^ = (g \circ f)^$ on $H^2(S, {{\mathbb Z}})$. Hence $f \circ g = g \circ f$ by the global Torelli theorem for K3 surfaces. Then $f(S^g) = S^g$ for $f \in {\rm Aut}^0\, (S)$. Therefore, by Proposition \[prop41\] (1), we have a natural group homomorphism $$\tau : {\rm Aut}^0\, (S) \to {\rm Aut}_{{\rm set}}(\{F_i, G_i\}_{i=1}^{3}) \simeq \Sigma_6\,\, .$$ As ${\rm Ker}\, \tau$ is of finite index in ${\rm Aut}^0\, (S)$ and $${\rm Ker}\, \tau < {\rm Dec}\, (G_3) \cap {\rm Aut}^0\, (S) < {\rm Aut}^0\, (S)\,\, ,$$ the result follows. \[prop43\] $[{\rm Dec}\, (C) : {\rm Ine}\, (C)] = \infty$. More strongly, there is $h \in {\rm Dec}\, (C)$ such that $h\|_{C}$ is of infinite order and $h \in {\rm Aut}^{0}\, (S)$. Consider the elliptic fibration $\varphi : S \to {{\mathbb P}}^1$ given by the divisor $D$ of Kodaira type $III^$: $$D := G_3 + 2E_{33} + 3E_{33}' + 4F_3 + 3E_{31}' + 2E_{31} + G_1 + 2E_{32}'\,\, .$$ Then $E_{13}$ and $E_{23}$ are disjoint sections of $\varphi$ meeting the singular fiber $D$ of $\varphi$ of Kodaira type $III^$ at the same irreducible component $G_3$. We choose $E_{13}$ as the zero section of $\varphi$. Let $h \in {\rm MW}\, (\varphi)$ be the element defined by $E_{23}$. Then $h \in {\rm Dec}\, (C)$ and $h\|_C$ is of infinite order for the same reason as in the proof of Proposition \[prop31\]. Hence $[{\rm Dec}\, (C) : {\rm Ine}\, (C)] = \infty$, again for the same reason as in the proof of Proposition \[prop31\]. We have also $h^\omega_S = \omega_S$ as $h \in {\rm MW}\, (\varphi)$. \[prop44\] There is $f \in {\rm Ine}\, (C)$ such that $h_{{\rm top}}(f) >0$ and $f \in {\rm Aut}^{0}\, (S)$. Consider the elliptic fibrations $\varphi_k : S \to {{\mathbb P}}^1$ ($k=1$, $2$) given respectively by the divisors of Kodaira type $III^$ $$D_1 := F_1 + 2E_{13}' + 3E_{13} + 4G_3 + 3E_{23} + 2E_{23}' + F_2 + 2E_{33}\,\, ,$$ $$D_2 := F_1 + 2E_{13}' + 3E_{13} + 4G_3 + 3E_{33} + 2E_{33}' + F_3 + 2E_{23}\,\, .$$ Then $E_{11}'$ and $E_{12}'$ are disjoint sections of both $\varphi_k$ meeting the irreducible component $F_1$ of the singular fiber $D_k$ of $\varphi_k$. We choose $E_{11}'$ as the zero section of both $\varphi_k$ and consider the element $f_k \in {\rm MW}\,(\varphi_k)$ defined by the section $E_{12}'$. Then for the same reason as in the proof of Proposition \[prop31\], $f_k$ is of infinite order in ${\rm MW}\,(\varphi_k)$ and is also an element of ${\rm Ine}\, (G_3)$. Note that $C = G_3$ is the irreducible component of $D_k$ meeting three other irreducible components of $D_k$ for both $k=1$ and $2$. Then there is $f \in \langle f_1, f_2 \rangle$ with $h_{{\rm top}}(f) >0$ by Proposition \[prop22\]. Note also that $f^\omega_S = \omega_S$. This is because $f_k^\omega_S = \omega_S$ as $f_k \in {\rm MW}\, (\varphi_k)$ ($k =1$, $2$). This completes the proof. Now Theorem \[thm2\] has been proved. \[rem41\] As ${\rm NS}(S_3)^/{\rm NS}\,(S_3) \simeq {{\mathbb Z}}/3$ ([@Vi83]), the most algebraic K3 surface $S_3$ is not a $2$-elementary K3 surface in the sense of [@Ni81]. As it is pointed by Xun Yu, by using a similar method, one can show that the other most algebraic K3 surface $S_4$ ([@Vi83]) also satisfies the same property as in Theorem \[thm2\]. We leave details to the readers. We note that $S_4$ is a $2$-elementary K3 surface with $(\rho(S_4), a(S_4)) = (20, 2)$ (see Remark \[rem31\] for $a(S_4)$) under a non-symplectic involution $g_2$ and the quotient surface $S_4/\langle g_2 \rangle$ is a smooth non-classical Coble surface. Next we show Theorem \[cor1\]. We continue to use the same notations introduced at the beginning of this section. Let $\nu : W \to \overline{W}$ be the minimal resolution of the quotient surface $\overline{W} := S/\langle g \rangle$ and $\pi : S \to \overline{W}$ the quotient map. By the description of $S^{g}$, the surface $\overline{W}$ has exactly $9$ singular points of type $\frac{1}{3}(1,1)$ at $\pi(P_{jk})$. Then $C_{jk} := \nu^{-1}(\pi(P_{jk}))_{{\rm red}}$ is a smooth rational curve with $(C_{jk}, C_{jk}) = -3$. We denote the smooth locus of $\overline{W}$ by $\overline{W}^0$, i.e., $\overline{W}^0 := \overline{W} \setminus \{\pi(P_{jk})\}_{j, k = 1}^{3}$. We set $\overline{F}_i := \pi(F_i)_{{\rm red}}$ and $\overline{G}_i := \pi(G_i)_{{\rm red}}$ ($1 \le i \le 3$). These $6$ curves are mutulally disjoint smooth rational curves in $\overline{W}^{0}$ with self-intersection number $-6$. As $\overline{F}_i, \overline{G}_i \subset \overline{W}^0$, the morphism $\nu$ is isomorphic around $\overline{F}_i$ and $\overline{G}_i$. For this reason, we denote $\nu^{}(\overline{F}_i)$ and $\nu^{}(\overline{G}_i)$ by the same letter $\overline{F}_i$ and $\overline{G}_i$. \[prop45\] The surface $W$ is a smooth rational surface such that $\|mK_W\| = \emptyset$ for $m = -1$ and $-2$ and $\|-3K_W\|$ consists of a unique element. More precisely, $$\|-3K_W\| = \{2\sum_{i=1}^{3} (\overline{F}_i + \overline{G}_i) + \sum_{j, k = 1}^{3} C_{jk}\}\,\, .$$ As $q(S) = 0$ and $\nu^{-1} \circ \pi : S \dasharrow W$ is a dominant rational map between smooth varieties, it follows that $q(W) = 0$. Here $q(W)$ and $q(S)$ are the irregularities of $W$ and $S$. As $\pi$ is a finite cyclic cover of degree $3$, being totally ramified along $\sum_{i=1}^{3} (F_{i} + G_{i})$ over $\overline{W}^{0}$ and $K_S$ is trivial, it follows from the ramification formula that $-K_{\overline{W}}$ is ${{\mathbb Q}}$-linearly equivalent to an effective ${{\mathbb Q}}$-divisor: $$\frac{2}{3}\sum_{i=1}^{3} (\overline{F}_i + \overline{G}_i)\,\, \sim_{{{\mathbb Q}}}\,\, -K_{\overline{W}}\,\, .$$ In particular, $mK_{\overline{W}} \not\sim_{{{\mathbb Q}}} 0$ for any integer $m \not= 0$. Here and hereafter, we denote by $\sim_{{{\mathbb Q}}}$ the ${{\mathbb Q}}$-linear equivalence of Weil divisors. Assume that $\|mK_W\| \not= \emptyset$ for some integer $m \not= 0$. Then there is $D \in \|mK_W\|$. Let $\overline{D} := \nu_D$. Then $\overline{D}$ is a [non-zero]{} effective Weil divisor on $\overline{W}$ and it is linearly equivalent to $mK_{\overline{W}}$, as $\overline{W}$ is normal and $\nu$ is isomorphic over $\overline{W}^{0}$. We also note that as $\overline{W}$ has only quotient singularities, any Weil divisor on $\overline{W}$ is ${{\mathbb Q}}$-Cartier. As $\overline{W}$ is normal and projective and $-K_{\overline{W}}$ is ${{\mathbb Q}}$-linearly equivalent to a non-zero effective divisor, it follows that $m < 0$. In particular, $\|mK_W\| = \emptyset$ for all positive integer $m >0$. As in addition $q(W) = 0$, $W$ is a rational surface by Castelnuovo’s criterion. From now, we assume that $m <0$. Set $n = -m$. Then $n$ is a positive integer. Assume that $M \in \|-nK_{\overline{W}}\|$. Note that $-nK_{\overline{W}}$ is ${{\mathbb Q}}$-linearly equivalent to an effective ${{\mathbb Q}}$-divisor $$\frac{2n}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{3} (\overline{F}_i + \overline{G}_i)\,\, .$$ As the $6$ curves $\overline{F}_i$ and $\overline{G}_i$ are mutually disjoint curves with $(\overline{F}_i, \overline{F}_i) = (\overline{G}_i, \overline{G}_i) = -6 <0$, it follows that $(M, \overline{F}_i) <0$ and $(M, \overline{G}_i) < 0$ for $i =1$, $2$, $3$. Then $$\overline{F}_i, \overline{G}_i \subset {\rm Supp}\, M\,\, ,$$ as $M$ is an effective Weil divisor. Hence $$M_1 := M - \sum_{i=1}^{3}(\overline{F}_i + \overline{G}_i)\,\, (\,\, \sim_{{{\mathbb Q}}}\,\, \frac{2n-3}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{3}(\overline{F}_i + \overline{G}_i)\,\, )$$ is an effective Weil divisor. Thus $n \ge 2$. If $n \ge 2$, then $(M_1, \overline{F}_i) < 0$ and $(M_1, \overline{G}_i) < 0$. Therefore, for the same reason above, $$M_2 := M_1 - \sum_{i=1}^{3}(\overline{F}_i + \overline{G}_i) = M - 2\sum_{i=1}^{3}(\overline{F}_i + \overline{G}_i)\,\, (\,\, \sim_{{{\mathbb Q}}}\,\, \frac{2n-6}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{3}(\overline{F}_i + \overline{G}_i)\,\, )$$ is also an effective divisor. Thus $n \ge 3$ and if $n=3$, then $M_2 = 0$ and therefore $\|-3K_{\overline{W}}\|$ consists of the single element $2\sum_{i=1}^{3}(\overline{F}_i + \overline{G}_i)$. Hence, by the observation made at the biginning, $\|-K_{W}\| = \emptyset$ and $\|-2K_{W}\| = \emptyset$, and moreover if $D \in \|-3K_{W}\|$ then $$\nu_{}D = 2\sum_{i=1}^{3}(\overline{F}_i + \overline{G}_i)$$ as a divisor. Hence we have $$D = 2\sum_{i=1}^{3}(\overline{F}_i + \overline{G}_i) + \sum_{j, k = 1}^{3} a_{jk}C_{jk}$$ for some non-negative integers $a_{jk}$ as a divisor. Here, the integers $a_{jk}$ are uniquely determined, as $C_{jk}$ are mutually disjoint curves with $(C_{jk}, C_{jk}) = -3$ and $(C_{jk}, \overline{F}_i) = (C_{jk}, \overline{G}_i) = 0$. Hence the element $\|-3K_{W}\|$ is unique if exists. On the other hand, as $\nu$ is a minimal resolution of $9$ singular points of type $1/3(1,1)$, we know by the adjunction formula that $-3K_{W}$ is linearly equivalent to the effective divisor $$2\sum_{i=1}^{3}(\overline{F}_i + \overline{G}_i) + \sum_{j, k = 1}^{3} C_{jk}\,\, .$$ This completes the proof. Let $\overline{C} := \overline{G}_3 \subset W$. Then $\overline{C}$ is a smooth rational curve on $W$. The next proposition completes the proof of Theorem \[cor1\]. \[prop46\] The curve $\overline{C}$ satisfies 1. $[{\rm Aut}\, (W) : {\rm Dec}\, (\overline{C})] < \infty$ and $[{\rm Dec}\, (\overline{C}) : {\rm Ine}\, (\overline{C})] = \infty$. 2. There is $f_W \in {\rm Ine}\, (\overline{C})$ such that $h_{{\rm top}}(f_W) > 0$. As ${\rm Aut}\, (W)$ acts on $\|-3K_{W}\|$, the divisor $$2\sum_{i=1}^{3}(\overline{F}_i + \overline{G}_i) + \sum_{j, k = 1}^{3} C_{jk}$$ is stable under ${\rm Aut}\, (W)$ by Proposition \[prop45\]. Therefore we have a natural representaion $$\tau : {\rm Aut}\, (W) \to {\rm Aut}_{{\rm set}}(\{\overline{F}_i, \overline{G}_i\}_{i=1}^{3}) \simeq \Sigma_6\,\, .$$ Then $[{\rm Aut}\, (W) : {\rm Ker}\, \tau] < \infty$. As ${\rm Ker}\, \tau < {\rm Dec}\, (\overline{G}_3) < {\rm Aut}\, (W)$, we have $[{\rm Aut}\, (W) : {\rm Dec}\, (\overline{G}_3)] < \infty$. We show that $[{\rm Dec}\, (\overline{C}) : {\rm Ine}\, (\overline{C})] = \infty$. Consider the element $h \in {\rm Aut}\, (S)$ in Proposition \[prop43\]. Recall that $g^* = id$ on ${\rm NS}\, (S)$ and $h^* = id$ on $T(S)$ as $h \in {\rm Aut}^{0}\, (S)$. Thus $h \circ g = g \circ h$ for the same reason as in the proof of Proposition \[prop42\]. It follows that $h$ induces an automorphism of $h_W \in {\rm Aut}\, (W)$. By definition of $h_W$, the map $\nu^{-1} \circ \pi : S \dasharrow W$ is equivariant under the actions $h$ and $h_W$. As $\overline{C} = \nu^{-1} \circ \pi (G_3)$, $h(G_3) = G_3$ and $h\|_{G_3}$ is of infinite order in ${\rm Aut}\, (G_3)$, it follows that $h_W(\overline{C}) = \overline{C}$ and $h_W\|_{\overline{C}}$ is of infinite order in ${\rm Aut}\, (\overline{C})$. Hence the class of $h_{W}$ is of infinite order in the quotient group ${\rm Dec}\, (\overline{C})/{\rm Ine}\, (\overline{C})$. This shows $[{\rm Dec}\, (\overline{C}) : {\rm Ine}\, (\overline{C})] = \infty$. We show the assertion (2). Let $f \in {\rm Aut}\, (S)$ be an automorphism found in Proposition \[prop44\]. As $g^* = id$ on ${\rm NS}\, (S)$ and $f \in {\rm Aut}^{0}\, (S)$, for the same reason as above, $f$ induces an automorphism $f_W \in {\rm Aut}\, (W)$ of $W$. As $f \in {\rm Ine}\, (G_3)$, i.e., $f\|_{G_3} = id_{G_3}$, we have $f_W\|_{\overline{C}} = id_{\overline{C}}$, i.e., $f_W \in {\rm Ine}\, (\overline{C})$, again for the same reason as above. Moreover, as $\nu^{-1} \circ \pi : S \dasharrow W$ is a generically finite dominant rational map which is equivariant under the actions of $f$ and $f_{W}$, we have $$h_{{\rm top}}(f_W) = h_{{\rm top}}(f) > 0$$ by [@DN11 Corollary 1.2]. This completes the proof. Proof of Theorem \[thm3\] {#sect5} ========================= In this section, we show Theorem \[thm3\]. In [@Og10], we find the following: \[thm51\] There is a (necessarily non-projective) K3 surface $S$ with an automorphism $g$ satisfying the following properties: 1. ${\rm Aut}\, (S) = \langle g \rangle \simeq {{\mathbb Z}}$. 2. The topological entropy of $g$ is the natural logarithm of the Salem number $$\alpha = 1.200026\ldots\,\, ,$$ which is the unique real root $> 1$ of the following irreducible monic polynomial in the polynomial ring ${{\mathbb Z}}[x]$: $$\varphi_{14}(x) = x^{14} -x^{11} - x^{10} + x^{7} - x^{4} -x^{3} + 1\,\, .$$ 3. Complete irreducible curves on $S$ are exactly $8$ smooth rational curves $C_i$ ($1 \le i \le 8$) and $${\rm NS}\, (S) = {{\mathbb Z}}\langle C_i \rangle_{i=1}^{8} \simeq E_8\,\, ,$$ i.e., the intersection number $(C_i, C_j)$ ($1 \le i < j \le 8$) is $0$ or $1$ and it is $1$ exactly when $(i, j)$ is in $$\{(1, 2)\,\, ,\,\, (2, 3)\,\, ,\,\,(3, 4)\,\, ,\,\, (4, 5)\,\, ,\,\,(5, 6)\,\, ,\,\, (6, 7)\,\, ,\,\,(3, 8)\}\,\, .$$ 4. The fixed locus $S^g$ of $g$ consists of $C := C_3$ and $7$ isolated points $Q_i$ ($1 \le i \le 7$) on $\cup_{i=1}^{8} C_ i \setminus C$ and one point $Q$ outside $\cup_{i=1}^{8}C_i$. We show that the K3 surface $S$ in Theorem \[thm51\] satisfies the conditions (1) and (2) in Theorem \[thm3\]. As the Néron-Severi lattice $({\rm NS}\, (S), (, ))$ is negative definite by Theorem \[thm51\] (3), it follows that $S$ has no non-constant global meromorphic functions. In particular, $S$ is non-projective. Consider the curve $C := C_3 \simeq {{\mathbb P}}^1$. We show that $C$ satisfies the condition (1) in Theorem \[thm3\]. As the Dynkin diagram $E_8$ has no non-trivial automorphism, ${\rm Aut}\, (S)$ preserves each curve $C_i$ ($1 \le i \le 8$). As $C = C_3$ meets $C_2$, $C_4$, $C_8$ and $C_3 \cap C_4$, $C_3 \cap C_4$, $C_3 \cap C_8$ are three mutually different points on $C_3 \simeq {{\mathbb P}}^1$, it follows that ${\rm Aut}\, (S) = {\rm Ine}\, (C)$. Then $g \in {\rm Ine}\, (C)$ and $h_{{\rm top}}(g) > 0$ by Theorem \[thm51\] (2). Consider the curve $D := C_8 \simeq {{\mathbb P}}^1$. We show that $D$ satisfies the condition (2) in Theorem \[thm3\]. As ${\rm Aut}\, (S) = \langle g \rangle$ and $g$ preserves $D$, it follows that ${\rm Aut}\, (S) = {\rm Dec}\, (D)$. Now consider ${\rm Ine}\, (D)$. As $g$ preserves each curves $C_i$ and $C_i$ ($1 \le i \le 8$) generate ${\rm NS}\, (S)$, it follows that $g^ = id$ on ${\rm NS}\, (S)$. On the othe hand, as ${\rm NS}\, (S)$ is negative definite of rank $8$, the transcendental lattice $T(S)$ is of rank $14$, which is preserved by $g$. Then by Theorem \[thm51\] (2), the characteristic polynomial of $g^\|T(S)$ is exactly $\varphi_{14}(x)$. As $\varphi_{14}(x)$ is irreducible over ${{\mathbb Z}}$ and $g$ preserves ${{\mathbb C}}\omega_S \subset T(S)_{{{\mathbb C}}}$, it follows that $g^\omega_S = \delta \omega_S$ for some Galois conjugate $\delta$ of $\alpha$. Note that $\delta$ is [not]{} a root of unity, as $\delta$ is a Galois conjugate of $\alpha >1$, while $\|\delta\| =1$ by $(f^\omega_S, f^\overline{\omega_S}) = (\omega_S, \overline{\omega_S}) \not= 0$. Here we denote by $\overline{}$ the complex conjugate of $$ and $\|\delta\| := \sqrt{\delta \overline{\delta}} \in {{\mathbb R}}_{\ge 0}$. Let $P$ be the intersection point of $C = C_3$ and $D = C_8$. We denote by $x$ an affine coordinate of $D \simeq {{\mathbb P}}^1$ with $x(P) = 0$. As $g\|_{C} = id_C$, $C$ and $D$ meets at $P$ transversally and $g^{}\omega_S = \delta \omega_S$, it follows that $(g\|_{D})^ x = \delta x$, i.e., $g\|_D \in {\rm Aut}\, (D)$ is the multiplication automorphism $\delta \cdot$ by $\delta$. As ${\rm Aut}\, (S) = \langle g \rangle$ by Theorem \[thm51\] (1) and $\delta$ is not a root of unity, it follows that the natural restriction homomorphism $$\tau : \langle g \rangle = {\rm Aut}\, (S) = {\rm Dec}\, (D) \to {\rm Aut}\, (D)\,\, ;\,\, g^n \mapsto (\delta \cdot)^n = \delta^n \cdot$$ is injective. Hence ${\rm Ine}\, (D) = {\rm Ker}\, \tau = \{id_S\}$. This completes the proof of Theorem \[thm3\]. [BHPV04]{} Barth, W., Hulek, K., Peters, C., Van de Ven, Compact complex surfaces. Second enlarged edition. Springer Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg (2004). Bedford, E., Kim, K., Dynamics of rational surface automorphisms: linear fractional recurrences, J. Geom. Anal. [19]{} (2009) 553–583. Cantat, S., Dynamique du groupe d’automorphismes des surfaces K3, Transform. Groups [6]{} (2001) 201–214. Dinh, T.-C., Sibony, N., Une borne supérieure de l’entropie topologique d’une application rationnelle, Ann. of Math., [161]{} (2005) 1637–1644. Dinh, T.-C., Sibony, N., Equidistribution problems of complex dynamics in higher dimension, arXiv:1611.03598 Dinh, T.-C., Nguyen V.-A., : Comparison of dynamical degrees for semi-conjugate meromorphic maps, Comment. Math. Helv. [86]{} (2011) 817–840. Dolgachev, I. V., Zhang, De-Qi, Coble rational surfaces, Amer. J. Math. [123]{} (2001) 79–114. M. Gromov, Entropy, homology and semialgebraic geometry, Astérisque [145]{}–[146]{} (1987) 225–240. Katok, A., Hasselblatt, B., Introduction to the modern theory of dynamical systems, Cambridge University Press, 1995. Kodaira, K., On compact analytic surfaces. II, Ann. of Math. [77]{} (1963), 563–626. McMullen, C. T., Dynamics on K3 surfaces: Salem numbers and Siegel disks, J. Reine Angew. Math. [545]{} (2002), 201–233. McMullen, C. T., Dynamics on blowups of the projective plane, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. [105]{} (2007) 49–89. Nikulin, V., Quotient-groups of groups of automorphisms of hyperbolic forms by subgroups generated by 2-reflections, Algebro-geometric applications, Current Problems in Mathematics, [18]{} (1981) 3–114. Oguiso, K., On Jacobian fibrations on the Kummer surfaces of the product of nonisogenous elliptic curves, J. Math. Soc. Japan [41]{} (1989) 651–680. Oguiso, K., Automorphisms of hyperkähler manifolds in the view of topological entropy, 173–185, Contemp. Math., [422]{} 2007. Oguiso, K., Mordell-Weil groups of a hyperkähler manifold - a question of F. Campana, Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. [44]{} (2008) 495–506. Oguiso, K., The third smallest Salem number in automorphisms of K3 surfaces, 331–360, Adv. Stud. Pure Math., [60]{}, 2010. Oguiso, K., Zhang, De-Qi, On the most algebraic K3 surfaces and the most extremal log Enriques surfaces, Amer. J. Math. [118]{} (1996) 1277–1297. Truong, T.T., : (Relative) dynamical degrees of rational maps over an algebraic closed field, arXiv:1501.01523. Ueno, K., Classification theory of algebraic varieties and compact complex spaces, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, [439]{}, Springer-Verlag, 1975. Vinberg, É. B., The two most algebraic K3 surfaces, Math. Ann. [265]{} (1983) 1–21. Zhang, D.-Q., A theorem of Tits type for compact Kähler manifolds, Invent. Math. [176]{} (2009) 449–459.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The life of a cell is governed by highly dynamical microscopic processes. Two notable examples are the diffusion of membrane receptors and the kinetics of transcription factors governing the rates of gene expression. Different fluorescence imaging techniques have emerged to study molecular dynamics. Among them, fluorescence correlation spectroscopy (FCS) and single-particle tracking (SPT) have proven to be instrumental to our understanding of cell dynamics and function. The analysis of SPT and FCS is an ongoing effort, and despite decades of work, much progress remains to be done. In this paper, we give a quick overview of the existing techniques used to analyze anomalous diffusion in cells and propose a collaborative challenge to foster the development of state-of-the-art analysis algorithms. We propose to provide labelled (training) and unlabelled (evaluation) simulated data to competitors all over the world in an open and fair challenge. The goal is to offer unified data benchmarks based on biologically-relevant metrics in order to compare the diffusion analysis software available for the community.' author: - Maxime Woringer - Ignacio Izeddin - Cyril Favard - Hugues Berry bibliography: - 'Biblio5.bib' title: 'Anomalous subdiffusion in living cells: bridging the gap between experiments and realistic models through collaborative challenges.' --- Diffusion in cells \| continuous-time random walks \| fractional Brownian Motion \| fluorescence correlation spectroscopy \| single-particle tracking. cyril.favardirim.cnrs.fr, hugues.berryinria.fr Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered} ============ The life of a cell is governed by highly dynamical microscopic processes occurring at different space and time scales from single macromolecules up to organelles. Optical microscopy provided four decades ago the first measurements of biomolecule motion in cells. First by fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP) [@axelrod_mobility_1976] and fluorescence correlation spectroscopy (FCS) [@magde_thermodynamic_1972], and more recently with the help of single particle tracking (SPT) [@Geerts1987; @Geerts1991]. Several factors have colluded to popularize these techniques in many biophysics and biology labs: i) the development of highly sensitive detectors, ii) the emergence of genetically encoded fluorescent protein labelling in the late 90s [@Heim12501; @HEIM1996178; @Matz1999], and iii) the advent in the years 2000-2010 of far-field super-resolution microscopy[@Hell1994; @Betzig2006b; @hess_ultra-high_2006; @Klar8206; @rust_sub-diffraction-limit_2006]. All these technological efforts have granted us access to the monitoring of molecular motion in cells with unprecedented spatial (down to single molecule) and temporal resolution [@manley_high-density_2008; @eggeling_direct_2009]. The adoption of these techniques has been paramount in the advancement of the understanding of cell organisation and dynamics [@Chattopad_2019; @Liu_rev_2019; @Priest1117]. While acquiring sufficient experimental data sets used to be a limiting factor, these technological advances combined with data acquisition parallelization provide nowadays huge amounts of data available for analysis of molecular motion inside the cell. In turn, the richness of this data has unravelled an unforeseen complexity and diversity of mechanisms for biomolecule motion in cells. Therefore, many efforts are devoted to analyze data provided by FCS or SPT with direct or inference approaches. However, choosing the appropriate algorithms to analyse the complexity of the observed phenomena is still an important challenge. Indeed, the richness of experimental data often makes it difficult to determine which are the physical models to be considered and which are the relevant biophysical parameters to be estimated from them. We review and address this issue in this perspective. We will first briefly review key anomalous diffusion models relevant to cell biology and summarily describe some of the existing techniques to either infer model parameters or to perform model selection. We will discuss the relevance of numerical simulations and the importance of designing realistic data sets closely mimicking the results obtained in experiments on biological samples. We will also highlight the often overlooked limitations in current acquisition methods and emphasize the role of experimental noise and biases of the aforementioned techniques. Finally, we will present and advocate in favour of the development of comprehensive sets of simulated data and metrics, allowing the community to objectively evaluate existing and new analysis tools. Our hope is that this work will instigate an open discussion about the limitations and challenges of analysing and modelling diffusion of molecules in the complex environment of the cell. Brownian vs anomalous diffusion {#brownian-vs-anomalous-diffusion .unnumbered} =============================== Maybe one of the best-known result of the theory of Brownian diffusion is that the mean squared displacement (MSD) of a random walker scales linearly with time, and is proportional to the diffusion coefficient of the fluid in which diffusion takes place. With $x(t)$ being the position of the random walker at time $t$ (in one dimension), this means that the MSD $\left\langle {x(t)}^2\right\rangle = 2 D t$, where $\langle \cdot \rangle$ denotes ensemble averaging and $x(0)=0$. However, Brownian diffusion does not explain the physics of disordered systems. Interestingly, an ubiquitous observation in cell biology is that the diffusive motion of macromolecules and organelles is anomalous, i.e. the MSD change with time is typically characterized by a sublinear increase. In most instances, this sublinear increase of the MSD with time can be fitted to a power-law relation $\left\langle {x(t)}^2\right\rangle \propto t^\alpha$ with exponent $\alpha<1$, which justifies the vocable of “subdiffusion”. Subdiffusion is usually attributed to cellular crowding, spatial heterogeneity or molecular interactions. Another possibility of anomalous diffusion is superdiffusion, with $1<\alpha<2$. Indeed a lot of process in biology exhibit active transport or combinations of active and random motions. Anomalous diffusion in cells is therefore a very active area of research involving biophysics, cell biology, statistical physics and mathematical modelling. When confronted to a set of data retrieved from FCS or SPT experiments, the first question that one needs to answer is whether the measured ~~sub~~diffusion is indeed a manifestation of an anomalous process. Often, a combination of several normal diffusion mechanisms or experimental artefacts gives rise to an apparent ~~sub~~diffusion. If an anomalous diffusion –characterized by a power law scaling of the MSD with time– can be identified, establishing the physical model behind the diffusion process can shed light on the molecular mechanisms driving the motion of the molecule of interest. Below, we will first focus on three classical models for anomalous subdiffusion and their common biological interpretation, namely the continuous-time random walk (CTRW) model, the fractional Brownian motion (fBm) model, and random walks on fractal and disordered systems (for a review, see, e.g. [@hoefling_anomalous_2013]), then we will briefly describe different models covering super-diffusion processes that can be encountered in cells such as run and tumble model, Levy flights and super-diffusive fBm. The continuous-time random walk model is a generalization of a random walk in which the diffusing particle waits for a random time between jumps. More generally, when the distribution $\phi(\tau)$ of waiting times $\tau$ is long-tailed and cannot be averaged (with e.g. $\phi(\tau)\propto \tau^{-(1+\alpha)}$ and $0<\alpha<1$ ), the ensemble-averaged MSD shows anomalous scaling with a power law. A straightforward interpretation of a CTRW in the context of molecular biology is assimilating the waiting times to interactions of the molecule with an immobile substrate (at the relevant temporal and spatial scales). It is important to note that an interaction with a characteristic residence time does not fulfill the conditions of the model. Interestingly, however, the waiting-time distribution of non-specific interactions, abundant in the cell, might be non-averageable and thus CTRW a good microscopic model for one type of anomalous subdiffusion in the cell. It has been proposed to govern the cytosolic diffusion of nanosized objects in mammalian cells [@Etoc2018] and it has also been used to explain the lateral motion of potassium channels in the plasma membrane of cells [@Wiegel2011]. The fractional Brownian motion model is a different generalization of Brownian diffusion in which the jumps between lag times follow a normal distribution but respect a correlation function given by $\left\langle x(t)x(s)\right\rangle=1/2(t^{2H}+s^{2H}-(t-s)^{2H})$ for $t>s>0$. A fBm process is thus characterized by the Hurst index $H$, ranging between $0$ and $1$. The value of $H$ determines the type of jump dependence in the fBm process, such that $H > 1/2$ indicates a positive correlation between the increments, Brownian motion is achieved for $H = 1/2$, and the increments are negatively correlated when $H < 1/2$. The MSD of a fBm is given by $\left\langle {x(t)}^2\right\rangle \propto t^{2H}$, which, again, encompasses Brownian diffusion for $H=1/2$ and yields subdiffusion for $H<1/2$ or superdiffusion for $H>1/2$ (see below). The fBm model describes faithfully the diffusion of particles in a viscoelastic fluid [@ernst_fractional_2012], and it has been often argued that molecular crowding in the cell gives rise to microviscosity and therefore to anomalous diffusion. It was proposed as the model of telomere diffusion in nucleus [@Kepten2011; @burnecki_universal_2012]. Another possible model for anomalous diffusion in the cell is that of random walks on fractal media and disordered systems. Fractals are self-similar mathematical objects built upon the repetition of simple rules and characterized by a non-integer number: the fractal dimension. Although still under debate, some authors have proposed that chromatin organization follows, as a first order approximation, a fractal structure, and estimates of its fractal dimension have been proposed [@recamier_single_2014]. Random walks on fractals are subdiffusive due to the spatial correlation of displacements, and the power law scaling factor of the MSD with time is given by $2/d_w$, where $d_w$ is the dimension of the walk that is specific to the fractal. Although the pertinence of a fractal network model to describe molecular diffusion is still up to debate, it is justified to attempt to integrate the multiscale characteristics of the cell organization to such fractal model. Amongst the existing superdiffusive motion in cells is the run-and-tumble process, which consists of alternating phases of fast active and slow passive motion leading to transient anomalous diffusion [@Shebani_run_tumble_2019]. Initially observed for bacteria motion it has recently been used to describe molecular motions in cells such as the motion of motors along cytoskeletal filaments. Motor proteins perform a number of steps (run) until they randomly unbind from the filaments and diffuse in the crowded cytoplasm (tumble) before rebinding [@Hafner2016]. The same could also stand for transcription factors in the nucleus searching for their initiation codon, alternating successively diffusion and 1D sliding along the DNA. Superdiffusive fBm which is characterized by an Hurst index $H>1/2$ has been described as the intracellular motion of particles in the super-crowded cytoplasm of a amibae [@Reverey2015]. Finally, Levy flights, has previously been proposed for intracellular actin-based transport mediated by molecular motors [@Bruno2009] and recently in the case of a membrane targeting C2 protein [@Campagnola2015]. Note that by no means the above described models exhaustively cover the range of models that are known to exhibit anomalous diffusion (see e.g. [@metzler_anomalous_2014; @Pavlos_2014; @Lenzi_2016]). However the CTRW, fBM, and random walks in a fractal models have been extensively studied; more importantly, they have the potential to map parameters of the model to relevant biological and biophysical features. Therefore, we will limit our discussion to the aforementioned cases, and how they can be used to analyse and interpret experimental data obtained by FCS and SPT. Which methods to correctly analyse diffusive process? {#which-methods-to-correctly-analyse-diffusive-process .unnumbered} ===================================================== Fluorescence Correlation Spectroscopy {#fluorescence-correlation-spectroscopy .unnumbered} ------------------------------------- The principle of FCS consists in measuring the temporal variations of molecular concentration at a given position within the volume of a biological sample. This is achieved by monitoring the temporal fluctuations of fluorescence signal emitted by the molecules present in the observation volume, which is excited with a focused laser. The underlying assumption of FCS is that the system is in a dynamic equilibrium and therefore the signal fluctuation can be correlated to the diffusion of molecules within the observation volume. While the amplitude of the fluctuations relates to the number of molecules in the observation volume, the decay of their autocorrelation in time depends on their mobility. A typical FCS set-up consists of an illumination laser and a confocal microscope with a fast single-channel single-photon detector. The laser beam illuminates the detection volume with, usually, a Gaussian intensity profile and excites the fluorophores in the focal volume. The emitted fluorescent light is collected by the detector and it depends on the fluctuations of the local concentration of the labelled molecules. Parameters such as the average number of molecules (N) and their mean residence time ($\tau_d$) in the confocal volume (surface) can be obtained either directly from this fluorescence intensity fluctuation measurement or indirectly by a temporal auto-correlation of this fluctuation. The second method is the most popular approach for FCS data analysis (see Fig. \[fig:1\]). The main drawback of standard FCS is the lack in directly monitoring possible spatial and/or temporal heterogeneities that will give rise to deviation from pure Brownian motion. Several approaches have been proposed to overcome this issue including spot variation FCS (sv-FCS) [@wawrezinieck_fluorescence_2005; @eggeling_direct_2009], line scanning FCS and STED-FCS [@PETRASEK20081437; @honigmann_scanning_2014] , as well as imaging approaches such as (spatio)-temporal imaging correlation spectroscopy ((S)TICS), raster imaging correlation spectroscopy (RICS) [@digman_measuring_2005] or more recently whole plane Imaging FCS (Im-FCS)[@Kannan2006]. With the development of commercial microscopes coupled to FCS capabilities, this technique and its derivatives are now becoming more and more popular in biology labs. ![image](figure1.pdf){width="18cm"} A large range of dynamic processes leading to concentration fluctuations (i.e, diffusion, flow, chemical reactions and different combinations of these) has been investigated to generate corresponding analytical expressions of the temporal autocorrelation curve $G(t)$ in the case of Gaussian (laser confocal) illumination/detection geometry (for a review, see [@Elson2011] and references therein). For instance, in the case of a Brownian motion in 2D, $G(t)=1/\{\bar{N}(1+4Dt/w^2)\}$ where $w$ is the size of the beam waist and $\bar{N}$ is the average number of molecules in the observation volume. The main approach to diffusive process identification and quantification in FCS consists in non linear least square fitting of experimental autocorrelation curves using above described analytical expressions and discriminate amongst these models which suits the best using various statistical test. Although it can deliver quantitative values of the parameters of the statistically chosen model of motion, it could be strongly biased, in particular for complex motions. A Bayesian approach to single spot FCS correlogram analysis has been proposed to discriminate between different models without bias [@He2012; @guo_bayesian_2012] Another way to discriminate between different types of motion is to explore space and time with FCS using svFCS for example. svFCS offers the opportunity to generate so-called “diffusion-laws” by plotting changes in the residence time ($\tau_d$) as a function of the surface (i.e. laser waist) explored $w^2$. This has enabled to directly identify deviations from pure Brownian motion in the plasma membrane of cells [@lenne_dynamic_2006] or anomalous diffusion occurring, either during first order lipid phase transition [@favard_fcs_2011] or in non-homogeneous fluids, gels and crowded solutions [@Banks_anomalous_FCS; @Masuda_2005]. It has been recently extended to the line-scanning STED-FCS [@Schneider2018] and to Im-FCS [@Veerapathiran2018]. Single/Multiple Particle(s) Tracking {#singlemultiple-particles-tracking .unnumbered} ------------------------------------ While the concentration of the subset of fluorescent molecules within a confocal volume in FCS experiments is close to the single-molecule regime, the measurement gauges the average motion of the ensemble of molecules diffusing in and out the observation spot. Conversely, SPT is by construction a single-molecule approach, monitoring thus the motion of individual molecules. One of the strengths of SPT is the potential to capture rare events or behaviours that would otherwise be buried within an average. The principle of SPT experiments is simple, it consists in retrieving the changes in position of individual molecules within the sample of interest, i.e. the time series of two-dimensional or three-dimensional coordinates of the molecule location. This is achieved in two stages: firstly by estimating the centroid of the measured point spread function (PSF) of each detected individual emitter, and secondly by linking the trajectory of the same molecule between consecutive images. Importantly, the accuracy at which one is able to pinpoint the molecule position depends only on the signal-to-noise ratio of the measured PSF, obtaining sub-wavelength accuracy typically in the order of $\sim$10 nm. The basic SPT experimental setup consists of an excitation laser, a high NA objective, a set of dichroic and filters to separate the excitation and emission wavelengths, a tube lens, and a highly sensitive camera capable of detecting single fluorophores (see Fig. \[fig:1\]). The laser is focused on the back focal plane of the objective to obtain a wide-field illumination configuration, which can be adjusted to total internal reflection (TIRF) or highly inclined illumination (HILO) [@Tokunaga2008] to increase the SNR when studying molecular dynamics in cellular membranes or at the interior of cells, respectively. The fluorescence light is collected by the same objective, and an image of the single emitters is formed on the camera plane via the tube lens [@manley_high-density_2008; @izeddin_single-molecule_2014]. The amount of retrieved information about the biological system from an SPT assay depends on the nature of the experiment. The study of a slowly diffusing transmembrane protein will yield much longer traces than a fast diffusing transcription factor in the nucleus. In the latter case, the traces will be limited to the number of images in which the tracked particle remains within the depth of focus around the image plane, unlike the former case where photobleaching is the limiting factor. The classical analysis of a set of trajectories consists in computing the dependence of the MSD (time-average or ensemble-average) over time from the distribution of jumps at increasing lag times defined by the camera acquisition, typically in the order of tens of ms. However, as we will see in the following section, different approaches and estimators have been proposed in order to analyze and interpret SPT data to its full extent. In comparison to FCS, the analysis of SPT has been intensively investigated, and one can distinguish several families of techniques (see also for reviews: [@metzler_analysis_2009; @recamier_single_2014; @ernst_probing_2014]). In the field of stochastic processes, the inference of a diffusion coefficient from a sampled process is a common problem (see for instance [@florens-zmirou_estimating_1993; @hoffmann_estimating_2001]). However, this theory cannot be applied when moving to experimental trajectories, and other approaches have been proposed. ### MSD-based techniques {#msd-based-techniques .unnumbered} A first family of SPT analysis algorithms tries to perform robust MSD inference. The use of MSD to study diffusion was introduced by Einstein in 1906, and was revived in biology by [@qian_single_1991]. MSD analysis can either be performed by inferring a diffusion coefficient from a single trajectory (a setting studied in [@michalet_optimal_2012]) or by pooling various trajectories [@liu_2014], and many refinements and estimators based on the MSD have been proposed [@michalet_mean_2010; @boyer_optimal_2012]. When inferring kinetic parameters from a series of single trajectories, one faces the issue that for common trajectory lengths obtained in nuclear SPT (length of $<<20$ points per track) and common localization error, inaccuracy might reach 100% [@michalet_optimal_2012; @hansen_robust_2018]. As such, any approach that uses MSD on short trajectories should be evaluated with great care. For longer trajectories (such as diffusion in a membrane), approaches have been proposed that can segment trajectories based on the type of motion [@monnier_bayesian_2012]. ### Hidden Markov Models (HMMs) {#hidden-markov-models-hmms .unnumbered} A second family of SPT analysis algorithms derives from Markov models and Hidden Markov Models. Most of them were derived to perform trajectory segment classification, the hidden variable inferred being the state of diffusion, or the current diffusion coefficient. For instance, [@monnier_inferring_2015] introduces the HMM-Bayes technique to infer whether a trajectory segment is in one (or several) diffusive or active transport states. Moreover, [@slator_detection_2015] implemented the inference of localization noise to infer switches in diffusion coefficient within one trajectory. A similar approach was used to detect confinement [@slator_hidden_2018]. These methods often rely on a fixed number of states, which comes from significant mathematical limitations. Some of these limitations were overcome using so-called variational Bayesian inference [@blei_variational_2016]. The prototypical algorithm performing variational Bayesian inference on a HMM is vbSPT [@persson_extracting_2013]. This algorithm can estimate the number of diffusive states and progressively consolidate increasing information about these states as trajectories are analyzed. The algorithm was further refined to incorporate the estimate of localization error [@linden_variational_2018-1]. ### Inferring maps of diffusion coefficients {#inferring-maps-of-diffusion-coefficients .unnumbered} A third family of SPT analysis algorithms not only infers the diffusion coefficient over the population of diffusing molecules, but also a spatial map of diffusivity [@masson_inferring_2009; @el_beheiry_inferencemap_2015]. This approach has been pioneered in membranes, where a high density of tracks can easily be obtained. An extension of this approach using an overdamped Langevin equation of the single molecule motion has shed new lights on HIV-1 assembly within living cells [@floderer_single_2018]. These promising techniques have not been tested beyond membrane molecules, but the high diffusion coefficients of freely diffusing cellular proteins might render such a map difficult to establish. Moreover, unlike in membranes, proteins can reside at the same location with different diffusion coefficients, depending on whether they are interacting with a given structure or not. ### Inferring anomalous diffusion {#inferring-anomalous-diffusion .unnumbered} Many approaches have been proposed to infer anomalous diffusion in cells; some of them are reviewed in [@guigas_sampling_2008]. A direct technique can be used by fitting the MSD with a power law to estimate the anomalous diffusion coefficient $\alpha$. However, alternative techniques have been proposed, many of them focused on the inference of model-specific parameters, or on techniques to distinguish between types of anomalous diffusion. Several methods have been proposed to infer diffusion parameters for several anomalous diffusion models. For the case of diffusion in disordered (fractal) media, [@shkilev_kinetic_2018] proposes estimators that can be applied to SPT, FCS and FRAP. For the case of fractional Brownian motion, techniques to infer both the anomalous diffusion coefficient ($\alpha$) and the generalized diffusion coefficient ($D_\alpha$) have been proposed. The former approach [@krog_bayesian_2018] takes into account noise (localization error) and drift, and uses Bayesian inference. The latter [@boyer_ergodic_2013] relies on squared displacements and uses least squares to estimate $D_\alpha$. Conversely, instead of trying to estimate the parameters of a known model, a key question is to distinguish between various anomalous diffusion models. A prototypical approach [@robson_inferring_2012] used Bayesian inference to distinguish between Brownian, anomalous, confined and directed diffusion, and uses the propagators associated with each different diffusion model. However, [@hellmann_challenges_2011] found using simulations that it is very hard to distinguish between fBm and diffusion on a fractal when localization noise is present, both in SPT and FCS. The authors used a combination of techniques for the inference, including MSD and $p$-variation techniques. In [@burnecki_universal_2012], the authors propose a series of tests to “unambiguously” identify fBm, by progressively proving that several other models are wrong. Other tests were proposed to distinguish fBm from a CTRW using a test based on $p$-variations [@magdziarz_fractional_2009]. The $p$-variations are the finite sum of the $p$-th powers of the increments of the trajectory. Finally, approaches inferring the mean first passage time of a particle were used to distinguish between CTRW and diffusion in fractals [@condamin_first-passage_2007; @condamin_probing_2008]. Many other families of techniques to identify types of diffusion have been proposed. Some relied on maximum likelihood estimates [@thapa_bayesian_2018], auto-correlation functions [@weber_analytical_2012] or on more exotic estimators [@vestergaard_optimal_2014]. Another line of progress was made in the type of models being simulated. For instance, [@amitai_chromatin_2018] introduced a model in which TFs can bind and rebind in a dense chromatin mesh. This model was successively fitted to explain anomalous diffusion of CTCF dynamics [@hansen_guided_2018]. Finally, we note that many models were developed to infer trapping potential in membranes ([@turkcan_bayesian_2012; @masson_mapping_2014] for instance). We do not review them here since their application seems limited to membranes. Strengths & limitations of the two techniques {#strengths-limitations-of-the-two-techniques .unnumbered} --------------------------------------------- A strong limitation is that the experimental context, either in FCS or in SPT, may lead to spurious determination of anomalous diffusion. In other words, specific experimental parameters (low statistics, location noise, spatial confinement, etc.) and/or inappropriate anaysis of the data can lead to incorrectly conclude that the diffusion exponent $\alpha \neq 1$. Those artifacts concern both SPT [@Martin_2002] and FCS [@Banks_2016]. This is for instance the case if $\alpha$ is determined by a fit of the MSD or the autocorrelation with time and the statistical power is low (low sampling of the time points or short trajectories in SPT, low signal/noise at small or large times in FCS). To avoid such caveats, model selection must use more elaborate approaches to unambiguously demonstrate and characterize an underlying complex diffusion process. So far, most of the inference tools available in the literature only partially account for the biases detailed above, and are usually limited in terms of the anomalous diffusion models they consider. For instance, in [@hansen_robust_2018], the authors showed that an algorithm not taking into account localization error was likely to improperly estimate diffusion coefficients. Similarly, the fact that the observed proteins diffuse in a confined volume leads to a sublinear MSD, a phenomenon that has been widely documented and that needs to be taken into account to properly distinguish between genuine anomalous diffusion and mere confinement effect. Similarly, tracking errors (misconnections between tracks) can also look like anomalous diffusion. Some of these biases can be minimized at the acquisition step (for instance by using fast frame rates and low labeling density [@hansen_robust_2018]), other need to be explicitly taken into account in the model. As of today, most inference algorithms available have not been benchmarked against realistic imaging conditions. Furthermore, a general realistic inference algorithm is still missing. Conclusion: the need for controlled benchmarks {#conclusion-the-need-for-controlled-benchmarks .unnumbered} ============================================== Confronted with the variety of approaches described above, one would like to know the performance of each approach on typical representative datasets. For the comparison to be fair, this demands two main ingredients: (i) the existence of a reference dataset, or benchmark – possibly one reference dataset for each main classes of experimental methods and (ii) a fair, objective, transparent and open comparison process, with datasets, comparison procedures and performance results that are clearly stated and publicly available. Several fields in computer science have been using open community competitions to organize the process and produce open benchmarks for the community. Computer vision, applied machine learning or time series forecasting, among many others, have a long tradition of leveraging these competitions. The strategy has been widely successful because it parallelizes research along a vast community of high-skilled researchers. Internet platforms or services are even available to that purpose, including, among many others, Kaggle ( [www.kaggle.com](www.kaggle.com)) or DrivenData ( [www.drivendata.org](www.drivendata.org)). This increases further the size of the competing community, and the richness of the proposals. In fact, in addition to providing reference datasets and benchmarks, open competitive challenges can also foster the emergence of radically new approaches to the open problem at hand. Many of these competitive challenges are concerned with biomedical applications (for instance, <http://dreamchallenges.org> or <https://grand-challenge.org>), including several revolving around microscopy (see e.g. <https://cremi.org>). Recently, a series of consecutive community competitions for single-molecule imaging have involved dozens of labs and focused on tracking algorithms [@chenouard_objective_2014], and 2D and 3D localization for super-resolution [@Sage2019]. Finally, another challenge has also been set up recently to infer the anomalous diffusion exponent from particle trajectories (https://competitions.codalab.org/competitions/23601). In practice, an important feature of competitive challenges is to provide labelled data examples that the participants will be able to use as a training set. Indeed according to standard machine learning practice, this training dataset must be distinct from the test set, that includes the data used to estimate the performance of the algorithm. The organizers therefore usually publish two datasets (training dataset and test), of which only the training dataset comes with the label of each examples – only the organizers know the true label of the test dataset. After training, the results of the challenge is based on some quantification of the performance of the participant tools on the test set, although performance on the learning set can also be communicated as a way to judge overtraining/generalization capacities. In many cases however, it is not possible to provide the “true” label of experimental data, because such a gold standard does not exist. In this case, computer simulations can be used to generate synthetic data, as long as these simulations are realistic enough that the performance of the algorithms is not different than their performance on real experimental measurements. In the recent challenges on super-resolution, training and test data were a combination of computer-generated data and experimental data. Computer-generated data gives a clear access to ground truth whereas experimental data incorporate uncharacterized biases that can affect the inference process. Here we propose to organize an international open collaborative challenge for the quantification and analysis of molecule movements in living cells via SPT and FCS. To date, the generation of realistic computer-simulated data has been hampered by the number of experimental biases to be taken into account, and by the diversity of the diffusion models, in particular for anomalous diffusion. For the challenge, we will generate both SPT and FCS data from the same set of simulated trajectories and in different modalities (2D in membranes and 3D in the nucleus) using a dedicated open source simulation software, simSPT (<https://gitlab.com/tjian-darzacq-lab/simSPT>), that is freely available to the participants to generate their own additional training sets if needed. The challenge will be organized around various sub-challenges that represent the main classes of experimental situations (high-density short trajectories in membranes, less dense long trajectories in membranes, very short trajectories in the nucleus) and the main types of Brownian and anomalous diffusion (Brownian motion, fractional Brownian motion, continuous-time random walks and diffusion on fractals), and mixtures thereof. In the long run, we will also propose sub-challenges where the molecule dynamics depends on the location, to emulate localized spatial heterogeneity in the dynamics (local potentials, position-dependent diffusion coefficients). Moreover, we will progressively propose two challenge categories. In parameter inference challenges, the models used to generate the trajectories (Brownian motion, anomalous diffusion, ...) will be given and the task will be to infer as precisely as possible the value of the parameters used for the generation. In model selection challenges, the goal will be to infer what model was used to generate the data given a known limited list of models. Finally, we are aware that it may well be that no generic tool is able to solve all the sub-challenges evoked above. We are also aware that the difficulty of each sub-challenges can be quite variable. We therefore propose to start with the simple challenges and work in collaboration with the community involved in the analysis of molecular dynamics in living cells, to progressively climb the steps toward the more difficult sub-challenges. In this strategy, maintaining an open communication channel between the organizers and the participants is paramount. To this aim, we propose to start with a mailing list that will be used to support this communication. Every interested individual is therefore welcome to subscribe to the mailing list of the challenge by visiting <https://listes.services.cnrs.fr/wws/info/diffusion.challenge>. Once registered in the mailing list through this website, participants will be able to exchange with the organizers and they will receive the instructions to access the datasets of the challenge. Conflict of Interest Statement {#conflict-of-interest-statement .unnumbered} ============================== The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Author Contributions {#author-contributions .unnumbered} ==================== MW, II, CF and HB developed these perspectives and wrote the manuscript. Funding {#funding .unnumbered} ======= This work was partly funded by the CNRS-supported GDR ImaBio, <http://imabio-cnrs.fr>. Bibliography {#bibliography .unnumbered} ============	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Even under constant external conditions, the expression levels of genes fluctuate. Much emphasis has been placed on the components of this noise that are due to randomness in transcription and translation; here we analyze the role of noise associated with the inputs to transcriptional regulation, the random arrival and binding of transcription factors to their target sites along the genome. This noise sets a fundamental physical limit to the reliability of genetic control, and has clear signatures, but we show that these are easily obscured by experimental limitations and even by conventional methods for plotting the variance vs. mean expression level. We argue that simple, global models of noise dominated by transcription and translation are inconsistent with the embedding of gene expression in a network of regulatory interactions. Analysis of recent experiments on transcriptional control in the early [Drosophila]{} embryo shows that these results are quantitatively consistent with the predicted signatures of input noise, and we discuss the experiments needed to test the importance of input noise more generally.' author: - 'Gašper Tkačik$^a$, Thomas Gregor$^{a,b}$ and William Bialek$^{a,c}$' title: The role of input noise in transcriptional regulation --- Introduction ============ A number of recent experiments have focused attention on noise in gene expression [@elowitz+al_02; @ozbudak+al_02; @blake+al_03; @raser+oshea_04; @rosenfeld+al_05; @pedraza+oudenaarden_05; @golding+al_05; @newman+al_06; @bar-even+al_06]. The study of noise in biological systems more generally has a long history, with two very different streams of thought. On the one hand, observations of noise in behavior at the cellular or even organismal level give us a window into mechanisms at a much more microscopic level. The classic example of using noise to draw inferences about biological mechanism is perhaps the Luria–Delbrück experiment [@luria+delbruck_43], which demonstrated the random character of mutations, but one can also point to early work on the nature of chemical transmission at synapses [@fatt+katz_50; @fatt+katz_52] and on the dynamics of ion channel proteins [@lecar+nossal_71a; @lecar+nossal_71b; @stevens_72; @conti+al_75]. On the other hand, noise limits the reliability of biological function, and it is important to identify these limits. Examples include tracking the reliability of visual perception at low light levels down to the ability of the visual system to count single photons [@hecht+al_42; @barlow_81], the implications of channel noise for the reliability of neural coding [@verveen+derksen_65; @verveen+derksen_68; @schneidman+al_98], and the approach of bacterial chemotactic performance to the limits set by the random arrival of individual molecules at the cell surface [@berg+purcell_77]. After demonstrating that one can observe noise in gene expression, most investigators have concentrated on the mechanistic implications of this noise. Working backward from the observation of protein concentrations, one can try to find the components of noise that derive from the translation of messenger RNA into protein, or the components that arise from noise in the transcription and degradation of the mRNA itself. At least in some organisms, a single mRNA transcript can give rise to many protein molecules, and this ‘burst’ both amplifies the fluctuations in mRNA copy number and changes their statistics, so that even if the number of mRNA copies obeys the Poisson distribution the number of protein molecules will not [@paulsson_04]. This discussion parallels the understanding that Poisson arrival of photons at the retina generates non–Poisson statistics of action potentials in retinal ganglion cells because each photon triggers a burst of spikes [@barlow+al_71]. Recent large scale surveys of noise in eukaryotic transcription have suggested that the noise in most protein levels can be understood in terms of this picture, so that the fractional variance in the number of proteins $p_{\rm i}$ expressed from gene $\rm i$ is given by $$\eta_{\rm i}^2 \equiv {{\langle (\delta p_{\rm i} )^2\rangle}\over{\langle p_{\rm i} \rangle^2}} = {b\over{\langle p_{\rm i} \rangle}}, \label{global_model}$$ where $b\sim 10^3$ is the burst size, and is approximately constant for all genes [@bar-even+al_06]. The mechanistic focus on noise in transcription vs translation perhaps misses the functional role of gene expression as part of a regulatory network. Almost all genes are subject to transcriptional regulation, and hence the expression level of a particular protein can be viewed as the cell’s response to the concentration of the relevant transcription factors. Seen in this way, transcription and translation are at the ‘output’ side of the response, and the binding of transcription factors to their targets along the genome is at the ‘input’ side (Fig \[f-model\]). Noise can arise at both the input and output, and while fluctuations in transcription factor concentration could be viewed as an extrinsic source of noise [@elowitz+al_02; @swain+al_02], there will be fluctuations in target site occupancy even at fixed transcription factor concentration [@bialek+setayeshgar_05; @walczak+al_05; @zon+al_06]. There is a physical limit to how much the impact of these input fluctuations can be reduced, essentially because any physical device that responds to changes in concentration is limited by shot noise in the diffusive arrival of the relevant molecules at their target sites [@bialek+setayeshgar_05; @berg+purcell_77; @bialek+setayeshgar_06]. In this paper we revisit the relative contributions of input and output noise. Input noise has a clear signature, namely that its impact on the output protein concentration peaks at an intermediate value of the input transcription factor concentration. The analogous signature was essential, for example, in identifying the noise from random opening and closing of individual ion channels in neurons [@sigworth_77; @sigworth_80]. Perhaps surprisingly, we show that this signature is easily obscured in conventional ways of plotting the data on noise in gene expression. Recent experiments on the regulation of Hunchback expression by Bicoid in the early [Drosophila]{} embryo [@gregor_05; @gregor+al_06b] are consistent with the predicted signature of input noise, and (although there are caveats) a quantitative analysis of these data supports a dominant contribution of diffusive shot noise. We discuss what experiments would be required to test this conclusion more generally. We begin, however, by asking whether any simple global model such as Eq (\[global\_model\]) can be consistent with the imbedding of gene expression in a network of regulatory interactions. Global consistency? =================== Consider a gene $\rm i$ which is regulated by several transcription factors. In steady state, the mean number of these proteins in the cell will be a function of the copy numbers of all the relevant transcription factors: $$\langle p_{\rm i} \rangle = g_{\rm i} (p_1 ,p_2 , \cdots , p_{\rm K})$$ If the copy numbers of the transcription factors fluctuate, this noise will propagate through the input/output relation $g$ [@pedraza+oudenaarden_05; @hooshangi+al_05], so that $$\langle (\delta p_{\rm i})^2 \rangle = \sum_{\mu =1}^{\rm K} \sum_{\nu =1}^{\rm K} {{\partial g_{\rm i}}\over{\partial p_\mu}} {{\partial g_{\rm i}}\over { \partial p_\nu}} \langle \delta p_\mu \delta p_\nu \rangle + \langle (\delta p_{\rm i})^2 \rangle_{\rm int} , \label{prop1}$$ where we include the intrinsic noise $\langle (\delta p_{\rm i})^2 \rangle_{\rm int}$ that occurs at fixed transcription factor levels. If the noise in gene expression is dominated by the processes of transcription and translation, and if the transcription factors are not regulating each other, then the correlations between fluctuations in the copy numbers of different proteins will be very small, so we expect that $$\langle \delta p_\mu \delta p_\nu \rangle = \delta_{\mu\nu} \langle (\delta p_\mu )^2 \rangle .$$ This allows us to simplify the propagation of noise in Eq (\[prop1\]) to give $$\langle (\delta p_{\rm i})^2 \rangle = \sum_{\mu =1}^{\rm K} \left({{\partial g_{\rm i}}\over{\partial p_\mu}}\right)^2 \langle (\delta p_\mu )^2 \rangle + \langle (\delta p_{\rm i})^2 \rangle_{\rm int} . \label{prop2}$$ If, as in Eq (\[global\_model\]), we express the noise in protein copy number as a fractional noise $\eta$, then this becomes $$\eta_{\rm i}^2 = \sum_{\mu =1}^{\rm K} \left({{\partial \log g_{\rm i}}\over{\partial \log p_\mu}}\right)^2 \eta_\mu^2 +\eta_{\rm i , int}^2 . \label{prop3}$$ In particular, this means that there is a minimum level of noise, $$\eta_{\rm i}^2 \geq \sum_{\mu =1}^{\rm K} \left({{\partial \log g_{\rm i}}\over{\partial \log p_\mu}}\right)^2 \eta_\mu^2 . \label{prop4}$$ But if the fractional variance in protein copy number has a simple, global relation to the mean copy number, as in Eq (\[global\_model\]) [@bar-even+al_06], then this simplifies still further: $$\begin{aligned} {b\over{\langle p_{\rm i}\rangle}} &\geq& \sum_{\mu =1}^{\rm K} \left({{\partial \log g_{\rm i}}\over{\partial \log p_\mu}}\right)^2 {b\over{\langle p_\mu \rangle}} \\ \Rightarrow 1 &\geq& \sum_{\mu =1}^{\rm K} \left({{\partial \log g_{\rm i}}\over{\partial \log p_\mu}}\right)^2 {{\langle p_{\rm i}\rangle } \over{\langle p_\mu \rangle}} . \label{inequality}\end{aligned}$$ Since the proteins labeled by the indices $\mu$ represent transcription factors, usually present at low concentrations, and the protein $\rm i$ is a regulated gene—such as a structural or metabolic protein—but not a transcription factor itself, one expects that $\langle p_{\rm i}\rangle /\langle p_\mu\rangle \gg 1$. But then we have $$\sum_{\mu =1}^{\rm K} \left({{\partial \log g_{\rm i}}\over{\partial \log p_\mu}}\right)^2 \ll 1 . \label{inequality2}$$ Since this inequality constrains the sum of squares of terms, each must be much smaller than one. This means that when we make a small change the concentration of any transcription factor, the response of the regulated gene must be much less than proportional. In this sense, the assumption of a simple global description for the level of noise in gene expression, Eq (\[global\_model\]), leads us to the conclusion that transcriptional “regulation” can’t really be very effective, and this must be wrong. Notice that this problem is independent of the burst size $b$, and hence doesn’t depend on whether the noise is dominated by transcription or translation. Our conclusion from the inequality in Eq (\[inequality2\]) is that we should re–examine the original hypothesis about noise, Eq (\[global\_model\]). An alternative is that this hypothesis is correct, but that there are subtle correlations among all the protein copy number fluctuations of all the different transcription factors. If we want the global output model to be correct, these correlations would have to take on a very special form—different transcription factors regulating a single gene would have to be correlated in a way that matches their impact on the expression of that gene—which seems implausible but would be very interesting if it were true. Sources of noise ================ Figure \[f-model\] makes clear that the concentration of a protein can fluctuate for many reasons. The processes of synthesis and degradation of the protein molecules themselves are discrete and stochastic, as are the synthesis and degradation of mRNA molecules; together these constitute the “output noise” which has been widely discussed. But if we are considering a gene whose transcription is regulated, we need a microscopic model for this process. For the case of a transcriptional activator, there are binding sites for the transcription factors upstream of the regulated gene, and when these sites are occupied transcription proceeds at some rate, but when the site is empty transcription is inhibited. Because there are only a small number of relevant binding sites (in the simplest case, just one), the occupancy of these sites must fluctuate, and this random switching is an additional source of noise. In addition, the binding of transcription factors to their target sites along the genome depends on the concentration in the immediate neighborhood of these sites, and this fluctuates as molecules diffuse into and out of the neighborhood. All of the different processes described above and schematized in Fig \[f-model\] can be analyzed analytically using Langevin methods, and the predictions of this analysis can be tested against detailed stochastic simulations. The details of the analysis are given in Appendix A. Notice that variations in cell size, protein sorting in cell division, fluctuations in RNA polymerase and ribosome concentrations, and all other extrinsic contributions to the noise are neglected. When the dust settles, the variance in protein copy number $\sigma_{\rm p}^2$ can be written as a sum of three terms, which correspond to the output, switching, and diffusion noise. To set the scale, we express the copy number as a fraction of its maximum possible mean value, $p_0$, which is reached at high concentrations of the transcriptional activator. In these units, we find $$\left(\frac{\sigma_{\rm p}}{p_0}\right)^2 = \frac{1+R_p\tau_e}{p_0}\bar{p} + \frac{\left(1-\bar{p}\right)^2\bar{p}}{k_-\tau_p} + \frac{\left(1-\bar{p}\right)^2\bar{p}^2}{\pi D a {c}\tau_p} \label{eq-pnoise1}$$ where ${\bar p} = \langle p \rangle/p_0$ is the protein copy number expressed as a fraction of its maximal value, $c$ is the concentration of the transcription factor, and other parameters are as explained in Fig \[f-model\]. The first term in Eq (\[eq-pnoise1\]) is the output noise and has a Poisson–like behavior, with variance proportional to the mean, but the proportionality constant differs from 1 by $R_p\tau_e$, i.e. the burst size or the number of proteins produced per mRNA [@paulsson_04]. This is just the simple model of Eq (\[global\_model\]), with $b=1+R_p\tau_e$. The second term in Eq (\[eq-pnoise1\]) originates from binomial “switching” as the transcription factor binding site occupation fluctuates, and is most closely analogous to the noise from random opening and closing of ion channels. This term will be small for unbinding rates $k_-$ that are fast compared to the protein lifetime, but might be large for factors that take a long time to equilibrate or that form energetically stable complexes on their promoters. The third term in Eq (\[eq-pnoise1\]) arises because the diffusive flux of transcription factor molecules to the binding site fluctuates at low input concentration $c$; in effect the receptor site “counts” the number of molecules arriving into its vicinity during a time window $\tau_p$, and this number is of the order $\sim D a c \tau_p$. This argument is conceptually the same as that for the limits to chemoatractant detection in chemotaxis, as discussed by Berg and Purcell [@berg+purcell_77]. It can be shown that this is a theoretical noise floor that cannot be circumvented by using sophisticated “binding site machinery” as long as this machinery is contained within a region of linear size $a$ [@bialek+setayeshgar_05; @bialek+setayeshgar_06]. For example, cooperative binding to the promoter or promoters with multiple internal states will modify the binomial switching term, but will leave the diffusion noise unaffected if we express it as an effective noise in transcription factor concentration $\sigma_c$ such that $$\sigma_{\rm p} = {\bigg \|}{{\partial p}\over{\partial c}}{\bigg \|} \sigma_c .$$ Although cooperativity does not change the effective concentration noise due to diffusion, it does reduce the relative significance of the switching noise [@bialek+setayeshgar_06]. Since we will discuss a system which is strongly cooperative, in much of what follows we neglect the switching noise term and focus on the output noise and diffusion noise. Then the generalization to multisite, cooperative regulation is straightforward (see Appendix B). We expect that cooperative effects among $h$ transcription factors generate a sigmoidal dependence of expression on the transcription factor concentration, so that $$\bar{p}=\frac{c^h}{c^h+K_d^h} \label{eq-hill},$$ where $h$ is called the Hill coefficient, and $K_d$ is the concentration required for half maximal activation. We can invert this relationship to write the concentration $c$, which is relevant for the diffusive noise, as a function of the mean fractional expression level $\bar p$. Substituting back into Eq (\[eq-pnoise1\]), and neglecting the switching noise, we obtain $$\left(\frac{\sigma_{\rm p}}{p_0}\right)^2=\alpha\, \bar{p}+\beta\, \bar{p}^{2-1/h}(1-\bar{p})^{2+1/h} , \label{eq-model}$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are combinations of parameters that measure the strength of the output and diffusion noise, respectively. If we express the variance in fractional terms, this becomes $$\eta_{\rm p}^2 = \alpha {1\over {\bar p}} + \beta {\bar p}^{-1/h} (1-{\bar p})^{2+1/h} . \label{eq-model_eta}$$ The global output noise model of Eq (\[global\_model\]) corresponds to $\beta =0$ (no input noise) and $b =\alpha p_0$. Figure \[f-noise1\] shows the predicted noise levels for different ratios of output to input noise ($\beta/\alpha$). For very highly cooperative, essentially switch–like systems, we can take the limit $h\rightarrow\infty$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned} \left(\frac{\sigma_{\rm p}}{p_0}\right)^2 &=&\alpha\, \bar{p}+\beta\, \bar{p}^{2}(1-\bar{p})^{2} \label{hinf1}\\ \eta_{\rm p}^2 &=& \alpha {1\over {\bar p}} + \beta (1-{\bar p})^{2} . \label{hinf2}\end{aligned}$$ In particular, if we explore only expression levels well below the maximum (${\bar p} \ll 1$), then the diffusion noise just add a constant $\beta$ to the fractional variance. Thus, diffusion noise in a highly cooperative system could be confused with a global or even extrinsic noise source. Signatures of input noise ========================= Input noise arises from fluctuations in the occupancy of the transcription factor binding sites. Thus, if we go to very high transcription factor concentrations, where all sites are fully occupied, or to very low concentrations, where the sites are never occupied, the fluctuations must vanish. These limits correspond, in the case of a transcriptional activator, to maximal and minimal expression levels, respectively. Thus, the key signature of input noise is that it must be largest at some intermediate expression level, as shown in Fig \[f-noise1\]. The claim that many genes have expression noise levels which fit the global output noise model of Eq (\[global\_model\]) would seem to contradict the prediction of a peak in the noise as a function of the mean. But if we plot the predictions of the model with input noise as a fractional variance vs mean, the prominent peak disappears (inset to Fig \[f-noise1\]). In fact, over a large dynamic range, the input noise seems just to increase the magnitude of the fractional variance while not making a substantial change in the slope of $\log(\eta_{\rm p}^2)$ vs $\log(\langle p \rangle)$. Confronted with real data on a system with significant input noise, we could thus fit much of those data with the global output noise model but with a larger value of $b$. There is, of course, a difference between input and output noise, even when plotted as $\log(\eta_{\rm p}^2)$ vs $\log(\langle p \rangle)$, namely a rapid drop in noise level as we approach maximal expression. But this effect is confined to a narrow range, essentially a factor of two in mean expression level. As we discuss below, there are variety of reasons why this might not have been seen in the data of Ref [@bar-even+al_06]. Recent experiments on the precision of gene expression in the early [Drosophila]{} embryo provide us with an opportunity to search for the signatures of input noise [@gregor_05; @gregor+al_06b]. The embryo contains a spatial gradient of the protein Bicoid (Bcd), translated from maternal mRNA, and this protein is a transcription factor which activates, among other genes, [hunchback]{}. Looking along the anterior–posterior axis of the embryo one thus has an array of nuclei that experience a graded range of transcription factor concentrations. Using antibody staining and image processing methods, it thus is possible to collect thousands of points on a scatter plot of input (Bicoid concentration) vs. output (Hunchback protein concentration); since even in a single embryo there are many nuclei that have the same Bcd concentration, one can examine both the mean Hunchback (Hb) response and its variance; data from Ref [@gregor+al_06b] are shown in Fig \[f-noise2\]. The mean response of Hb to Bcd is fit reasonably well by Eq (\[eq-hill\]) with a Hill coefficient $h=5$ [@gregor+al_06b], and in Fig \[f-noise3\] we replot the noise in this response as a function of the mean. The peak of expression noise near half maximal expression—the signature of input noise—is clearly visible. More quantitatively, we find that the data are well fit by Eq (\[eq-model\]) with the contribution from output noise ($\alpha \approx 1/380$) much smaller than that from input noise ($\beta \approx 1/2$). We also consider the same model with $h\rightarrow\infty$, and this fully switch–like model, although formally still within error bars, systematically deviates from the data. Finally we consider a model in which diffusion noise is absent, but we include the switching noise from Eq (\[eq-pnoise1\]), which generalizes to the case of cooperative binding (see Appendix B). Interestingly, this model has the same number of parameters as the diffusion noise model, but does a significantly poorer job of fitting the data. While the fit can be improved further by adding a small background to the noise, we emphasize that Eq (\[eq-model\]) correctly captures the non–trivial shape of the noise curve with only two parameters. Because input noise falls to zero at maximal expression, the sole remaining noise at that point is the output noise, and this uniquely determines the parameter $\alpha$. The strength of the input noise ($\beta$) then is determined by the height of the noise peak, and there is no further room for adjustment. The [shape]{} of the peak is predicted by the theory with no additional parameters, and the different curves in Fig \[f-noise3\] demonstrate that the data can distinguish among various functional forms for the peak. Are the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ that fit the Bcd/Hb data biologically reasonable? The fact that diffusive noise dominates at intermediate levels of expression ($\beta \gg \alpha$) is the statement that the Hunchback expression level provides a readout of Bcd concentration with a reliability that is close to the physical limit set by diffusional shot noise, as was argued in Ref [@gregor+al_06b] based on the magnitude of the noise level and estimates of the relevant microscopic parameters that determine $\beta$. The dominance of diffusive noise over switching noise presumably is related to the high cooperativity of the Bcd/Hb input/output relation [@bialek+setayeshgar_06]. The parameter $\alpha$ measures the strength of the output noise and thus depends on the absolute number of Hb molecules and on the number proteins produced per mRNA transcript. If this burst size in the range $R_p \tau_e \sim 1-10$, then our fit predicts the maximum expression level of Hb corresponds to $p_0 = 700-4000$ molecules in the nucleus. Given the volume of the nuclei at this stage of development ($\sim 140\,\mu{\rm m}^3$; see Refs [@gregor+al_06b; @gregor+al_06a]), this is a concentration of $8-48\,{\rm nM}$. Although we don’t have independent measurements of the absolute Hunchback concentration, this is reasonable for transcription factors, which typically act in the nanoMolar range [@ptashne_92; @pedone+al_96; @ma+al_96; @burz+al_98; @winston+al_99; @zhao+al_02], and can be compared with the maximal nuclear concentration of Bcd, which is $55\pm3\,{\rm nM}$ [@gregor+al_06b]. Larger burst sizes would predict larger maximal expression levels, or conversely measurements of absolute expression levels might give suggestions about the burst size for translation in the early [Drosophila]{} embryo. Discussion ========== In the process of transcriptional regulation, the (output) expression level of regulated genes acts as a sensor for the (input) concentration of transcription factors. The performance of this sensor, and hence the regulatory power of the system, is limited by noise. While changes in the parameters of the transcriptional and translational apparatus can change the level of output noise, the input noise is determined by the physical properties of the transcription factor and its interactions with the target sites along the genome. Ultimately, there is a lower bound on this input noise level set by the shot noise in random arrival of the transcription factors at their targets, in much the same way that any imaging process ultimately is limited by the random arrival of photons. Input and output noise seem to be so different that it is hard to imagine that they could be confused experimentally. Some of the difficulty, however, can be illustrated by plotting the results from the Bcd/Hb experiments of Ref [@gregor+al_06b] in the form which has become conventional in the study of gene expression noise, as a fractional variance vs mean expression level (Fig \[f-noise4\]). The signature of input noise, so clear in Fig \[f-noise3\], now is confined to a narrow range ($\sim \times 2$) near maximal expression. In contrast, over more than a decade of expression levels the noise level is a good fit to $\eta_{\rm p}^2 \propto \langle p\rangle^{-\gamma}$, with $\gamma = 1.04$ being very similar to the prediction of the global noise model ($\gamma = 1$) in Eq (\[global\_model\]). The departures from power–law behavior are easily obscured by global noise sources, experimental error, or by technical limitations that lead to the exclusion of data at the very highest expression levels, as in Ref [@bar-even+al_06]. The lesson from this analysis of the Bicoid/Hunchback data is that the signatures of input noise are surprisingly subtle. In this system, however, the behavior near half maximal expression is exactly the most relevant question biologically, since this is where the ‘decision’ is made to draw a boundary, as a first step in spatial patterning. In other systems, the details of noise in this region of expression levels might be less relevant for the organism, but it is only in this region that different sources of noise are qualitatively distinguishable, as is clear from Fig \[f-noise4\]. Thus, unless we have independent experiments to measure some of the parameters of the system, we need experimental access to the full range of expression levels and hence, implicitly, to the full dynamic range of transcription factor concentrations, if we want to disentangle input and output noise. The early [Drosophila]{} embryo is an attractive model system precisely because the organism itself generates a broad range of transcription factor concentrations, and conveniently arranges these different samples along the major axes of the embryo. A caveat is that since we don’t directly control the transcription factor concentration, we have to measure it. In particular, in order to measure the variance of the output (Hunchback, in the present discussion) we have to find many nuclei that all have the same input transcription factor (Bicoid) concentration. Because the mean output is a steep function of the input, errors in the measurement of transcription factor concentration can simulate the effects of input noise, as discussed in Ref [@gregor+al_06b]. Thus, a complete analysis of input and output noise requires not only access to a wide range of transcription factor concentrations, but rather precise measurements of these concentrations. Why are the different sources of noise so easily confused? If noise is dominated by randomness in a single step of the translation process, then the number of protein molecules will obey the Possion distribution, and the variance in copy number will be equal to the mean. But if we can’t actually turn measurements of protein level into molecule counts, then all we can say is that the variance will be [proportional]{} to the mean. If the dominant noise source is a single step in transcription, then the number of mRNA transcripts will obey the Poisson distribution, and the variance of protein copy numbers still will be proportional to the mean, but the proportionality constant will be enhanced by the burst size. The same reasoning, however, can be pushed further back: if, far from maximal expression, the dominant source of noise is the infrequent binding of a transcriptional activator (or dissociation of a repressor) to its target site, then the variance in protein copy number still will be proportional to the mean. Thus, the proportionality of variance to mean implies that there is some single rare event that dominates the noise, and by itself doesn’t distinguish the nature of this event. If noise is dominated by regulatory events, then the number of mRNA transcripts should be drawn from a distribution broader than Poisson. In effect the idea of bursting, which amplifies protein relative to mRNA number variance, applies here too, amplifying the variance of transcript number above the expectations from the Poisson distribution. Transcriptional bursting has in fact been observed directly [@golding+al_05], although it is not clear whether this arises from fluctuations in transcription factor binding or from other sources. Previous arguments have made it plausible that input noise is significant in comparison to the observed variance of gene expression [@bialek+setayeshgar_05], and we have shown here that models which assign all of the noise to common factors on the output side are inconsistent with the embedding of gene expression in a regulatory network. The signatures of input noise seem clear, but can be surprisingly subtle to distinguish in real data. We have argued that the Bicoid/Hunchback system provides an example in which input noise is dominant, and further that the detailed form of the variance vs mean supports a dominant role for diffusion rather than switching noise. Although there are caveats, this is consistent with the idea that, as with other critical biological processes [@barlow_81; @berg+purcell_77; @bialek_87; @bialek_02], the regulation of gene expression can operate with a precision limited by fundamental physical principles. We consider a simplified model of regulated gene expression, as schematized in Fig \[f-model\]: $$\begin{aligned} \partial_t c&=&D\nabla^2 c({\mathbf{x}},t) - \dot{n}\, \delta({\mathbf{x}}-{\mathbf{x}}_0)+\mathcal{S}-\mathcal{D} \label{eq-dyn0}\\ \dot{n}&=&k_+ c({\mathbf{x_0}},t) (1-n) -k_-n+\xi_n \label{eq-d1} \label{eq-dyn1}\\ \dot{e}&=&R_en-\tau_e^{-1}e + \xi_e \label{eq-dyn2}\\ \dot{p}&=&R_p e-\tau_p^{-1}p + \xi_p. \label{eq-dyn3}\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[eq-dyn0\]) describes the diffusion of the transcription factor that can be absorbed to or released from a binding site on the DNA located at ${\mathbf{x}}_0$. These transcription factors are produced at sources $\mathcal{S}$ and degraded at sinks $\mathcal{D}$, which can both be spatially distributed and can also contribute to the noise in $c$. Equation (\[eq-dyn1\]) describes the dynamics of the binding site occupancy; binding occurs with a second order rate constant $k_+$ and unbinding with a first order rate constant $k_-$, and the dissociation constant of the site is $K_d=k_-/k_+$. The Langevin term $\xi_n$ induces stochastic (binomial) switching between occupied and empty states of the site. Equations (\[eq-dyn2\]) and (\[eq-dyn3\]) describe the production and degradation of mRNA and protein, respectively, and include Langevin noise terms associated with these birth and death processes. This seems a good place to note that, while conventional, the assumption that transcription and translation are simple one step processes seems a bit strong. We hope to return to this point at another time. Our goal is to compute the variance in protein copy number, $\sigma^2_p(\bar{c})$. For simplicity we will assume that the transcription factors are present at a fixed total number in the cell and that they do not decay, $\mathcal{S}=\mathcal{D}=0$. We will see that even with this simplification, where the overall concentration of transcription factors does not fluctuate, we still get an interesting noise contribution from the randomness associated with diffusion in Eq (\[eq-dyn0\]). Our basic strategy is to find the steady state solution of the model, and then linearize around this to compute the response of the variables $\{n, e, p\}$ to the various Langevin forces $\{\xi_n , \xi_e , \xi_p\}$. In the linear approximation, the steady states are also the mean values: $$\begin{aligned} c &=& \bar c\\ \langle n \rangle &=& {{k_+ {\bar c}}\over{k_+ {\bar c} + k_-}} = {{\bar c}\over{{\bar c} + K_d}}\\ {\langle e \rangle} &=& R_e\tau_e \langle n \rangle\\ {\langle p \rangle} &=& R_p\tau_p {\langle e \rangle} = p_0 \langle n \rangle , \label{meanp}\end{aligned}$$ where $p_0 = R_e \tau_e R_p \tau_p$ is the maximum mean expression level. Notice that what we have called $\bar p = \langle p \rangle /p_0$ in the text is just the mean occupancy, $\langle n \rangle$, of the transcription factor binding site. Small departures from steady state are written in a Fourier representation: $$\begin{aligned} c({{\mathbf{x}}} ,t) &=& \bar c + \int {{d\omega}\over{2\pi}} \int{{d^3 k}\over{(2\pi)^3}} e^{i{{\mathbf{k}}\cdot {\mathbf{x}}}} e^{-i\omega t} \delta\hat c({{\mathbf{k}}},\omega)\\ n &=& \langle n \rangle + \int {{d\omega}\over{2\pi}} e^{-i\omega t}\delta\hat n(\omega)\\ e &=& {\langle e \rangle} + \int {{d\omega}\over{2\pi}} e^{-i\omega t}\delta\hat e(\omega)\\ p &=& {\langle p \rangle} + \int {{d\omega}\over{2\pi}} e^{-i\omega t}\delta\hat p(\omega).\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, each of the Langevin terms is written in its Fourier representation, $$\xi_\mu = \int {{d\omega}\over{2\pi}} e^{-i\omega t}\hat\xi_\mu (\omega) ,$$ where $\mu = n, e, p$. As a first step we use the Fourier representation to solve Eq (\[eq-dyn0\]) for $\delta c({\bf x_0}, t)$ that we need to substitute into Eq (\[eq-dyn1\]) for the binding site occupancy: $$\begin{aligned} \delta c({\bf x_0}, t) &=& \int{{d\omega}\over{2\pi}} e^{-i\omega t}\delta \tilde c ({\bf x_0},\omega)\\ \delta \tilde c({\bf x_0},\omega)&=&i\omega\delta \hat{n}(\omega) \int\frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{1}{-i\omega+D\|{\mathbf{k}}\|^2} \label{kint} \\ &=&\frac{i\omega \delta\hat{n}(\omega) }{\pi D a} .\label{eq-cpl1}\end{aligned}$$ The integral over ${\mathbf{k}}$ in Eq (\[kint\]) is divergent at large $\|{{\mathbf{k}}}\|$ (ultraviolet). This arises, as explained in Ref [@bialek+setayeshgar_05], because we started with the assumption that the binding reaction occurs at a point—the delta function in Eq (\[eq-dyn0\]). In fact our description needs to be coarse grained on a scale corresponding to the size of the binding site, so we introduce a cutoff so that $\|{{\mathbf{k}}}\| \leq k_\mathrm{max}={2\pi}/{a}$, where $a$ is the linear size of the binding site. Linearizing Eq (\[eq-dyn1\]) for the dynamics of the site occupancy, we have $$-i\omega\delta \hat n (\omega) = -(k_+ \bar c + k_- ) \delta\hat n (\omega ) +k_+ (1-\langle n \rangle ) \delta\tilde c ({\bf x_0},\omega ) + \hat\xi_n(\omega ).$$ Substituting our result for $\delta \tilde c({\mathbf{x}}_0,\omega)$ from Eq (\[eq-cpl1\]), we find $$\begin{aligned} -i\omega\delta \hat n (\omega)&=& -(k_+ \bar c + k_- ) \delta\hat n (\omega ) +k_+ (1-\langle n \rangle )\frac{i\omega \delta\hat{n}(\omega) }{\pi D a} + \hat\xi_n(\omega )\\ -i\omega \left[ 1 + {{k_+ (1-\langle n \rangle )}\over{\pi D a}}\right] \delta \hat n (\omega) &=& -(k_+ \bar c + k_- ) \delta\hat n (\omega ) + \hat\xi_n(\omega )\\ \delta \hat n (\omega ) &=& {{\hat\xi_n (\omega )}\over{ -i\omega ( 1 + \Sigma ) + (k_+ \bar c + k_- )}}\label{lin1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Sigma = k_+ (1-\langle n \rangle )/(\pi D a)$. The linearization of Eqs (\[eq-dyn2\]) and (\[eq-dyn3\]) takes the form $$\begin{aligned} -i\omega \delta\hat e(\omega) &=& -{1\over{\tau_e}} \delta\hat e(\omega ) + R_e \delta\hat n(\omega ) + \hat\xi_e (\omega)\label{lin2}\\ -i\omega \delta\hat p(\omega) &=& -{1\over{\tau_p}} \delta\hat p(\omega ) + R_p \delta\hat e(\omega ) + \hat\xi_p (\omega)\label{lin3}\end{aligned}$$ Each Langevin term is independent, and each frequency component $\omega$ is correlated only with the component at $-\omega$, defining the noise power spectrum $\langle \hat \xi_\mu (\omega ) \hat \xi_\mu (-\omega ') \rangle = 2\pi\delta(\omega -\omega ') {\cal N}_\mu (\omega )$ for $\mu = n,e, p$. Solving the three linear equations, Eqs (\[lin1\]–\[lin3\]), we can find the power spectrum of the protein copy number fluctuations, $$\mathcal{S}_{p}(\omega) =\frac{{\cal N}_p}{\omega^2+1/\tau_p^2} + R_p^2\frac{{\cal N}_e}{(\omega^2+1/\tau_p^2)(\omega^2+1/\tau_e^2)} + R_p^2R_e^2\frac{{\cal N}_n}{(\omega^2+1/\tau_p^2)(\omega^2+1/\tau_e^2)[(1+\Sigma)^2\omega^2+1/\tau_c^2]}, \label{bigspec}$$ where $1/\tau_c = k_+ \bar c + k_-$. This form has a very intuitive interpretation: each Langevin term represents a noise source; as this noise propagates from the point where it enters the dynamical system to the output, it is subjected both to gain of each successive stage (prefactors $R$), and to filtering by factors of $\mathcal{F}_\tau=(\omega^2+1/\tau^2)^{-1}$. The total variance in protein copy number is given by an integral over the spectrum, $$\langle (\delta p)^2\rangle \equiv \sigma_p^2 = \int {{d\omega}\over{2\pi}}\mathcal{S}_p (\omega ) ,\label{sigma=int}$$ and the noise power spectra of the Langevin terms associated with the mRNA and protein dynamics have the simple forms ${\cal N}_e (\omega ) = 2R_e \langle n \rangle$ and ${\cal N}_p(\omega ) = 2R_p\langle e \rangle$, respectively. The spectrum ${\cal N}_n (\omega )$ is more subtle. One way to derive it is to realize that since there is only one binding site and this site is either occupied or empty, the total variance of $\delta n$ must be given by the binomial formula, $$\langle (\delta n)^2 \rangle = {\langle n \rangle} (1 - \langle n \rangle ). \label{binomial}$$ Starting with Eq (\[lin1\]) and the analog of Eq (\[sigma=int\]), we can use this condition to set the magnitude of ${\cal N}_n$. Alternatively, we can use the fact that binding and unbinding come to equilibrium, and hence the fluctuations in $n$ are a form of thermal noise, like Brownian motion or Johnson noise, and hence the spectrum ${\cal N}_n$ is determined by the fluctuation–dissipation theorem [@bialek+setayeshgar_05]. The result is that $${\cal N}_n = {2\over {\tau_c}} (1+\Sigma ) \langle n \rangle ( 1-\langle n \rangle ) .$$ For simplicity we consider the case where the protein lifetime $\tau_p$ is long compared with all other time scales in the problem. Then we can approximate Eq (\[bigspec\]) as $$\mathcal{S}_p(\omega )\approx {1\over{\omega^2 + 1/\tau_p^2}}\left[ {\cal N}_p + (R_p\tau_e)^2 {\cal N}_e + (R_p\tau_e R_e\tau_c)^2{\cal N}_n\right] .$$ Substituting the forms of the individual noise spectra ${\cal N}_\mu$ and doing the integral over $\omega$ \[Eq (\[sigma=int\])\], we find the variance in protein copy number $$\begin{aligned} \sigma_p^2 &=& \tau_p [R_p \langle e \rangle + (R_p\tau_e)^2 R_e\langle n \rangle]\nonumber\\ && + {{\tau_p}\over {\tau_c}}(R_p\tau_e R_e\tau_c)^2 (1+\Sigma) \langle n \rangle (1 - \langle n \rangle ) . \label{var1}\end{aligned}$$ We notice that the first term in this equation is $R_p\tau_p\langle e \rangle$, which is just the mean number of proteins $\langle p\rangle$ from Eq (\[meanp\]). The second term $$\begin{aligned} \tau_p (R_p\tau_e )^2 R_e\langle n \rangle &=& R_p\tau_p (R_e\tau_e\langle n \rangle ) (R_p\tau_e)\\ &=& R_p\tau_p \langle e \rangle (R_p\tau_e)\\ & =& R_p\tau_e \langle p\rangle .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the first two terms together contribute $(1+R_p\tau_e)\langle p\rangle$ to the variance, and this corresponds to the output noise term in Eq (\[eq-model\]). The third term in Eq (\[var1\]) contains the contribution of input noise to the variance in protein copy number. To simplify this term we note that the steady state of Eq (\[eq-dyn1\]) is equivalent to $$k_+ \bar c (1-\langle n\rangle ) = k_- \langle n \rangle. \label{k+vsk-}$$ Thus we can write $$\begin{aligned} {1\over {\tau_c}} &\equiv& k_+ \bar c + k_- \\ &=& k_-\left[ {{\langle n \rangle}\over{1-\langle n\rangle}} +1\right] = {{k_-}\over{1-\langle n \rangle}} .\end{aligned}$$ The term we are interested in is $$\begin{aligned} {{\tau_p}\over {\tau_c}}(R_p\tau_e R_e\tau_c)^2 (1+\Sigma) \langle n \rangle (1 - \langle n \rangle ) &=& (R_p\tau_p R_e\tau_e)^2 {{\tau_c}\over{\tau_p}} (1+\Sigma) \langle n \rangle (1 - \langle n \rangle )\\ &=& p_0^2 {1\over{k_-\tau_p}} (1+\Sigma ) \langle n \rangle(1-\langle n \rangle)^2 \\ &=& p_0^2 {{\langle n \rangle(1-\langle n \rangle)^2}\over{k_-\tau_p}} + p_0^2 {1\over{k_-\tau_p}} {{k_+ (1-\langle n \rangle )}\over{\pi D a}}\langle n \rangle(1-\langle n \rangle)^2 \\ &=& p_0^2 {{\langle n \rangle(1-\langle n \rangle)^2}\over{k_-\tau_p}} + p_0^2 {{\langle n \rangle^2 (1-\langle n \rangle )^2}\over{\pi D a \bar c \tau_p}} , \label{var_end}\end{aligned}$$ where in the last step we once again use Eq (\[k+vsk-\]) to rewrite the ratio $k_+/k_-$ in terms of $\langle n \rangle$. We recognize the two terms in this result as the switching and diffusion terms in Eq (\[eq-model\]). To generalize this analysis of noise to cooperative interactions among transcription factors it is useful to think more intuitively about the two terms in Eq (\[var\_end\]), corresponding to switching and diffusion noise. Consider first the switching noise. We are looking at a binary variable $n$ such that the number of proteins is $p_0 n$. The total variance in $n$ must be $\langle (\delta n)^2\rangle = \langle n \rangle (1- \langle n \rangle )$ \[Eq (\[binomial\])\]. This noise fluctuates on a time scale $\tau_c$, so during the lifetime of the protein we see $N_s = \tau_p/\tau_c$ independent samples. The current protein concentration is effectively an average over these samples, so the effective variance is reduced to $$\langle (\delta n)^2\rangle_{\rm eff} = {1\over{N_s}} \langle n \rangle (1- \langle n \rangle ) = {{\tau_c}\over{\tau_p}} \langle n \rangle (1- \langle n \rangle ) .$$ Except for the factor of $p_0$ that converts $n$ into $p$, this is the first term in Eq (\[var\_end\]). Now if $h$ transcription factors bind cooperatively, we can still have two states, one in which transcription is possible and one in which it is blocked. For the case of activation, which we are considering here, the active state corresponds to all binding sites being filled, and so the rate at which the system leaves this state, $k_-$, shouldn’t depend on the concentration of the transcription factors. The rate at which the system enters the active state does depend on concentration, but this doesn’t matter, because with only two states we must always have an analog of Eq (\[k+vsk-\]), which allows us to eliminate the ”on rate” in favor of $k_-$ and $\langle n \rangle$. The conclusion is that the first term in Eq (\[var\_end\]), corresponding to switching noise, is unchanged by cooperativity as long as the system is still well approximated as having just two states of transcriptional activity that depend on the potentially many more states of binding site occupancy. For the diffusion noise term we use the ideas of Refs [@berg+purcell_77; @bialek+setayeshgar_05; @bialek+setayeshgar_06]. Diffusion noise should be thought of as an effective noise in the measurement of the concentration $c$, with a variance $${{\sigma_c^2}\over{\bar c^2}} \sim {1\over{\pi D a \bar c \tau_p}} , \label{DacT}$$ where again we identify the protein lifetime as the time over which the system averages. For the system with a single binding site, $$\langle n \rangle = {{\bar c}\over{\bar c + K_d}} ,$$ so that $${{\partial \langle n \rangle}\over{\partial c}} = {1\over{\bar c}} \langle n \rangle ( 1 - \langle n \rangle ) .$$ The noise in concentration, together with this sensitivity of $n$ to changes in the concentration, should contribute a noise variance $$\langle (\delta n)^2\rangle_{\rm eff} = {\bigg \|} {{\partial \langle n \rangle}\over{\partial c}} {\bigg \|}^2 \sigma_c^2 = {{\langle n \rangle^2 ( 1 - \langle n \rangle )^2}\over{\pi D a \bar c \tau_p}} .$$ This is (up to the factor of $p_0$) the second term in Eq (\[var\_end\]). Now the generalization to cooperative interactions is straightforward. If we have $$\langle n \rangle = {{\bar c}^h\over{\bar c^h + K_d^h}} ,$$ then $${{\partial \langle n \rangle}\over{\partial c}} = {h\over{\bar c}} \langle n \rangle ( 1 - \langle n \rangle ) .$$ Since the effective noise in concentration is unchanged [@bialek+setayeshgar_06], the only effect of cooperativity is to multiply the second term in Eq (\[var\_end\]) by a factor of $h^2$. Thus, in the expression \[Eq (\[eq-model\])\] for the variance of protein copy number, cooperativity has no effect on the switching noise by actually increases the diffusion noise by a factor of $h^2$. When written as a function of the mean copy number and the transcription factor concentration, this leaves the functional form of the variance fixed, only changing the coefficients. The overall effect it to make the contribution of diffusion noise more important. One way to say this is that, when we refer the noise in copy number back to the input, cooperativity causes the equivalent concentration noise to become closer to the limit Eq (\[DacT\]) set by diffusive shot noise [@bialek+setayeshgar_06]. Reference [@gregor+al_06b] also considers the possibility that noise is reduced by averaging among neighboring nuclei. This does not change the form of any of the noise terms, but does change the microscopic interpretation of the coefficients $\alpha$ and $\beta$. For example, averaging for a time $\tau_p$ over $N$ nuclei is equivalent to having one nucleus with an averaging time $N\tau_p$. [99]{} MB Elowitz, AJ Levine, ED Siggia & PD Swain, Stochastic gene expression in a single cell. [Science]{} [207,]{} 1183 (2002). E Ozbudak, M Thattai, I Kurtser, AD Grossman & A van Oudenaarden, Regulation of noise in the expression of a single gene. [Nature Gen]{} [31,]{} 69–73 (2002). WJ Blake, M Kaern, CR Cantor & JJ Collins, Noise in eukaryotic gene expression. [Nature]{} [422,]{} 633–637 (2003). JM Raser & EK O’Shea, Control of stochasticity in eukaryotic gene expression. [Science]{} [304,]{} 1811–1814 (2004). N Rosenfeld, JW Young, U Alon, PS Swain & MB Elowitz, Gene regulation at the single cell level.Ê [Science]{} [307,]{} 1962–1965 (2005). JM Pedraza & A van Oudenaarden, Noise propagation in gene networks. [Science]{} [207,]{} 1965–1969 (2005). I Golding, J Paulsson, SM Zawilski & EC Cox, Real–time kinetics of gene activity in individual bacteria. [Cell]{} [123,]{} 1025–1036 (2005). JR Newman, S Ghaemmaghami, J Ihmels, DK Breslow, M Noble, JL DeRisi & JS Weissman, Single–cell proteomic analysis of [S cerevisiae]{} reveals the architecture of biological noise. [Nature]{} [441,]{} 840–846 (2006). A Bar–Even, J Paulsson, N Maheshri, M Carmi, E O’Shea, Y Pilpel & N Barkai, Noise in protein expression scales with natural protein abundance. [Nature]{} [38,]{} 636–643 (2006). SE Luria & M Delbrück, Mutations of bacteria from virus sensitivity to virus resistance. [Genetics]{} [28,]{} 491–511 (1943). P Fatt & B Katz, Some observations on biological noise. [Nature]{} [166,]{} 597–598 (1950). P Fatt & B Katz, Spontaneous subthreshold activity at motor nerve endings. [J Physiol (Lond)]{} [117,]{} 109–128 (1952). H Lecar & R Nossal, Theory of threshold fluctuations in nerves. I: Relationships between electrical noise and fluctuations in axon firing. [Biophys J]{} [11,]{} 1048–1067 (1971). H Lecar & R Nossal, Theory of threshold fluctuations in nerves. II: Analysis of various sources of membrane noise. [Biophys J]{} [11,]{} 1068–1084 (1971). CF Stevens, Inferences about membrane properties from electrical noise measurement. [Biophys J]{} [12,]{} 1028–1048 (1972). F Conti, LJ de Felice & E Wanke, Potassium and sodium ion current noise in the membrane of the squid giant axon. [J Physiol (Lond)]{} [248,]{} 45–82 (1975). S Hecht, S Shlaer & MH Pirenne, Energy, quanta, and vision. [J Gen Physiol]{} [25,]{} 819–840. (1942). HB Barlow, Critical limiting factors in the design of the eye and visual cortex. [Proc R Soc Lond Ser B]{} [212,]{} 1–34 (1981). AA Verveen & HE Derksen, Fluctuation in membrane potential of axons and the problem of coding. [Kybernetik]{} [2,]{} 152–160 (1965). AA Verveen & HE Derksen, Fluctuation phenomena in nerve membrane. [Proc IEEE]{} [56,]{} 906–916 (1968). E Schneidman, B Freedman & I Segev, Ion channel stochasticity may be critical in determining the reliability and precision of spike timing. [Neural Comp]{} [10,]{} 1679–1704 (1998). HC Berg & EM Purcell, Physics of chemoreception. [Biohys J]{} [20,]{} 193–219 (1977). J Paulsson, Summing up the noise in gene networks [Nature]{} [427,]{} 415–418 (2004) HB Barlow, WR Levick & M Yoon, Responses to single quanta of light in the retinal ganglion cells of the cat.Ê [Vision Res Suppl]{} [3,]{} 87–101 (1971). PS Swain, MB Elowitz & ED Siggia, Intrinsic and extrinsic contributions to stochasticity in gene expression. [Proc Nat’l Acad Sci (USA)]{} [99,]{} 12795–12800 (2002). W Bialek & S Setayeshgar, Physical limits to biochemical signaling. [Proc Nat’l Acad Sci (USA)]{} [102,]{} 10040–10045 (2005); physics/0301001. AM Walczak, M Sasai & PG Wolynes, Self–consistent proteomic field theory of stochastic gene switches. [Biophys J]{} [88,]{} 828–850 (2005); q–bio.MN/0407041. JS van Zon, MJ Morelli, S Tanase–Nicola & PR ten Wolde, Diffusion of transcription factors can drastically enhance the noise in gene expression, [Biophys J]{} [91,]{} 4350–4367 (2006); q–bio.MN/0604005. W Bialek & S Setayeshgar, Cooperativity, sensitivity and noise in biochemical signaling. q–bio.MN/0601001 (2006). FJ Sigworth, Sodium channels in nerve apparently have two conductance states. [Nature]{} [270,]{} 265–267 (1977). FJ Sigworth, The variance of sodium current fluctuations at the node of Ranvier. [J Physiol (Lond)]{} [307,]{} 97–129 (1980). T Gregor, [Biophysics of Early Embryonic Development]{} (Dissertation, Princeton University, 2005). T Gregor, DW Tank, EF Wieschaus & W Bialek, Probing the limits to positional information; submitted (2006). S Hooshangi, S Thiberge & R Weiss, Ultrasensitivity and noise propagation in a synthetic transcriptional cascade. [Proc Nat’l Acad Sci (USA)]{} [102,]{} 3581–3586 (2005) T Gregor, EF Wieschaus, AP McGregor, W Bialek & DW Tank, Stability and nuclear dynamics of the Bicoid morphogen gradient; submitted (2006). M Ptashne, [A Genetic Switch. Second edition: Phage $\lambda$ and Higher Organisms]{} (Cell Press, Cambridge, 1992). PV Pedone, R Ghirlando, GM Clore, AM Gronenbron, G Felsenfeld & JG Omchinski, The single Cys2–His2 zinc finger domain of the GAGA protein flanked by basic residues is sufficient for high–affinity specific DNA binding, [Proc Nat’l Acad Sci (USA)]{} [93,]{} 2822–2826 (1996). X Ma, D Yuan, K Diepold, T Scarborough & J Ma, The [Drosophila]{} morphogenetic protein Bicoid binds DNA cooperatively. [Development]{} [122,]{} 1195–1206 (1996). DS Burz, R Pivera–Pomar, H Jackle & SD Hanes, Cooperative DNA–binding by Bicoid provides a mechanism for threshold dependent gene activation in the Drosophila embryo. [EMBO J]{} [17,]{} 5998–6009 (1998). RL Winston, DP Millar, JM Gottesfeld & SB Kent, Characterization of the DNA binding properties of the bHLH domain of Deadpan to single and tandem sites, [Biochemistry]{} [38,]{} 5138 (1999). C Zhao, A York, F Yang, DJ Forsthoefel, V Dave, D Fu, D Zhang, MS Corado, S Small, MA Seeger & J Ma, The activity of the [Drosophila]{} morphogenetic protein Bicoid is inhibited by a domain located outside its homeodomain, [Development]{} [129,]{} 1669 (2002). W Bialek, Physical limits to sensation and perception. [Ann Rev Biophys Biophys Chem]{} [16,]{} 455–478 (1987). W Bialek, Thinking about the brain. In [Physics of Biomolecules and Cells: Les Houches Session LXXV,]{} H Flyvbjerg, F Jülicher, P Ormos & F David, eds, pp 485–577 (EDP Sciences, Les Ulis; Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 2002); physics/0205030.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The Racah algebra $R(n)$ of rank $(n-2)$ is obtained as the commutant of the subalgebra of $\mathfrak{o}(2n)$ in oscillator representations of the universal algebra of $\mathfrak{o}(2n)$. This result is shown to be related in a Howe duality context to the definition of $R(n)$ as the algebra of Casimir operators arising in recouplings of $n$ copies of $\mathfrak{su}(1,1)$. These observations provide a natural framework to carry out the derivation by dimensional reduction of the generic superintegrable model on the $(n-1)$ sphere which is invariant under $R(n)$.' address: - 'Centre de Recherches Mathématiques, Université de Montréal, Montréal (QC), Canada' - 'Centre de Recherches Mathématiques, Université de Montréal, Montréal (QC), Canada' - 'The College, The University of Chicago, 5801 S. Ellis Ave, Chicago, IL 60637, USA' - 'Department of Mathematics, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China' author: - Julien Gaboriaud - Luc Vinet - Stéphane Vinet - Alexei Zhedanov bibliography: - 'citations.bib' title: The generalized Racah algebra as a commutant --- Introduction {#sec_intro} ============ The Racah algebra $R(3)$ of rank $1$ [@Granovskii1988; @Genest2014a] encodes the bispectrality properties of the Racah polynomials [@Koekoek2010] and is the symmetry algebra of the generic superintegrable model on the with Hamiltonian $H$ given by [@Kalnins2007] $$\label{eq_H} H=\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq 3}{\ji_{ij}}^2+\sum_{i=1}^{3}\frac{a_i}{{x_i}^2}$$ where $$\label{eq_Jk1} \ji_{ij}=x_i \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}-x_j \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}, \quad\qquad {x_1}^2+{x_2}^2+{x_3}^2=1$$ and $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_3$ are parameters. For a review the reader is referred to [@Genest2014]. Of particular relevance is the fact that $R(3)$ was seen to be the commutant in $\mathcal{U}(\su(1,1)^{\otimes{3}})$ of the embedding of $\su(1,1)$ in the three-fold tensor product of this algebra with itself, or in other words, that it is generated by the invariant operators arising in this Racah problem. This observation provided a way to generalize $R(3)$ to Racah algebras of arbitrary rank $(n-2)$ [@DeBie2017] by extending the picture to $n$ factors and identifying the structure relations between the various Casimir operators arising in the possible recouplings. It follows that $R(n)$ thus defined is the symmetry algebra of the superintegrable model on the $(n-1)$-sphere obtained by straighforwardly extending to $n$ variables the model on $S^2$ defined above. We have found recently [@Gaboriaud2018] that $R(3)$ can be realized as the commutant of the subalgebra $\os(2)\oplus\os(2)\oplus\os(2)\subset\os(6)$ in oscillator representations of the enveloping algebra of $\os(6)$. We further observed that this description of $R(3)$ could be related to the one associated to the Racah problem for $\su(1,1)$ through the Howe duality corresponding to the pair $(\os(6), \su(1,1))$. This provided a natural background for obtaining the superintegrable Hamiltonian with $R(3)$ as symmetry algebra, under the dimensional reduction of a six-dimensional harmonic oscillator problem. We here wish to indicate how these results extend for $R(n)$, that is, for arbitrary ranks and dimensions. The paper is structured as follows. In Section \[sec\_gen\_racah\_su11\], we review how the Racah algebra $R(n)$ is defined as the algebra of the Casimir operators in the $n$-fold tensor product of $\su(1,1)$ Lie algebras. The structure relations satisfied by these Casimirs are provided. In Section \[sec\_racah\_o2n\], we show that the generators of the commutant of the $\os(2)^{\oplus n}$ subalgebra of $\os(2n)$ satisfy the defining relations of $R(n)$. In Section \[sec\_racah\_howe\], we invoke Howe duality to explain how the pairings between representations of $\os(2n)$ and those of $\su(1,1)$ underpin the connection between the tensorial and the commutant pictures of $R(n)$. How the $R(n)$-invariant superintegrable model on $S^{(n-1)}$ is obtained from an $n$-dimensional harmonic oscillator by modding out the action of the $n$-torus group is described in Section \[sec\_racah\_generic\_model\_Sn\] and conclusions form Section \[sec\_conclusion\]. The generalized Racah algebra and tensor products of $\mathfrak{su}(1,1)$ {#sec_gen_racah_su11} ========================================================================= Let us recall how the generalized Racah algebra $R(n)$ is defined from the $n$-fold tensor product of $\su(1,1)$. The $\su(1,1)$ algebra has $3$ generators, $J_0$, $J_\pm$ obeying the commutation relations $$\begin{aligned} [J_0,J_\pm]=\pm J_\pm, \qquad [J_+,J_-]=-2J_0.\end{aligned}$$ The Casimir element is given by $$\begin{aligned} C={J_0}^{2}-J_+J_--J_0.\end{aligned}$$ Let $[n]=\{1,2,\dots,n\}$ denote the set of the $n$ first integers and consider the tensor product $\su(1,1)^{\otimes n}$. Coproduct embeddings of $\su(1,1)$ in $\su(1,1)^{\otimes n}$ are labelled by subsets $A \subset [n]$ with the generators mapped to $$\begin{aligned} J^{A}=\sum_{i\in A}J^{i}\end{aligned}$$ and where the superindex denotes on which factor of $\su(1,1)^{\otimes n}$ the operator $J^{i}$ is acting. Correspondingly, the Casimirs are sent to $$\begin{aligned} C^{A}=\left(J_0^{A}\right)^{2}-J_+^{A}J_-^{A}-J_0^{A}.\end{aligned}$$ The generalized Racah algebra $R(n)$ is taken to be the algebra generated by all these intermediate Casimirs $C^{A}$ since this is the case for $R(3)$. It is important to note that not all intermediate Casimirs $C^{A}$ are independent; indeed one has $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq_hr_indCas} C^A=\sum_{\left\{i,j\right\}\subset A} C^{ij}-\left(\|A\|-2\right)\sum_{i \in A} C^i.\end{aligned}$$ where $\|A\|$ stands for the cardinality of $A$. In order to characterize $R(n)$, given that the elements $C^i$ are central, it therefore suffices to provide all the iterated commutators between the $C^{ij}$’s with $i\neq j$ until closure is achieved. This has been carried out in [@DeBie2017]. It is convenient to introduce $P^{ij}$ and $F^{ijk}$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq_genRn} P^{ij} = C^{ij}-C^i-C^j,\qquad F^{ijk} = \frac{1}{2}[P^{ij},P^{jk}].\end{aligned}$$ The defining relations of the Racah algebra $R(n)$ then read \[eq\_Rr\] $$\begin{aligned} [P^{ij},P^{jk}] &= 2 F^{ijk},\label{eq_Rn1}\\ [P^{jk},F^{ijk}] &= P^{ik}P^{jk}-P^{jk}P^{ij}+2P^{ik}C^j-2P^{ij}C^k,\label{eq_Rn2}\\ [P^{kl},F^{ijk}] &= P^{ik}P^{jl}-P^{il}P^{jk},\label{eq_Rn3}\\ [F^{ijk},F^{jkl}] &= F^{jkl}P^{ij}-F^{ikl}\big(P^{jk}+2C^j\big)-F^{ijk}P^{jl},\label{eq_Rn4}\\ [F^{ijk},F^{klm}] &= F^{ilm}P^{jk}-P^{ik}F^{jlm},\label{eq_Rn5}\end{aligned}$$ where $i,j,k,l,m\in[n]$ are all different. In the rank 1 case, , and are redundant and the standard Racah algera $R(3)$ is fully described by and . Note that the presentation that results from the specialization of these equations to $n=3$ is the equitable one. The relation between this presentation and the standard one used in [@Gaboriaud2018] is given explicitly in [@Genest2013]. The rank $2$ Racah algebra (which has been studied in detail in [@Post2015]) only requires - to be characterized, while the relations and have to be added in order to define Racah algebras of rank $3$ or higher. The generalized Racah algebra and $\mathfrak{o}(2n)$ {#sec_racah_o2n} ==================================================== Let us now indicate how the relations given above are satisfied by the generators in $\mathcal{U}(\os(2n))$ of the commutant of $n$ copies of $\os(2)$ sitting in $\os(2n)$. The algebra $\os(2n)$ has $n(2n-1)$ generators $L_{\mu\nu}=-L_{\nu\mu}$, $\mu,\nu=1,...,2n$ obeying $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq_o2n_comm} [L_{\mu\nu},L_{\rho\sigma}]=\delta_{\nu\rho}L_{\mu\sigma}-\delta_{\nu\sigma}L_{\mu\rho}-\delta_{\mu\rho}L_{\nu\sigma}+\delta_{\mu\sigma}L_{\nu\rho}\end{aligned}$$ and possesses the following quadratic Casimir: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq_Cas_o2n} \mathcal{C}=\hspace{-0.4em}\sum_{1\leq\mu<\nu\leq n}\hspace{-0.4em}L_{\mu\nu}^2.\end{aligned}$$ We will use the realization $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq_realization_L} L_{\mu\nu}=\xi_\mu\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_\nu}-\xi_\nu\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_\mu},\qquad \mu\neq \nu,\qquad \mu,\nu=1,\dots,2n.\end{aligned}$$ Pick the subalgebra of $\os(2n)$ generated by the commutative set . We want to focus on the commutant in $\mathcal{U}(\os(2n))$ of this Abelian algebra. It is easy to see that the set of invariants $\{G^{i},K^{ij}\}_{1\leq i<j\leq n}$, $$\begin{aligned} G^{i}&=L_{2i-1,2i}^{2},\label{eq_inv1}\\ K^{ij}&=L_{2i-1,2i}^2+L_{2i-1,2j-1}^2+L_{2i-1,2j}^2+L_{2i,2j-1}^2+L_{2i,2j}^2+L_{2j-1,2j}^2,\label{eq_inv2}\end{aligned}$$ is sufficient to generate this commutant and it happens to be the generalized Racah algebra. Indeed, with the following redefinitions $$\begin{aligned} C^{i}&=-\frac{1}{4}G^{i}+\frac{1}{4},\\ C^{ij}&=-\frac{1}{4}K^{ij},\\ P^{ij}&=-\frac{1}{4}K^{ij}+\frac{1}{4}\left(G^{i}+G^{j}\right)+\frac{1}{2},\\ F^{ijk}&=\frac{1}{32}[K^{ij},K^{jk}],\end{aligned}$$ a long but straightforward calculation in the realization shows that the defining relations of the algebra $R(n)$ are obeyed. The $\mathfrak{su}(1,1)$ and $\mathfrak{o}(2n)$ descriptions of $R(n)$ and Howe duality {#sec_racah_howe} ======================================================================================= In the last two sections we indicated that the generalized Racah algebra $R(n)$ is the commutant of $\su(1,1)$ in $\mathcal{U}\big(\su(1,1)^{\otimes n}\big)$ and of in oscillator representations of $\mathcal{U}(\os(2n))$. The connection between these two descriptions is rooted in Howe duality. It is known [@Howe1987; @Howe1989; @Howe1989a; @Rowe2012] that $\os(2n)$ and $\sp(2)$ form a dual pair in $\sp(4n)$, with these two subalgebras being their mutual commutants. This implies that $\os(2n)$ and $\sp(2)\simeq \su(1,1)$ have dual actions on the Hilbert space of $2n$ oscillator states. That means that their irreducible representations can be paired and this can be done through the Casimirs in the following way. Consider the $2n$ copies of the metaplectic realization of $\sp(2)$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq_su11J} J_{+}^{(\mu)}=\frac{1}{2}\xi_\mu^2,\qquad\ J_{-}^{(\mu)}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\xi_\mu^2},\qquad\ J_0^{(\mu)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{2}+\xi_\mu\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_\mu}\right),\qquad\ \mu=1,2,\dots2n.\end{aligned}$$ We first add these $2n$ representations by coupling them pairwise $$\begin{aligned} J^{(\mu;\nu)}=J^{(\mu)}+J^{(\nu)}.\end{aligned}$$ In what follows, we will always assume that the pairs denoted $(\mu;\nu)$ are such that , . Now take $A\subset[n]$ to be any subset that is the union of $N$ such pairs: $$\begin{aligned} A=\bigcup_{i=1}^{N}\{\mu_i;\nu_i\},\end{aligned}$$ with $\|A\|=2N$ and $1\leq N\leq n$. The $\su(1,1)$ realization associated to such a subset $A$ reads $$\begin{aligned} J_+^{A}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\mu\in A}\xi_\mu^{2},\qquad J_-^{A}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\mu\in A}\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial\xi_\mu^{2}},\qquad J_0^{A}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\|A\|}{2}+\sum_{\mu\in A}\xi_\mu\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_\mu}\right).\end{aligned}$$ It is then straightforward to show that the Casimir for an embedding labelled by the subset $A$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} C^{A}&=\left(J_0^{A}\right)^{2}-J_+^{A}J_-^{A}-J_0^{A}=\frac{\|A\|(\|A\|-4)}{16}-\sum_{\substack{\mu<\nu\\ \mu,\nu\in A}}\frac{\left(L_{\mu\nu}\right)^{2}}{4}.\end{aligned}$$ As already noted, not all $C^{A}$’s are independent. The translation of shows that all $C^{A}$’s can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned} C^{A}=\hspace{-1.em}\sum_{\substack{(\mu;\nu),(\rho;\sigma)\in A \\ \mu<\nu<\rho<\sigma}}\hspace{-1.em}C^{(\mu;\nu)(\rho;\sigma)}-\frac{\|A\|-4}{2}\sum_{(\mu;\nu)\in A}C^{(\mu;\nu)}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq_ci_cij} C^{(\mu;\nu)}=-\frac{1}{4}\left(L_{\mu\nu}^{2}+1\right),\qquad\quad C^{(\mu;\nu)(\rho;\sigma)}=-\frac{1}{4}\left(L_{\mu\nu}^{2}+L_{\mu\rho}^{2}+L_{\mu\sigma}^{2}+L_{\nu\rho}^{2}+L_{\nu\sigma}^{2}+L_{\rho\sigma}^{2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ This shows that all higher order Casimirs can be reexpressed in terms of those of lowest orders. We thus observe that the intermediate $\sp(2)$ Casimirs correspond (up to an affine transformation) to the generators of the commutant of $\{L_{1,2},\,\dots,\,L_{2n-1,2n}\}$ in $\mathcal{U}(\os(2n))$. We know from , that the intermediate $\sp(2)$ Casimirs realize the commutation relations of the generalized Racah algebra. This will hence be the case also for the commutant generators and we have here our duality connection. The generalized Racah algebra and the generic superintegrable model on $S^{n-1}$ {#sec_racah_generic_model_Sn} ================================================================================ We can now complete the picture by performing the dimensional reduction from $\mathbb R^{2n}$ to $\mathbb R^+ \times S^{n-1}$ to obtain the generic superintegrable model with Hamiltonian $H$ (introduced in ) and to recover its symmetries. Starting from the oscillator representation , make the following change of variables: $$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned}{} \xi_{2i-1}&=x_i\cos{\theta_i},\\ \xi_{2i}&=x_i\sin{\theta_i}, \end{aligned} \qquad L_{2i-1,2i}=\xi_{2i-1}\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_{2i}}-\xi_{2i}\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_{2i-1}}=\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}, \qquad i=1,\dots,n.\end{aligned}$$ Eliminate the ignorable $\theta_i$’s by separating these variables and setting $L_{2i-1,2i}^2\sim k_i^2$. After performing the gauge transformation $\bo\mapsto\widetilde{\bo}=x_i^{1/2}\,\,\bo\,\,x_i^{-1/2}$ one obtains the reduced system $$\begin{aligned} \hspace{-1em}\widetilde{J_+}^{(2i-1,2i)}=\frac{1}{2}x_i^2,\qquad \widetilde{J_-}^{(2i-1,2i)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_i^2}+\frac{a_i}{x_i^2}\right),\qquad\widetilde{J_0}^{(2i-1,2i)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(x_i\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}+\frac{1}{2}\right),\end{aligned}$$ with $a_i=k_i^2+\frac{1}{4}$. Defining $\widetilde{J}^{i}\equiv\widetilde{J}^{(2i-1,2i)}$, the reduced Casimirs $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{C}^{i}&=\left(\widetilde{J_0}^{i}\right)^2-\widetilde{J_+}^{i}\widetilde{J_-}^{i}-\widetilde{J_0}^{i},\\ \widetilde{C}^{ij}&=\left(\widetilde{J_0}^{i}+\widetilde{J_0}^{j}\right)^2-\left(\widetilde{J_+}^{i}+\widetilde{J_+}^{j}\right)\left(\widetilde{J_-}^{i}+\widetilde{J_-}^{j}\right)-\left(\widetilde{J_0}^{i}+\widetilde{J_0}^{j}\right),\end{aligned}$$ are easily computed and have the following expressions: $$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned}{} \widetilde{C}^{i}&=-\frac{1}{4}\left(a_i+\frac{3}{4}\right),\\ \widetilde{C}^{ij}&=-\frac{1}{4}\left[{\ji_{ij}}^2+a_i\frac{x_j^2}{x_i^2}+a_j\frac{x_i^2}{x_j^2}+a_i+a_j+1\right], \end{aligned} \qquad \ji_{ij}=x_i\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}-x_j\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i},\qquad i<j.\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that $\widetilde{J}^{[n]}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\widetilde{J}^{i}$, the total Casimir $\widetilde{C}^{[n]}$ is obtained: $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{C}^{[n]}=-\frac{1}{4}\hspace{-0.1em}\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n}\hspace{-0.8em}{\ji_{ij}}^{2}-\frac{1}{4}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}x_i^{2}\right)\sum_{j=1}^{n}\frac{a_j}{x_{j}^{2}}+\frac{n(n-4)}{16},\end{aligned}$$ and assuming , one thereby obtains the Hamiltonian of the generic model on $S^{n-1}$ (up to an affine transformation). The basic intermediate Casimirs are essentially the conserved quantities: $$\begin{aligned} Q_{ij}={\ji_{ij}}^{2}+a_i\frac{x_j^2}{x_i^2}+a_j\frac{x_i^2}{x_j^2},\qquad\quad 1\leq i<j\leq n\end{aligned}$$ and they generate $R(n)$ which is hence the symmetry algebra of the superintegrable model on the $(n-1)$ sphere. (Note that the $Q_{ij}$’s are affinely related to the $P^{ij}$’s in the relations .) Conclusion {#sec_conclusion} ========== Summing up, we have shown that the generalized Racah algebra $R(n)$ can be defined as the commutant of the $\os(2)^{\oplus n}$ subalgebra of $\os(2n)$ in oscillator representations of $\mathcal{U}(\os(2n))$. This offers an alternative to the definition of $R(n)$ as the algebra of the intermediate Casimirs associated to the $\su(1,1)$ embeddings in $\su(1,1)^{\otimes n}$. We have related these two pictures in the context of Howe duality and obtained the generic $R(n)$-invariant superintegrable model on $S^{n-1}$ through the dimensional reduction scheme stemming from the analysis. This has provided a generalization to arbitrary ranks and dimensions of the study carried in [@Gaboriaud2018] for the standard Racah algebra. We wish to remark that since $\os(nd)$ and $\sp(2)$ form a dual pair in $\sp(2nd)$, it is also possible to realize the generalized Racah algebra as the commutant of the $\os(d)^{\oplus n}$ subalgebra of $\os(nd)$. We have concentrated on the case $d=2$ because it offers the simplest situation that allows to obtain the superintegrable system on $S^{n-1}$ by dimensional reduction. In the near future, we plan on exploring similarly the Askey-Wilson (AW) and the Bannai-Ito (BI) algebras which share features with the Racah algebra since both encode the bispectrality properties of the eponym polynomials and appear through tensor products of $\mathcal{U}_q(\sl(2))$ [@Granovskii1993] and $\osp(1\|2)\simeq\sl_{-1}(2)$ [@Genest2014b] respectively. Moreover, the BI algebra is the symmetry algebra of a superintegrable model on the sphere involving reflection operators [@Genest2014c] as well as a Dirac-Dunkl equation in $\mathbb R^3$ [@DeBie2017]. It would be of interest to build on the work of the present paper to obtain a Howe duality setting for the interpretation of the AW and BI algebras as commutants; moreover extensions along the lines of this paper would shed interesting light on the higher rank versions of these algebras. JG holds an Alexander-Graham-Bell scholarship from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada. LV gratefully acknowledges his support from NSERC. Also SV enjoys a Neubauer No Barriers scholarship at the University of Chicago and benefitted from a Metcalf internship. The work of AZ is supported by the National Foundation of China (Grant No. 11771015).\ References {#references .unnumbered} ==========	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- address: 'U. Kansas Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Lawrence KS 66045-2151' author: - 'Dave Z. Besson' title: \| Radiowave neutrino detection\ [(ARENA06 Conference Summary talk, Newcastle, UK, June 28–July 1, 2006)]{} --- > [“I am often asked how radio works. Well, you see, wire telegraphy is like a very long cat. You yank his tail in New York and he meows in Los Angeles. Now, radio is exactly the same, except that there is no cat.” (Attributed to A. Einstein)]{} Introduction ============ Depending on whether you search www.google.com, www.google.it, or www.google.ru, radiofrequency (RF) signal transmission was first developed at the turn of the century by either Gugliemo Marconi in June, 1896, (see the Wikipedia pages in Italian), or Alexander Popov (see the Wikipedia pages in Russian) in May, 1895. Nikola Tesla, working about 400 km due east of the University of Kansas along Interstate 70, might rightfully be considered the progenitor of the modern-day wireless industry; his innovative suggestions regarding the possible propagation of surface waves has also been the subject of neutrino detection schemes[@jpr], among others[@TheWhiteStripes]. Since radio wavelengths are ‘macroscopic’, for several applications they have advantageous signal production and transmission properties. For a typical antenna, the effective height, which is directly proportional to the voltage produced by an incident electric field, is of order the antenna length. Machining a piece of copper of scale 1 m is considerably easier than machining a piece of copper two orders of magnitude larger or smaller. At meter-scale radio wavelengths (in comparison to atomic dimensions) dielectric media with only atomic-scale impurities may be largely radio-transparent. For example, the attenuation length of radiowaves in South Polar ice has been measured to be $\sim$1.5–2 km over the frequency range 200 MHz - 800 MHz at the South Pole[@iceatten]. For these and other reasons, the initial assertion by Askaryan[@Askaryan61] that high-energy electromagnetic showers will produce RF signals in dense media stronger than their optical counterparts, has (inevitably) engendered a very recent flurry of activity in this field. Whereas, a decade ago, there was only one active experiment (RICE) seeking detection of ultra-high energy (UHE) showers in dense media via radio detection, there are now several active groups. Motivation ========== The GZK-effect[@GZK0] implies that 100 EeV charged particles arriving at Earth must originate from within a sphere of radius $\sim$10 Mpc. This is a remarkably tiny volume, corresponding roughly to the scale of the Local Galactic Group. In terms of redshift, relative to the 14 Gyr history of the Universe, we are sensitive only to those Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays (UHECR) produced in the last 30 Myr. If the Universe evolved through a past epoch where particle acceleration mechanisms were present in the past that have not been active during last 0.3% of the temporal history of the Universe, we could not observe the resulting UHECR’s. Neutrinos suffer no GZK-attenuation and therefore, in principle, probe all redshifts. Detection of ultra-high energy neutrinos offers unique insights into the most energetic processes in the Universe. Super-massive black holes (Active Galactic Nuclei), the collapse of bizarre twists of spacetime left over from the Big Bang (topological defects) and Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMP’s) are only some of the sources that would be probed by an ultra-high energy electromagnetic (and hadronic) shower detector. There is also a great deal of particle physics information which can be deduced, for instance, from the angular distribution of upward-coming neutrino events through different chords of the earth. As recently emphasized by proponents of ARIANNA[@ARIANNA], such data could be used to measure weak cross-sections at energies unreachable by any man-made accelerator, and thereby probe the internal structure of protons at length scales orders of magnitude smaller than those currently achievable. This capability of probing such minute length scales may also reveal new physics (extra dimensions, micro-black-holes)[@McKayBH] for the first time. Radio signals from neutrino-generated showers in dielectrics ============================================================ For definiteness, consider a $\nu_e$ undergoing a charged current interaction, $\nu_e+N\to e+N'$. The primary UHE neutrino transfers most of its energy to the electron, which quickly builds an exponentially increasing shower of $e^+e^-$ pairs. The number of pairs $N_e$ scales like the primary energy. In the most populated region of the shower, at the “bottom" of its energy range, a charge imbalance develops as positrons drop out and atomic electrons scatter in. Detailed Monte Carlo calculations by Zas, Halzen and Stanev (ZHS)[@ZHS] and supported by subsequent GEANT simulations[@Soeb] and subsequent refinements of ZHS[@Jaime-papers], find that the net charge of the shower is about 20% of $N_e$. The electric field produced by this relativistic pancake is dominated by coherent Cherenkov radiation for wavelengths in the radio frequency region. Equivalently, for wavelengths large comparable to the transverse size of the shower ($\sim 2r_{Moliere}$, or $\sim$10cm in ice), the relativistic pancake can be treated as a single, extended, radiating charge. (Clearly, in the limit $\lambda\to\infty$, the radiating region approaches a point charge.) Laboratory Verification ----------------------- Laboratory tests of the radio signal resulting from a charged particle beam have been ongoing for the last decade, with the most definitive tests occurring in the last five years. The GLUE/ANITA team has performed a sequence of measurements, beginning with an electron beam incident on a sand target[@testbeam1], a photon beam on a salt target[@testbeam2], and most recently, ANITA has calibrated their antenna response in a SLAC testbeam on an ice target[@testbeam3], as shown in Figure \[fig:ANITAschematic\]. The signals observed in a variety of radio antennas and receivers track the expected signal strength (Fig. \[fig:SigVfreq\]), near-field complications notwithstanding. Surface roughness effects are relevant to both the beamtest as well as the flight itself. Studies of signal transmission through the firn, as well as data scaled-up from a clever optical wavelength set-up, indicate that surface roughness should, if anything, enhance the number of detected events. ![\[fig:SigVfreq\]Measured voltage vs. frequency.](ANITA-testbeam-june06-CAD.eps){width="16pc"} ![\[fig:SigVfreq\]Measured voltage vs. frequency.](ANITA-testbeam-june06-Abspower.eps){width="18pc"} Active Experiments ------------------ Initial projects exploring radio Cherenkov signals at the South Pole (RAND[@RAND]) or at Vostok[@Alexey] date back to the early-90’s. Currently, two Antarctic projects (ANITA[@ANITAprl] and RICE[@astroph06]) are in the data-taking phase. ANITA, largely funded by NASA as part of the LDB (Long Duration Balloon) program, will launch from McMurdo Base, Antarctica, sometime around December 1, 2006 for an extended circumpolar flight. Two prototype ANITA antennas mounted on the TIGER payload during December 2003 provided essential experience and data, in preparation for the main flight. During its planned 45-day December-January flight of this year, comprising three full revolutions around the Antarctic continent, ANITA will synoptically (from an elevation of 38 km) view a cylindrical volume of ice 700 km in radius, 2 km thick on average, and with an average angular aperture of approximately 0.1 radians. With an effective threshold of $10^{19-20}$ eV (set largely by the typical distance to the interaction vertex), ANITA will offer the best sensitivity to date to the GZK-neutrino parameter space. The RICE experiment, which has been taking data since 1999, has a threshold approximately two orders of magnitude lower, with an effective volume also approximately two orders of magnitude smaller than ANITA at 100 EeV. Nevertheless, with radio antennas 50-100 meters apart, RICE will continue to have excellent sensitivity in the 100 PeV-100 EeV energy regime, not to be superceded until the advent of either the ARIANNA[@ARIANNA] or RICE-successor (AURA)[@AURA][^1] experiments. A compilation of the current RICE limits on the incident neutrino flux, superimposed on both experimental limits as well as theoretical predictions, is presented in Figure \[fig:limits\]. The null search for in-ice showers can quickly be translated into a limit on the diffuse neutrino flux from gamma-ray bursts[@astroph06]. Additionally, a dedicated gamma-ray burst (GRB) coincidence study was performed to quantify limits on neutrino-generated showers from specific GRB’s[@ricegrb]. The GRB sample coincidence sample used was, unfortunately, a preferentially high-redshift sample. Accodingly, the limits are rather weak relative to model expectation (Fig. \[fig:ricegrblim\]), As originally pointed out by Wick [et al.]{}[@stuart], a radio detector would also have excellent sensitivity to an incident, relativistic, highly-ionizing magnetic monopole. Briefly, at large distances from a radio array, the monopole will leave a trail of ionization, boosted in magnitude relative to a muon by the large monopole charge. This trail of ionization is less susceptible to LPM effects than a single UHE neutrino since the monopole energy loss is distributed over a long pathlength. As shown in Figure \[fig:monopole\], the preliminary limits from RICE are competitive. ![\[fig:monopole\]RICE monopole flux limits.](monopole.eps){width="20pc"} Perhaps the primary virtue of the in-ice strategy is the ability to vertex sources within the ice itself. Over the next several years, AURA will (hopefully) take advantage of the timely opportunity presented by the IceCube drilling to extend the RICE strategy. The AURA array will serve as a prototype for a future radio+acoustic hybrid array, over a surface area of 100-$km^2$ at the South Pole, centered around IceCube. The AURA strategy is to re-package the IceCube digital optical modules with radio electronics, with four breakouts to a cluster of antennas. ### Radio detection in salt As reported by Amy Connolly at this conference, SALSA will employ the [in situ]{} approach, using salt as the target medium rather than ice. The site being studied most closely is Cote Blanche Dubois in Mississippi, where signals have been observed propagating through 300 meters of dome salt at a depth of approximately 500 m. Advantages of using salt as a target are its higher density compared to ice (i.e., greater likelihood of contained events) its year-round accessibility and the likelihood that water and metal in the soil layer above the dome provides RF insulation; disadvantages are the limited, and often irregular volume comprised by salt domes, high drilling costs compared to ice (\$1M/hole compared to \$50K for a 1km deep, 15 cm diameter hole in ice). Nevertheless, if the attenuation length can be shown to be of order 500 meters in the 100 MHz - 1 GHz interval, salt may be an extremely promising candidate, the large cost of a 15 kilochannel array ($\sim$250 M) notwithstanding. ### Planned Surface Arrays ARIANNA[@ARIANNA] is unique not only in its coupling radio antennas to the surface of the ice, but in its use of shelf ice, rather than interior compressed snow as the target. This approach offers the advantage of a non-varying index-of-refraction in the target medium. In this scenario, the Ross Ice Shelf will be populated with a large array of down-looking horn antennas; the limited depth of the shelf ice ($\sim$250 m) is compensated for by the expectation that signals resulting from distant interactions will multiply reflect within the shelf ice ’waveguide’ before being captured in the surface horn antennas. Signal communications will be patterned after the wireless AUGER model. Measurements in December 2006 will quantify the attenuation length of the shelf ice at radio frequencies using techniques similar to those used to measure the $\sim$1.7 km radiofrequency attenuation length of ice at the South Pole. An elevated array, at a height $h$ would view the horizon out to a distance $l=\sqrt{2r_Eh}$; with $r_E=6360$ km, an array of 50-meter high, wind-powered towers at Vostok would view the cold, 3.2 km thick ice there out to a distance of 25 km. Provided the problem of finding bearing lubricants functional in the –80 C winter temperatures can be solved, RICE could be recommissioned as ROAST (“RICE On A STick”) in 2-3 years. ### Hardware Crucial to the success of any radio experiment is a highly efficient antenna and a fast (ns-time scale), high-bandwidth data acquisition system[@labrador-ref]. Both the tripolarization scheme planned for AURA (Fig. \[fig:tripol\]), as well as the dual-polarization horns that will fly on the ANITA gondola (Fig. \[fig:dualpol\]) will offer excellent Cherenkov geometry constraints ![\[fig:dualpol\]ANITA with complete suite of 36 dual-polarization horns.](ANITA-highbay-pic.eps){width="16pc"} ANITA have developed custom digitizing electronics, based on a switched-capacitor array; triggering is ‘launched’ by an external trigger. This system has already demonstrated 1.3 GHz bandwidth at 2 GSa/sec, and will form the basis of the future RICE successor array (AURA), as well. Frequency banding of the input trigger signal allows rejection of possible continuous wave backgrounds, as well as consistency with the expected Askaryan frequency spectrum. A multi-tiered trigger also facilitates rejection of random thermal noise hits (by requiring at least a two-fold coincidence at L1) or, in the case of a buried array, rejection of down-coming anthropogenic transients. Radio detection of air showers ============================== Coherent radio Cherenkov studies go back to Allan and Jelly, who first studied radio signals from cosmic ray air showers[@Allan; @Jelly]. As an air shower develops in the earth’s magnetic field, a lateral separation of electric charge, of typical scale 10 meters (f$\sim$30 MHz) is produced by the Lorentz force, resulting in a dipole field spiraling in towards the Earth for the orientation where the charges gyrate around ${\vec B}_{Earth}$, or simple charge separation when the field lines are parallel to the Earth’s surface (horizontal) and the charges are incident along the vertical. The field strength is obviously a strong function of the inclination angle of the shower relative to the earth’s magnetic field – both the azimuthal ($\phi$) and polar ($\theta$) angles, as well as the orientation and strength of the local geomagnetic field are all important. The shower detection threshold is set by various factors. Background-limiting factors include proximity to anthropogenic noise source in the tens of Megahertz frequency regime. The ambient galactic radio noise is also considerably larger than kTB thermal noise in this regime. It is additionally noteworthy that solar flares, auroral storms and lightning have all been observed to result in substantial transient bursts in this frequency regime[@LOPES]. Signal-limiting factors include the typical distance from shower max to the ground based observatory ($\sim$500 $g/cm^2$, or of order 5 km). Experimental Air Shower Detection Efforts ----------------------------------------- After an extended hiatus, there is a new generation of air-shower experiments which are now coming online. To date, anthropogenic backgrounds have limited the ability of such arrays (thus far, modest in size) to self-trigger, generally requiring a coincidence trigger with a co-located particle detector array to keep such backgrounds manageable. As realized since the 1940’s, the photomultiplier tubes often used to readout scintillator arrays are, unfortunately, themselves often a source of considerable noise, which is not surprising given the few ns rise-time of typical photomultiplier tube signals. Efforts within the last decade include those of Rosner and Wilkerson at the Fly’s Eye/HiRes site (Dugway AFB) in Utah[@rosnerwilkerson], the LOPES[@LOPES] prototype at the KASCADE site in Karlsruhe, Germany, which is intended to serve as a prototype for an adaption of LOFAR for air shower detection, and the CODALEMA[@CODALEMA] experiment in France. There have also been discussions regarding the augmentation of IceCube/ICETOP with a radio air shower array, and the development of a similar array at the TUNKA site at Lake Baikal, Russia. Of these, the LOPES and CODALEMA efforts are currently the most advanced. The first LOPES data collection was performed in 2004 on a ten-element array consisting of linearly polarized, east-west oriented “inverted V” dipole antennas, sensitive over the interval 40-80 MHz, embedded within (and triggered by) KASCADE. Seven months of data-taking, with an effective air shower threshold of 50 PeV, yielded 862 candidate coincidence events, of which approximately 40% turn out to be well-reconstructed. Imposing the condition of full radio coherence can substantially improve the angular resolution and shower parameter estimates just based on the ground array data; improvements of factors of 2-3 are not uncommon. The basic element of the current LOPES-30 array and the observed signal are shown in Figures \[fig:lopesant\] and \[fig:signalpulselopes\], respectively. Ultimately, one would like to include air shower detection trigger electronics for the full, planned 25000 element LOFAR array. In the interim, a radio air shower detector may be added to the AUGER observatory. ![\[fig:signalpulselopes\]Total radio power observed by LOPES, 2004 data.](lopes-antenne.eps){width="16pc"} ![\[fig:signalpulselopes\]Total radio power observed by LOPES, 2004 data.](pulse-total-lopes.eps){width="16pc"} The French CODALEMA collaboration uses 11 log-periodic antennas (37-70 MHz) for air shower detection, also with an energy threshold of 50 PeV. Initially, a four-fold coincidence of particle detectors on the ground were required to provide an event trigger; since then, signal recognition algorithms have advanced to allow for self-triggering by the radio array alone. CODALEMA currently observes $\sim$1 high-energy air shower per day, and is planning an upgrade to supplement the current log-periodic array with dipoles. Radio observations of astronomical objects ========================================== As originally proposed by Askaryan, the moon provides a convenient, otherwise radio-quiet, and nearby, “target-in-the-sky”. Neutrino collisions with moon rock would result in a coherent radio pulse escaping through the surface. In the absence of an atmosphere, ultra-high energy cosmic rays would result in a similar signal. The Puschino observatory off the banks of the Osa River, approximately 100 km south of Moscow, has had a long history of lunar observation. More recently, the Goldstone dish was adapted with trigger and data-acquisition electronics appropriate for measurement of a neutrino-generated radio signal[@GLUE]. At this conference, the nuMoon[@nuMoon] project was described, using as receivers the Westerbork antenna array in Europe, consisting of 14 25-m diameter radio dishes, with reception peaking at $\sim$150 MHz. Given the very precise angular resolution anticipated for LOFAR, Westerbork could serve as a testbed for the signal recognition algorithms that would be used for such an extensive radio array. All these experiments typically use the ability to frequency band to discriminate the electric field spectral properties expected for Askaryan-type signals ($dE/d\omega\sim\omega$) from backgrounds. Note that, despite the fact that the electric field strength is increasing with frequency, the higher angular spread of low-frequency components of the Askaryan pulse result in more detections with an array tuned to 150 MHz rather than 1.5 GHz. Summary of Extant and Planned Experiments ========================================= The various techniques are summarized in the table below, showing approximate thresholds, and neutrino flux sensitivity in a given amount of livetime. Experiment Status Antennas $E_\nu^0$ (PeV) Comment ------------ ------------- ---------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------- ANITA 2006 Launch 36 dual-pol horn $10^4$ 45-day 06-07 flight ARIANNA R&D 10000 horn 100 $L_{atten}$ TBD Dec., 06 AURA R&D (36 cluster)(4 Rx/cluster) 100 RICE successor RICE active 20 in-ice dipole 100 data-taking$\to$2008 SALSA R&D 14000 dipole 100 Cote Blanche, MS CODALEMA active 11 dipole 100 air showers LOPES active 30 dipole 100 air showers nuMoon planned 14 25-m dishes $10^5$ Backgrounds =========== Perhaps the main advantage of the optical technique is that the primary background (atmospheric neutrinos) is, with the exception of angular distribution, otherwise identical to the signal. In the absence of atmospheric neutrinos at $>$PeV energies, radio backgrounds are, in general, locale-specific. At the South Pole, in proximity to South Pole Station, the RICE backgrounds are anthropogenic and can quickly ($\sim$1 microsecond) identified as originating from the surface with $>$99% efficiency. Backgrounds arising from thermal noise, compounded by the system temperature of active electronics, present the most obvious single-channel ‘fake’ signals, and define the minimum voltage threshold required to run the data acquisition system at tolerable rates; at first glance, such backgrounds can look very similar to ‘true’ signals (Fig. \[fig:thermal\]). Galactic radiofrequency noise has a falling power spectrum and can be explicitly suppressed by use of a 200 MHz high-pass filter. Physics backgrounds to the ice-based experiments at hundreds of PeV are $expected$ to be small. Many processes have been considered – direct radiofrequency signals from extensive air showers (EAS) which propagate into the ice, as measured by the CODALEMA and LOPES experiments, give signals which peak in the tens of MHz regime. There should be a signal resulting from the impact of the shower core with the ice, producing the same kind of Cherenkov radiation signal that RICE seeks to measure. Nevertheless (Fig \[fig:EAS\]), the expected EAS signal rate should be almost immeasurably small. ![\[fig:EAS\]Estimated EAS detections per year for RICE and ANITA.](Tx-Rx-2002365201358-97tx3-general-ch1.eps "fig:"){width="12pc"} ![\[fig:EAS\]Estimated EAS detections per year for RICE and ANITA.](sigwvfm.eps "fig:"){width="12pc"} ![\[fig:EAS\]Estimated EAS detections per year for RICE and ANITA.](EAS-rate-rice.eps){width="18pc"} Comparison with acoustic ======================== Acoustic detection of neutrinos has undergone equally rapid development over the last few years, as outlined elsewhere[@SAUND; @rolfreview; @sebastianthesis]. The acoustic detection technique offers three very large advantages relative to radio detection: a) propagation speeds, and absorption lengths are set by the acoustic properties of the target medium; for ice, the slow propagation speeds mean that signals are spread over timescales of microseconds and are therefore $1000\times$ less exacting than the nanosecond time scales of radio pulses. Additionally, at these low frequencies, cable losses are sufficiently small that signals can be digitized in an accessible surface, rather than an inaccessible in-ice receiver. b) the signal geometry is in a domain where the source length is much larger than the wavelength of the propagating signal, so that the signal geometry is cylindrical, with amplitude losses as $\propto 1/ln(r)$, and c) for ice, the attenuation length is expected to be a factor $10\times$ larger than radio; for salt, estimates give values an additional factor of $10\times$ larger[@bufordsalt]. Both techniques offer the possibility of constraining the signal geometry using polarization information, with the exception of acoustic detection in salt, for which coupling to the shear wave will be difficult. The long time scale for the signal leads, however, to the one large disadvantage of acoustic - the substantially larger 1/f noise for acoustic detection forces the detection threshold up to around 100 EeV or so. Perspectives ============ Although promising, the radio technique is still being developed, and still must surmount several obstacles before gaining widespread acceptance. The problem is not so much signal detection, but understanding backgrounds. The air detection experiments have made enormous strides within the last five years – the demonstrated ability to measure the same air shower event as a ground array provides instant credibility, however, anthropogenic backgrounds and naturally generated noise such as electrical discharges in the atmosphere require frequency filtering, as well as restrictive data selection. The next milestone here may be an absolutely normalized air shower primary energy spectrum which shows good agreement with the existing data. The demonstrated ability to self-trigger is also a [condicio sine qua non]{} for a self-sustaining array. In the absence of such self-triggering, the ability to improve the angular resolution of air showers is, nevertheless, sufficient cause for expansion of this effort. Estimates of neutrino detection in dense media rests on three primary pillars: a) the radio transparency of the medium, b) the weak interaction cross-section at high energies, and c) the relationship between shower characteristics and radio signal strength. The attenuation length of Antarctic ice has been measured to be $\sim$1.5-2 km, $\sigma_\nu$ can be extrapolated within the Standard Model to within 25% or so at 10 EeV, and the SLAC testbeam experiments have (I believe, conclusively) validated the signal strength estimates obtained using Monte Carlo simulations. Thermal backgrounds can, in principle, be removed statistically based on channel-to-channel correlations and also frequency spectra, however, our experience with RICE indicates that individual-channel thermal ’hits’ can be extremely similar to expected neutrino ’signal’ hits, as shown in Figure \[fig:thermal\]; large bandwidth is required to separate the two in the frequency domain. Clearly, a single experiment with the potential of simultaneously offering detection of air showers, both with radio and a conventional ground particle detector array, plus detection of showers-in-dense-media, combining optical + acoustic + radio capabilities, would be perhaps the most powerful realization of a ’multi-messenger’ detector. Obviously, the optimal scenario would be a single laboratory which could support simultaneous measurement of optical + radio + acoustic signals, with all possible polarizations. Currently, several groups are working towards the realization of such an observatory at the South Pole (“CONDOR”) which, given, e.g., the inability to propagate radio waves through water, is likely the only place on Earth capable of supporting such an effort. Mature simulations indicate measurable registered neutrino coincidences in one year[@justin]. Acknowledgments =============== I would like to thank everyone who is currently active in this very dynamic field. I am particularly indebted to Peter Gorham, Daniel Hogan, Shahid Hussain, Soeb Razzaque, and David Saltzberg for their contributions to this talk. References ========== [99]{} J. Ralston, private communication. J. and M. White, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Stripes S. Barwick, D. Besson, P. Gorham, D. Saltzberg, J. Glac. 04J067 (2005). G. A. Askaryan, [JTEP]{} [14]{}, 441 (1962), [JETP]{} [21]{}, 658 (1965). K. Greisen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 748 (1966) G. Zatsepin and V. Kuzmin, JETP Lett., 478 (1966). A. Connolly, contributed to this conference, and S. W. Barwick, arXiv:astro-ph/0610631, Proceedings of 2nd Workshop on TeV Astrophysics. S. Hussain, D. Marfatia, D.W. McKay, and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. Lett 97 (2006) 161101; S. Hussain and D.W. McKay, Phys. Lett. B634 (2006) 130-136. E. Zas, F. Halzen, and T. Stanev, Phys. Lett. [B257]{}, 432 (1991); E. Zas, F. Halzen, and T. Stanev, Phys. Rev. [D45]{}, 362 (1992) S. Razzaque [et al.]{}, Phys.Rev. D65, 103002 (2002). Jaime Alvarez-Muiz, Enrique Marques, Ricardo A. V zquez, Enrique Zas, Phys.Rev. D74 (2006) 023007; J. Alvarez-Muniz, E. Marques, R. A. Vazquez, E. Zas, Phys.Rev. D68 (2003) 043001; D. Saltzberg [et al.]{}, Phys.Rev.Lett. 86 (2001) 2802-2805 P. Gorham [et al.]{}, Phys.Rev. D72 (2005) 023002 S. Hoover, contributed to this conference; manuscript in preparation. aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/neutrino/rand/rand.html A.L. Provorov and I.M. Zheleznykh, Astroparticle Physics 4 (1995) 55. S. Barwick [et al.]{}, Phys.Rev.Lett. 96 (2006) 171101. I. Kravchenko et al., Phys.Rev. D73 (2006) 082002 K. Hoffman, contributed to this conference; D. Williams, contributed to this conference. R. J. Protheroe, astro-ph/9607165. K. Mannheim, Astropart. Phys. [3]{}, 295 (1995). R. Engel, D. Seckel, and T. Stanev, Phys. Rev. [D64]{}, 093010 (2001). R. Protheroe and P. Johnson, astro-ph/9506119, Astropart. Phys. [4]{}, 253 (1996). O. E. Kalashev, V. A. Kuzmin, D. V. Semikoz, and G. Sigl, Phys. Rev. [D66]{}, 063004 (2002). Daniel De Marco, Todor Stanev, and F.W. Stecker, arXiv:astro-ph/0512479, Phys. Rev. [D73]{} 043003 (2006). R. J. Protheroe and T. Stanev, Phys. Rev. Lett. [77]{}, 3708 (1996); ibid 78, 3420 (1997). D. Besson, S. Razzaque, J. Adams, and P. Harris, accepted in Astropart. Phys. J. Bahcall and E. Waxman, Phys. Rev. [D59]{}, 023002 (1999); Phys. Rev. [D64]{}, 023002 (2001). S. Wick, T. Kephart, T. Weiler and P. Biermann, Astropart.Phys. 18 (2003) 663-687. G. Varner, J. Chao, M. Wilcox and P. Gorham, arXiv:physics/0509023 H.R. Allan, Prog. in Elem. Part. and Cos. Ray Physics, [10]{} (1971), 171. J. V. Jelly [et al.]{}, Nature 205 (1965), 327. K. Green, J. Rosner, D. Suprun, J. Wilkerson, Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A498 (2003) 256-288. P. Isar, S. Nehls [et al.]{}, contributed to this conference; A. Huangs [et al.]{}, contributed to this conference. D. Ardouin [et al.]{}, arXiv:astro-ph/0608550, accepted for publication in Astroparticle Physics. P. Gorham [et al.]{}, Phys.Rev.Lett. 93 (2004) 041101. O. Scholten [et al.]{}, contributed to this conference. R. Nahnhauer, conference summary talk (this conference). J. Vandenbroucke, G. Gratta, and N. Lehtinen, Astrophys.J. 621 (2005) 301-312. S. Böser, Ph.D. thesis (2006), unpublished. P. B. Price, arXiv:astro-ph/0506648, submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research - Solid Earth. D. Besson, S. Böser, R. Nahnhauer, P. B. Price, J. A. Vandenbroucke, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A21S1 (2006) 259-264. [^1]: The original acronym advocated by the author for this experiment (Retrofitted OptiCal SysTem Adapted for Radio) was, unfortunately, not favored by my collaborators.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| This paper presents a new distributed approach for generating all prime numbers in a given interval of integers. From Eratosthenes, who elaborated the first prime sieve (more than 2000 years ago), to the current generation of parallel computers, which have permitted to reach larger bounds on the interval or to obtain previous results in a shorter time, prime numbers generation still represents an attractive domain of research and plays a central role in cryptography. We propose a fully distributed algorithm for finding all primes in the interval $[2\ldots, n]$, based on the wheel sieve and the SMER (Scheduling by Multiple Edge Reversal) multigraph dynamics. Given a multigraph $\cM$ of arbitrary topology, having $N$ nodes, a SMER-driven system is defined by the number of directed edges (arcs) between any two nodes of $\cM$, and by the global period length of all “arc reversals” in $\cM$. The new prime number generation method inherits the distributed and parallel nature of SMER and requires at most $n + \lfloor \sqrt{n}\rfloor$ time steps. The message complexity achieves at most $n\Delta_N + \lfloor \sqrt{n}\rfloor \Delta_N$, where $1\le \Delta_N\le N - 1$ is the maximal multidegree of $\cM$, and the maximal amount of memory space required per process is $\cO(n)$ bits. Distributed Algorithms; Prime Numbers Generation; Wheel Sieve; Scheduling by Edge Reversal; Scheduling by Multiple Edge Reversal. author: - 'Christian Lavault$^$' - 'Gabriel A. L. Paillard' - 'Felipe M. G. França$^\dag$' date: \| $^$ Laboratoire d’Informatique de Paris Nord (LIPN UMR 7030 CNRS)\ Institut Galilée Université Paris XIII Villetaneuse F93430\ [E-mail:]{} [[Gabriel.Paillard,Christian.Lavault]{}@lipn.univ-paris13.fr]{}\ $^\dag$ Programa de Engenharia de Sistemas e Computação\ Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro COPPE/UFRJ\ Caixa Postal 68511 Cep: 21941-972, Rio de Janeiro RJ, Brazil\ [E-mail:]{} [[email protected]]{} title: \| A distributed wheel sieve algorithm based\ on [Scheduling by Multiple Edge Reversal]{} --- Introduction ============ This article takes up the generation of prime numbers smaller than a given bound $n$, by using the wheel sieve distributively. Wheel sieve algorithms can be very efficient to determine the primality of integers which belong to a given finite interval $[2\ldots, n]$, for sufficiently large values of $n$ and when the test of primality is carried out on all numbers of the interval. The paper designs a fully distributed wheel sieve algorithm using scheduling by multiple edge reversal (SMER). The main purpose of a parallelization of such kind of algorithm is to increase the bounds of the generation of prime numbers, and to reach these bounds in a shorter execution time. The first parallelization of a sieve algorithm was realized in 1987 [@BOK], who parallelized the sieve of Eratosthenes. This work was motivated by testing a new parallel machine (the Flex/32), because this kind of algorithm is ideal to test the performances of a new architecture (of a sequential or parallel machine) as a benchmark. The sieve of Eratosthenes was the first prime sieving algorithm, and it consists in eliminating all non prime numbers in the interval $[2\ldots, n]$. First, the algorithm takes the first number of the interval and generates all its multiples (by adding its own value to himself), which are thus eliminated. The next (non eliminated) number is the one (the next prime number) which sieves the interval, and this process is pursued until all intervals has been sieved. Various parallelizations of this algorithm can be found, e.g. in [@SORE1; @SORE2]. However, the main drawback of the practical sieve of Eratosthenes is clearly the fact that it imposes to go through all the entries of the multiples of each number during the sieving process. For instance, if the current entry corresponds to $p$, then any entry at locations $2p$, $3p$, $4p$ is changed to zero, and so on, until the stop criteria is reached, i.e., $p^{2} > n$. The basic sieve of Eratosthenes proceeds in the same way on any other entry. It is easy to see that some numbers will be generated more than once, for example $6$ is generated twice (from $2$ and $3$), and $12$ is generated three times (from $2,3$ and $4$). The entries that are already zeros are left unchanged, but each entry must nevertheless be checked throughout the sieving process. The main idea consists then in trying to prevent all numbers from being sieved “too many times”. Sieving the multiples of any given number more than once must be avoided, as much as possible. All efficient sieving algorithms are based on similar techniques. So, the complexity $\cO(n \ln\ln n)$ of the sieve of Eratosthenes may be somewhat improved by several clever arguments that are carried out by the above methods. Such sieve algorithms achieve a linear [@GRI; @MAI; @SORE1] or even a sublinear (step) complexity [@MAI; @PRI1]. So far, the best algorithm known is the “wheel sieve”, designed in 1981 [@PRI1; @PRI2]. It requires only $\cO(n/\log\log n)$ steps to find the set of primes in the interval $[2,\ldots ,n]$ (with $n > 4$), where each step is either for bookkeeping or an addition with integers at most $n$. Basically, the algorithm relies on the central result on the number of primes in arithmetic progressions. More precisely, Dirichlet’s theorem states that if $a$, $b$ are coprime integers ($\gcd(a,b) := (a,b) = 1$) and $b > 0$, then the arithmetic progression $\b\{a, a+b, a+2b,\ldots\b\} = \b\{a \bmod b\b\}$ contains infinitely many primes [@HAWR Thm. 15]. (See [@CRAPO] for more details on the analysis of the wheel sieve algorithm.) The paper presents a new kind of fully distributed algorithm that finds all primes by sieving in a given interval $[1\ldots, n]$, using the properties of the wheel sieve using the SMER [@PRI2]. Some other distributed algorithms generating all prime numbers can be found in [@COS1; @COS2], which use the properties of Dirichlet’s theorem. In [@PAILLARD1] another kind of distributed prime number generation is presented, based only on scheduling by multiple edge reverse framework [@VAL]. In Sect. 2, the wheel sieve algorithm is introduced. In Sect. 3 and 4, the framework of the scheduling by edge reversal (SER) and the scheduling by multiple edge reversal (SMER) mechanisms are both introduced. Sect. 5 is devoted to the design of our distributed algorithm for sieving primes by using the SMER-based method applied to the wheel sieve. The worst-case complexity analysis of the algorithm is achieved in Sect. 6. The final Sect. 7 draws a short conclusion and offers some perspectives. The Wheel Sieve =============== The wheel sieve derived from Pritchard’s algorithm [@PRI1] operates basically by generating a set of numbers that are not multiples of the first $k$ prime numbers. The sieve, applied on the resulting set from the wheel, eliminates the non prime numbers that remain in the set. This is the basic idea of the wheel which were employed as a reduced residue class $\bmod(\Pi_{k})$, where $\Pi_{k}$ denotes the product of the first $k$ prime numbers [@PRI2]. $\cW_{k}$ denotes the $k$-th wheel, which is defined as $$\cR(x) = \b\{x\ /\ 1 \le y \le x\ \hbox{and}\ (y,x) = 1\b\},$$ where $x$ and $y$ are coprime numbers. The sieve introduced by the wheel sieve consists basically, after having generated the next wheel $\cW_{k+1}$, in using the prime number $k + 1$ to sieve the new wheel, generating all its multiples and removing them from $\cW_{k+1}$. For more clarity this new set will denoted $\cS_{k+1}$. It is clear that after $\cS_{k+1}$ is obtained the algorithm proceeds to another sieving process, and eliminate the remaining composite numbers. The wheels are thus patterns that are repeated every $\Pi_{k}$ times. ![Example of the generation of a wheel $\cW_{k+1}$ starting from the preceding wheel $\cW_{k}$.[]{data-label="fig:Wheel1"}](WheelMove) In Fig. \[fig:Wheel1\] we use $\Pi_{2}$ in the first step of the wheel sieve as the product of the first two prime numbers $(2$ and $3)$ figured by the small circle; this generates all “pseudo-primes” numbers[^1] between $1$ and the new bound contained in the new wheel $\cW_{3} = \cR(30)$, that is the actual bound $\Pi_{2}$ multiplied by the next prime $p_{3} = 5$. The next prime is the first number after $1$ that belongs to the interval being sieved [@PRI2] in the second wheel, which contains now the next value $5$. ![[Generation of the new “pseudo-prime” numbers]{}[]{data-label="fig:Wheel2"}](WheelRodando2) The above Fig. \[fig:Wheel2\] shows that all the pseudo-prime numbers of the big wheel, that is $\{1,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,25,29\}$, are generated within the small wheel. ![Generation of another new pseudo-prime (number $7$).[]{data-label="fig:Wheel3"}](WheelRodando4) In Fig. \[fig:Wheel3\] the process of generating the big wheel is going on. Number $7$ is generated from the number $1$ of the small wheel, which can be interpreted as if we were “rolling” the small circle inside the big one. This means that starting from a wheel $\cW_{k}$, we can generate the next wheel $\cW_{k+1}$ in a graphical way. The points where the elements of the wheel $\cW_{k}$ touch the circle featuring $\cW_{k+1}$ are the new pseudo-primes. More precisely, $\cW_{k+1}$ is defined as $$\label{wheel} \cW_{k+1} = \cW_{k} \cup \b\{x\Pi_{k} + y\ /\ x\in\{1,\ldots,p_{k+1}-1\}\ \hbox{and}\ y \in \cW_{k}\b\}.$$ ![The sieve being applied on the new wheel $\cW_{k+1}$ to generate $\cS_{k+1}$.[]{data-label="fig:Wheel4"}](Wheelcenter) Fig. \[fig:Wheel4\] shows the final phase of the wheel sieve, where the multiples of the previous $p_{k+1}$ (in that case, the number $5$) are eliminated from the set $\cR\b(\Pi_{3}\b)$. According to the definition of $\cW_{k+1}$ in Eq. (\[wheel\]), we also define $$\cS_{k+1} = \cW_{k+1}\setminus \b\{y\times p_{k+1}\ /\ y\in \cW_{k+1}\b\}.$$ The previous wheel $\cW_{k}$ is put in the center of the new wheel $\cS_{k+1}$ (See Fig. \[fig:Wheel4\]). Then drawing a radius from the center of the small circle containing each pseudo-prime number of this circle, each one of the prolongations of such radii touches the big circle at every pseudo-prime that will be eliminated in the new wheel $\cW_{k+1}$. Thus, the prime $p_{k+1}$ will be put in the set $\cP$ of all prime numbers. In [@PAILLARD] a distributed version of the wheel sieve is proposed. It is implemented by using a message passing interface specification ([lam-mpi 7.0.6 library]{}) [@MAI]. The time measurements of a sequential and a distributed implementation of the wheel sieve are compared, together with a sequential and distributed implementation of the sieve of Eratosthenes. In [@PAILLARD2] a fully distributed version of the wheel sieve is also presented. Scheduling by Edge Reversal (SER) ================================= Consider a neighbourhood-constrained system composed by a set of processing elements (PEs) and a set of atomic shared resources represented by a connected directed graph $G = (V,E)$, where $V$ is the set of PEs and $E$ the set of its directed edges (or arcs), stating the access topology (directed edges are henceforth refered to as arcs). The latter is defined in the following way: an arc exists between any two nodes if, and only if, the two corresponding PEs share at least one atomic resource. SER works as follows: starting from any acyclic orientation $\omega$ on $G$, there is at least one sink node, i.e., a node such that all its arcs are directed to itself; all sink nodes are allowed to operate while other nodes remain idle. This obviously ensures mutual exclusion at any access made to shared resources by sink nodes. After operation, a sink node will reverse the orientation of its arcs, becoming a source and thus releasing the access to resources to its neighbours. A new acyclic orientation is defined and the whole process is then repeated for the new set of sinks. Let $\tilde{\omega} = g(\omega)$ denote this greedy operation. SER can be regarded as the endless repetition of the application of $g(\omega)$ upon $G$. Assuming that $G$ is finite, it is easy to see that eventually a set of acyclic orientations will be repeated defining a period of length $P$. This simple dynamics ensures that no deadlocks or starvation will ever occur since in every acyclic orientation there exists at least one sink, i.e. one node allowed to operate. Also, it is proved that inside any period, every node operates exactly the same constant number of times (denoted $M$) [@GAF2]. SER is a fully distributed graph dynamics in which the sense of time is defined by its own operation, i.e., the synchronous behavior is equivalent to the case where every node in $G$ takes an identical amount of time to operate and also an identical amount of time to reverse arcs. Another interesting observation to be made here is that any topology $G$ will have its own set of possible SER dynamics [@VAL]. ![SER dynamics for the Dining Philosophers under heavy load.[]{data-label="fig:dining"}](DiningPhilosophers2) As an example of SER’s applicability, consider Dijkstra’s paradigmatic [Dining Philosophers Problem]{} [@DJ] under heavy load, i.e., in the case philosophers are either “hungry” or “eating” (no “thinking” state). Such system can be represented by a set $\b\{P_{1},\ldots, P_{N}\b\}$ of $N$ PEs, in which each PE shares a resource both with its previous PE and its subsequent PE. Thus, taking the original configuration where $N =5 $ and setting an acyclic orientation over the $5$ nodes ring, the resulting SER dynamics where $P=5$ and $M=2$ is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:dining\]. Scheduling by Multiple Edge Reversal (SMER) =========================================== SMER is a generalization of SER in which pre-specified access rates to atomic resources are imposed to processes in a distributed resource-sharing system represented by a multigraph $\cM = (V,\cE)$. In contrast with SER, multiple edges can exist between any two nodes $i$ and $j$ ($i,\, j\in V$) in the SMER dynamics: there can exist $e_{i,j}\ge 0$ undirected edges connecting nodes $i$ and $j$; such connected nodes are called “neighbours”. Let $r_i$ denote the “reversibility” of node $i$, as defined in [@FRA]. More precisely, reversibility $r_i$ is the number of arcs that shall be reversed by $i$ towards each of its neighbouring nodes at the end of each operation step (access to shared resources). Node $i$ is called a $r$-sink if at least $r_{i}$ arcs are directed to itself from each of its neighbours. In the SMER dynamics, each $r$-sink node $i$ operates by reversing $r_{i}$ arcs towards all of its neighbours, next a new set of $r$-sinks operates in turn, and so on. Similarly to sinks under SER, only $r$-sink nodes are allowed to operate under SMER. Unlike SER, nodes may operate more than once consecutively in SMER dynamics. Let $\mu_0, \mu_1,\ldots$ be the sequence of orientations produced by SMER over $\cM$ from the initial orientation $\mu_0$. As infinite sequences are of our interest (originally motivated by the Dining Philosophers with rates (DPPr) problem [@FRA]), let $a_{s}^{ij}$ denote the greatest multiple of $\gcd(r_i,r_j)$ of $r_i$ and $r_j$, which does not exceed the number of edges oriented from $i$ to $j$ in $\mu_s, s \ge 0$. Orientations $\mu_s$, such that $f_{ij} = a_{s}^{ij} + a_{s}^{ji}$, $s \geq 0$, remaining constant as a consequence of the two terms changing by a certain multiple of gcd$(r_i,r_j)$ (arcs reversed between neighbouring nodes $i$ and $j$). Let $\cM^{i,j}$ be the submultigraph of $\cM$ induced by a pair of neighbouring nodes $i$ and $j$, and let $\mu^{ij}_{0}$, $\mu^{ij}_{1},\ldots$ be the sequence of orientations of $\cM^{i,j}$ produced by SMER from $\mu^{ij}_{0}$. The following Lemma \[lem:relations\] states a basic topology constraint towards the definition of the multigraph $\cM$. ([@FRA; @fr:weig]) \[lem:relations\] If $\max \{r_{i},r_{j}\} \leq e_{i,j} \leq r_{i} + r_{j} - 1$, aplication of SMER from $\mu^{ij}_{0}$ on $\cM^{i,j}$ solves the instance of DPPr given by neighbouring nodes $i$ and $j$, $r_{i}$ and $r_{j}$, if and only if $f_{ij} = r_{i} + r_{j} - \gcd(r_i,r_j)$. In this case, the sequence $\mu_{0}^{ij}, \mu_{1}^{ij},\ldots \mu_{s}^{ij}$ ($s\ge 0$) includes all orientations of $\cM^{ij}$ that are legal for $i$ and $j$ given $\mu_{0}^{ij}$ in a given arbitrary multigraph $\cM$. If no deadlock arises for any initial orientation of the arcs between i and j, then $$\max \{r_{i},r_{j}\} \le e_{i,j} \le r_{i} + r_{j} - 1\ \quad \text{and}\ \quad f_{i,j} = r_{i} + r_{j} - gcd(r_{i},r_{j}).$$ It is important to remark that there is always at least one SMER solution for any target system’s topology having arbitrary pre-specified reversibilities at any of its nodes [@fr:weig]. According to Lemma \[lem:relations\], since $e_{i,j} = r_{i} + r_{j} - 1$, either $i$ or $j$ is in a $r$-sink condition, independently of $\mu_s, s \geq 0$. It may also be seen that, between all pairs of neighbouring nodes $i$ and $j$ in $\cM$, any SMER dynamics produces one unique period, given by the relation $P_{i,j} = (r_{i} + r_{j})/\gcd(r_{i},r_{j})$ [@FRA; @FR94]. This periodic property of SMER can be observed in Fig. \[fig:smer\], where $P_{i,j} = 8$ and the nodes in $\cM$ share values that are pairwise coprime integers: such pairs $(r_i,r_j)$ have no common divisors (except $1$). ![An example of SMER, with period $P_{i,j} = 8$. Oriented arcs are represented by tokens.[]{data-label="fig:smer"}](smer2) The Distributed Wheel Sieve Algorithm using SMER ================================================ Let $\cM = (V,\cE)$ be an arbitrary multigraph having $N$ nodes. For the sake of simplicity, the distributed algorithm is actually assumed to sieve the restricted interval $\{2\}\bigcup \{$odd integers in $[3,\ldots, n]$}, according to the parity of $n$. Such a SMER-based sieving algorithm is called [Semi-SMER]{}; this in contrast with the SMER dynamics described in Section 3, which considers the whole neighbourhood of any given node. The procedure [Semi-SMER]{} is designed for any current node process $i\in V$, and it uses local variables, defined as follows: - The interval $I$ is set to an exclusive value within $\{1,7,11, 13,17,19,23,29\}$. For example, when we make use of the third wheel $\cW_{3}$ in the algorithm, the interval $J$ is set to a value of $\Pi_{3}$ extended to $30 = 2\times 3\times 5$, $60 = 2\times 3^2\times 5$ and $90 = 2\times 3^3\times 5$. - Neigh$_i$ denotes the set of neighbours of process $i$, and the number of incoming arcs oriented from every $j\in$ Neigh$_i$ to the current process $i$ is denoted by the variable incoming$_i[j]$; - $r_{i}[j]$ denotes the required number of arcs that shall be reversed by $i$ towards every $j\in$ Neigh$_i$, independently. The variable $r_{i}[j]$ takes its values in the interval $I$, and the variable $r_{j}[i]$ takes its values in the interval $J$; - $e_{i}[j]$ denotes the number of undirected edges (both outgoing and incoming arcs) connecting every pair of neighbours $(i,j)$ in $\cM$ (see Fig. \[fig:smer\]); - $a_{i}[j]$ denotes the number of incoming arcs oriented from each $j\in$ Neigh$_i$ to $i$ in the initial orientation; - Process $i$ also maintains the boolean variables $rev\_arc_{i}[j]$ and $end\_period\_{i}[j]$. If, at the end of the [Semi-SMER]{} period, $rev\_arc_{i}[j]$ is true for $j\in$ Neigh$_i$, then $r_{i}[j]$ and $r_{j}[i]$ are coprime numbers ($(r_{i},r{j}) = 1$). The value of $end\_period\_{i}[j]$ checks whether the [Semi-SMER]{} between two nodes ended its execution or not; - $PseudoPrimes$ contains the numbers generated by the extended wheel that consists in the remaining prime numbers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \ \ \ $P_{i,j} = 0$\ $\cP$;\ $PseudoPrimes = 0$;\ $p_{k+1}$;\ $prime$: boolean [init]{} true;\ $incoming_{i}[j]$: integer;\ $rev\_arc_{i}[j]$: boolean [init]{} false;\ $end\_period_{i}[j]$: boolean [init]{} false;\ \ $r_{i}[j] \le r_{j}[i]$ Then\ $a_{i}[j] = r_{i}[j]$;\ $incoming_{i}[j] = r_{i}[j]$;\ $e_{i}[j] = r_{i}[j] + r_{j}[i]-1$;\ \ $a_{i}[j] = r_{i}[j] - 1 $;\ $incoming_{i}[j] = a_{i}[j]$;\ $e_{i}[j] = r_{i}[j]+r_{j}[i]-1$;\ \ $end\_period_{i}[j]$\ $incoming_{i}[j] \ge r_{i}[j]$ Then send message $\langle r_{i}[j]\rangle$ to $j \in Neigh_{i}$;\ $incoming_{i}[j] = incoming_{i}[j] - r_{i}[j] $;\ $P_{i,j} = P_{i,j} +1$;\ \ receive $\langle r_{j}[i]\rangle$ from $j \in Neigh_{i}$;\ $r_{i}[j]= incoming_{i}[j] + r_{j}[i] $;\ $P_{i,j} = P_{i,j} +1$;\ \ $incoming_{i}[j] = 0$ Then $rev\_arc_{i}[j] = true$; [EndIf]{}\ $incoming_{i}[j] = a_{i}[j]$ Then $end\_period_{i}[j] = true$; [EndIf]{}\ $PseudoPrimes = P_{i,j}$;\ $end\_period_{i}[j]$: boolean [init]{} false;\ \ $r_{i}[j] \le r_{j}[i]$ Then\ $a_{i}[j] = r_{i}[j]$;\ $incoming_{i}[j] = r_{i}[j]$;\ $e_{i}[j] = r_{i}[j] + r_{j}[i]-1$;\ \ $a_{i}[j] = r_{i}[j] - 1 $;\ $incoming_{i}[j] = a_{i}[j]$;\ $e_{i}[j]= r_{i}[j]+r_{j}[i]-1$;\ \ $end\_period_{i}[j]$\ $incoming_{i}[j] \ge r_{i}[j]$ Then send message $\langle r_{i}[j]\rangle$ to $j \in Neigh_{i}$;\ $incoming_{i}[j] = incoming_{i}[j] - r_{i}[j]$; receive $\langle r_{j}[i]\rangle$ from $j \in Neigh_{i}$;\ $r_{i}[j]= incoming_{i}[j] + r_{j}[i] $;\ \ $incoming_{i}[j] = 0$ Then $rev\_arc_{i}[j] = true$; [EndIf]{}\ $incoming_{i}[j] = a_{i}[j]$ Then $end\_period_{i}[j] = true$; [EndIf]{}\ \ $rev\_arc_{i}[j] = true$ Then $\cP \cup P_{i,j}$ [EndIf]{}\ $\cP$\ \ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ As pointed out, if we start initially the sieve with the third wheel there are eight processes, whose values are the numbers $\{1, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29\}$, that represent the values of $I$. The set $J$ is started in accordance with $N$; for example, if $N=230$, eight processes are needed, one for each value $\in J$. These values represent the multiples of $\Pi_{3}=30$. Beginning with these values (we consider that at the beginning, each process knows its identity), and after executing the [WheelSieve-SMER]{}, we obtain a set ($PseudoPrimes$) composed with the values of all periods spread in between the values of $I$ and $J$. There remains the operation of sieving the $PseudoPrimes$ set with $p_{k+1}$ in order to obtain $\cP$. Worst-Case complexity of the Algorithm ====================================== In order to sieve all primes from the interval $[2\ldots, n]$, the only fundamental operations explicitly used in the algorithm [Semi-SMER]{} are comparisons, additions and the sending and receiving of messages (arc reversals). Besides, a send-receive event and one comparison operation are assumed to take $\cO(1)$ number of time slots. The number of steps required by [Semi-SMER]{} is proportional to the period involved between any two nodes of $\cM$ during the algorithm. Now, the largest period $P_{i,j}$ follows from Lemma \[lem:relations\] and [@FRA]: $P_{i,j} = r_{i} + r_{j}$, when $(r_{i},r_{j}) = 1$. Since $r_{i}\le \lfloor \sqrt{n}\rfloor$ and $r_{j}\le n$, for any pair of nodes $(i,j)$, the procedure [Semi-SMER($n$)]{} requires at most $n + \lfloor \sqrt{n}\rfloor$ steps. Similarly, for any current pair of nodes $(i,j)$ of $\cM$ smaller than $\sqrt{n}$, the number of messages exchanged in the while loop is proportional to $P_{i,j}\times \mathrm{deg}_{i}$, with $\mathrm{deg}_{i} = \#$Neigh$_i$. Hence, if we let $P := \sup_{(i,j)\in V^2} P_{i,j}$ denote the largest period between all pairs $(i,j)\in V^2$, the maximum message complexity of the algorithm is proportional to $P\times \Delta_N$, where $1\le \Delta_N \le N - 1$ is the maximum multidegree of $\cM$. Finally, the message complexity achieves at most $n\Delta_N + \lfloor \sqrt{n}\rfloor \Delta_N$. The maximum amount of memory space required per process is $\cO(n)$ bits. Conclusion and Perspectives =========================== This paper introduced a totally new kind of SMER-based distributed sieve algorithm that generates all primes in a given interval $[2\ldots, n]$. Apart from observing that the fundamental operation of the [Semi-SMER]{} algorithm is a local comparison, it is also worth noticing that no $gcd$ computation is needed. Moreover, no precomputation is assumed in the [Semi-SMER]{} complexity analysis (precomputation would take $\cO\b(n\log\log \Pi_{k}\b)$, where $\Pi_{k}$ denotes the product of the first $k$ prime numbers, in the wheel sieve). This approach seems also general enough to compute some of the elementary arithmetic functions in number theory. For instance, using the gcd and inverse, the least common multiple of integers, and various basic multiplicative arithmetic functions, e.g. Euler’s totient function $\phi(n)$, Möbius function $\mu(n)$ and divisor functions: $d(n)$, $\sigma(n)$, $\omega(n)$, $\Omega(n)$, etc. Finally, it stems also from both computer-driven and theoretical results that the number of steps $T(n)$ executed by the algorithm stays always “very close” to the maximal number of steps. More precisely, $T(n) = n + \lfloor \sqrt{n}\rfloor - \varphi(n)$, where $\varphi(n)$ is a positive non periodic arithmetic function with rather small fluctuations when $n\ge 4$: we conjecture that $\varphi(n) < 5$ for “almost every” $n\ge 4$. Hence, for every $n\ge 4$, $\varphi(n)$ should yield an expected $\overline{\varphi(n)} = 2.47\ldots \pm\varepsilon_n$ for all $0\le \varepsilon_n < 1$, and the average number of steps required by the algorithm should then be expected to achieve $\overline{T(n)}\approx n + \lfloor \sqrt{n}\rfloor - 2.47\ldots$. \#1\#2\#3\#4[ [\#1.]{} [\#2]{}, \#3 \#4.]{} \#1\#2\#3\#4[ [\#1.]{} \#2, [\#3]{}, \#4.]{} [99]{} [^1]: Numbers that are not multiples of the first $k$ prime numbers.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'In “Self-adjoint Operators as Functions I: Lattices, Galois Connections, and the Spectral Order” [@DoeDew12a], it was shown that self-adjoint operators affiliated with a von Neumann algebra ${\mathcal{N}}$ can equivalently be described as certain real-valued functions on the projection lattice ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ of the algebra, which we call $q$-observable functions. Here, we show that $q$-observable functions can be interpreted as generalised quantile functions for quantum observables interpreted as random variables. More generally, when $L$ is a complete meet-semilattice, we show that $L$-valued cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) and the corresponding $L$-quantile functions form a Galois connection. An ordinary CDF can be written as an $L$-CDF composed with a state. For classical probability, one picks $L={{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$, the complete Boolean algebra of measurable subsets modulo null sets of a measurable space $\Omega$. For quantum probability, one uses $L={\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$, the projection lattice of a nonabelian von Neumann algebra ${\mathcal{N}}$. Moreover, using some constructions from the topos approach to quantum theory, we show that there is a joint sample space for all quantum observables, despite no-go results such as the Kochen-Specker theorem. Specifically, the spectral presheaf ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ of a von Neumann algebra ${\mathcal{N}}$, which is not a mere set, but a presheaf (i.e., a ‘varying set’), plays the role of the sample space. The relevant meet-semilattice in this case is $L={{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$, the complete bi-Heyting algebra of clopen subobjects of ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$. We show that using the spectral presheaf ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ and associated structures, quantum probability can be formulated in a way that is structurally very similar to classical probability.' address: - 'Andreas DöringClarendon LaboratoryDepartment of PhysicsUniversity of OxfordParks RoadOxford OX1 3PU, UK' - 'Barry DewittDepartment of Engineering and Public PolicyCarnegie Mellon University5000 Forbes AvenuePittsburgh, PA, 15213USA' author: - Andreas Döring - Barry Dewitt date: 'December 5, 2013' title: \| Self-adjoint Operators as Functions II:\ Quantum Probability --- Keywords: Von Neumann algebra, random variable, quantum probability, projection-valued measure, cumulative distribution function, quantile function Introduction ============ Let ${\mathcal{N}}$ be a von Neumann algebra, let ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ be its projection lattice, and let ${\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ denote the extended reals. A $q$-observable function is a function $$o:{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}{\longrightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$$ that preserves joins and is characterised by two simple properties: (a) $o({{\hat P}})>-\infty$ for all non-zero projections ${{\hat P}}\in{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$, and (b) there is a family $({{\hat P}}_i)_{i\in I}\subseteq{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ with ${\bigvee}_{i\in I}{{\hat P}}_i=\hat 1$ such that $o({{\hat P}}_i)\lneq\infty$ for all $i\in I$. Nothing in this description alludes to linear self-adjoint operators, but each $q$-observable function determines a unique self-adjoint operator affiliated with ${\mathcal{N}}$ and vice versa, as was shown in “Self-adjoint Operators as Functions I: Lattices, Galois Connections, and the Spectral Order” [@DoeDew12a] (in the following called Part I). In section \[Sec\_ResultsPartI\], we recall some results of Part I that will play a role in this article. In section \[Sec\_qObsFctsAndProbab\], we provide an interpretation of $q$-observable functions in terms of probability theory. They turn out to be quantile functions of projection-valued measures arising from self-adjoint operators. Some general theory of quantile functions with values in a complete meet-semilattice $L$ is developed and applied to quantum probability theory, extending the usual description of quantum probability based on structures in nonabelian von Neumann algebras. An even closer relationship and structural similarity between classical and quantum probability is established in section \[Sec\_QProbabAndSigma\] by showing that there is a joint sample space for all quantum observables in the form of the spectral presheaf of a von Neumann algebra, notwithstanding no-go results such as the Kochen-Specker theorem. The latter only applies to sample spaces which are sets, while we consider ‘generalised sets’ in the form of presheaves. We will show how random variables, probability measures, cumulative distribution functions and quantile functions can be formulated in a presheaf-based perspective, with the spectral presheaf taking the role of the sample space. Section \[Sec\_Summary\] concludes and gives a short outlook on future work. Some results of Part I {#Sec_ResultsPartI} ====================== In order to make the present article largely self-contained, we briefly introduce some definitions and summarise some results of Part I that are relevant for the following sections. For more details and proofs, please see Part I [@DoeDew12a]. Self-adjoint operators and $q$-observable functions. Let ${\mathcal{N}}$ be a von Neumann algebra, and let ${{\hat A}}$ be a self-adjoint operator affiliated with ${\mathcal{N}}$. If ${{\hat A}}$ is bounded, then it lies in ${\mathcal{N}}_{{\operatorname{sa}}}$, the self-adjoint operators in ${\mathcal{N}}$. The set of self-adjoint operators affiliated with ${\mathcal{N}}$ is denoted $SA({\mathcal{N}})$. Clearly, ${\mathcal{N}}_{{\operatorname{sa}}}\subset SA({\mathcal{N}})$. A $q$-observable function on ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ is a function $$o:{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}{\longrightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$$ from the projections in ${\mathcal{N}}$ to the extended reals ${\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}={\mathbb{R}}\cup\{-\infty,\infty\}$ that preserves joins[^1] such that - $o({{\hat P}})>-\infty$ for all non-zero projections ${{\hat P}}\in{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$, - there is a family $({{\hat P}}_i)_{i\in I}\subseteq{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ with ${\bigvee}_{i\in I}{{\hat P}}_i=\hat 1$ such that $o({{\hat P}}_i)\lneq\infty$ for all $i\in I$. The set of all $q$-observable functions on ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ is denoted $QO({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})},{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}})$. In [@DoeDew12a], it was shown that there is a bijection $$SA({\mathcal{N}}) {\longrightarrow}QO({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})},{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}})$$ between self-adjoint operators affiliated with ${\mathcal{N}}$ and $q$-observable functions. This works in two steps: a self-adjoint operator ${{\hat A}}\in SA({\mathcal{N}})$ has a right-continuous spectral family ${E^{{{\hat A}}}}:{\mathbb{R}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ that can canonically be extended to the extended reals ${\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ by setting ${{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_{-\infty}:=\hat 0$ and ${{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_{\infty}=\hat 1$. Then $${E^{{{\hat A}}}}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\longrightarrow}{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$$ is a monotone function between complete meet-semilattices which preserves all meets, so by the adjoint functor theorem for posets (see e.g. Example 9.33 in [@Awo10] or Thm. 2.5 in [@DoeDew12a]), ${E^{{{\hat A}}}}$ has a left adjoint $$\begin{aligned} {o^{{{\hat A}}}}:{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}&{\longrightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\\ \nonumber {{\hat P}}&{\longmapsto}\inf\{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\mid {{\hat P}}\leq{{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_r\}.\end{aligned}$$ It is straightforward to show that ${o^{{{\hat A}}}}$ is a $q$-observable function. Conversely, a $q$-observable function $o$ has a right adjoint ${E^o}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$, which can be shown to be a right-continuous extended spectral family ${E^{{{\hat A}}}}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$. For details, see Prop. 3.7 and Thm. 3.8 in [@DoeDew12a]. If ${o^{{{\hat A}}}}$ is the $q$-observable function corresponding to some self-adjoint operator ${{\hat A}}$ and ${\mathcal{P}_0({\mathcal{N}})}$ denotes the non-zero projections in ${\mathcal{N}}$, then $${o^{{{\hat A}}}}({\mathcal{P}_0({\mathcal{N}})})={\operatorname{sp}}{{\hat A}},$$ as shown in Lemma 3.12 of [@DoeDew12a]. Clearly, the operator ${{\hat A}}$ is bounded if and only if ${o^{{{\hat A}}}}({\mathcal{P}_0({\mathcal{N}})})$ is compact. Thus, the bounded self-adjoint operators in ${\mathcal{N}}_{{\operatorname{sa}}}$ correspond bijectively to the $q$-observable functions with compact image on non-zero projections (see Prop. 3.15 in [@DoeDew12a]). Spectral order. The set $SA({\mathcal{N}})$ can be equipped with the spectral order [@Ols71; @deG04]: let ${{\hat A}},{\hat B}\in SA({\mathcal{N}})$, then $${{\hat A}}\leq_s{\hat B}\quad:\Longleftrightarrow\quad (\forall r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}:{{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_r\geq\hat E^{{\hat B}}_r).$$ One can show that $(SA({\mathcal{N}}),\leq_s)$ is a conditionally complete lattice. Moreover, the set $QO({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})},{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}})$ of $q$-observable functions can be equipped with the pointwise order, which also makes it a conditionally complete lattice. As shown in Prop. 3.9 in Part I, there is an order-isomorphism $$\begin{aligned} \phi:(SA({\mathcal{N}}),\leq_s) &{\longrightarrow}(QO({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})},{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}),\leq)\\ \nonumber {{\hat A}}&{\longmapsto}{o^{{{\hat A}}}},\end{aligned}$$ that is, the spectral order on self-adjoint operators corresponds to the pointwise order on $q$-observable functions. Rescalings. If $f:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ is a join-preserving function, then, for all ${{\hat A}}\in SA({\mathcal{N}})$, it holds that $$o^{f({{\hat A}})}=f({o^{{{\hat A}}}}),$$ which provides a limited form of functional calculus for $q$-observable functions (see Thm. 4.7 in [@DoeDew12a]). Physically, such a function $f$ can be interpreted as an (order-preserving) rescaling of the values of outcomes. In simple cases, this corresponds to a change of units, e.g. from $^\circ C$ to $^\circ F$. $q$-observable functions and probability theory {#Sec_qObsFctsAndProbab} =============================================== Subsection \[Subsec\_ClassProbab\] provides a very brief recap of some mathematical structures in classical probability theory, including cumulative distribution functions (CDFs, given by càdlàgs) and quantile functions. As far as we are aware, the observation that a CDF and the corresponding quantile function form a Galois connection is new. In subsection \[Subsec\_LValuedMeasures\], we consider more general measures with values in a complete meet-semilattice $L$ and define the new notions of $L$-CDFs and $L$-quantile functions, which again are related to each other by an adjunction (i.e., a Galois connection). The generalisation to $L$-valued measures and associated notions is useful in quantum theory, where one deals with projection-valued measures, and also serves as a preparation for section \[Sec\_QProbabAndSigma\], where we will consider measures taking values in a certain complete bi-Heyting algebra of clopen subobjects of a presheaf. The step to quantum theory and noncommutative probability is taken in subsection \[Subsec\_QProbab\]. We present some standard material on the use of von Neumann algebras in classical and quantum probability and show that $q$-observable functions are ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$-quantile functions for ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$-valued measures, adding an aspect to the established picture. Spectral families play the role of ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$-CDFs. We emphasise the role of the Gelfand spectrum as a sample space in the commutative case, because the spectral presheaf that will be introduced in section \[Sec\_QProbabAndSigma\] is a generalisation of the Gelfand spectrum to nonabelian von Neumann algebras and will serve as a joint sample space for all (noncommuting) quantum random variables. Basic structures in classical probability {#Subsec_ClassProbab} ----------------------------------------- We first describe some basic structures in classical probability theory. There are many good references, though quantile functions are not treated in some standard texts. For these, see e.g. [@Was04; @Gil00]. Let $(\Omega,{{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega),\mu)$ be a measure space, where $\Omega$ is a non-empty set, ${{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$ is a $\sigma$-algebra of $\mu$-measurable subsets of $\Omega$, and $\mu$ is a probability measure. The elements of ${{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$ are called events, and $\Omega$ is called the sample space of the system. The probability measure $\mu$ is a map $\mu:{{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega){\rightarrow}[0,1]$ such that $\mu(\Omega)=1$, and for all countable families $(S_i)_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}}\subset B(\Omega)$ of pairwise disjoint events, it holds that $$\mu(\bigcup_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}}S_i)=\sum_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}}\mu(S_i).$$ A random variable is a measurable function $A:\Omega{\rightarrow}{{\operatorname{im}}}A\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}$. Conceptually, the inverse image function $A^{-1}$ is more important. Since $A$ is measurable, we have $$A^{-1}({\Delta})\in{{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$$ for every Borel subset ${\Delta}$ of ${\mathbb{R}}$. In this way, $A^{-1}$ maps measurable subsets of numerical outcomes to measurable subsets of the sample space. The cumulative distribution function (CDF) $C^A$ of a random variable $A$ with respect to a given probability measure $\mu$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned} \label{Def_CA} C^A:{\mathbb{R}}&{\longrightarrow}[0,1]\\ \nonumber r &{\longmapsto}\mu(A^{-1}(-\infty,r]).\end{aligned}$$ We can canonically extend $C^A$ to a function from the extended reals ${\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ to $[0,1]$ by setting $C^A(-\infty):=0$ and $C^A(\infty):=1$. Clearly, an extended CDF is uniquely determined by its restriction to ${\mathbb{R}}$, so we will not distinguish between CDFs (defined on ${\mathbb{R}}$) and extended CDFs (defined on ${\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$) notationally. In the following, CDF will always mean extended CDF unless mentioned otherwise. The measure $\mu$ assigns probability weights to all events $S\in{{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$. Consider the event representing the random variable $A$ having values not exceeding $r$, which is $A^{-1}((-\infty,r])$. Then $C^A(r)$ is the probability weight of this event. So, roughly speaking, the value $C^A(r)$ of the CDF at $r$ expresses the probability that $A$ has a value not exceeding $r$. It is obvious that a CDF $C^A:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}[0,1]$ is order-preserving and right-continuous. Moreover, $\lim_{r{\rightarrow}-\infty}C^A(r)=0$ and $\lim_{r{\rightarrow}\infty}C^A(r)=1$. This means that CDFs are examples of càdlàg functions (also simply called càdlàgs), which stands for continue à droite, limite à gauche.[^2] We observe that each CDF $C^A:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}[0,1]$ on the extended reals is a map between complete meet-semilattices that preserves all meets and hence has a left adjoint $$\begin{aligned} q^A:[0,1] &{\longrightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\\ \nonumber p &{\longmapsto}\inf\{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\mid C^A(r)\geq p\}.\end{aligned}$$ This function is well-known: it is the quantile function of $A$ with respect to $\mu$. The existence of the Galois connection between a CDF $C^A$ and the corresponding quantile function $q^A$ seems to have been overlooked in the literature, though it is implicit in the usual treatments. The adjunction is available because $C^A$ can canonically be extended to ${\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$, which makes $C^A:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}[0,1]$ into a meet-preserving map between complete meet-semilattices and allows us to employ the adjoint functor theorem for posets (see e.g. [@Awo10; @DoeDew12a]). The left adjoint $q^A:[0,1]{\rightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ preserves all joins, i.e., suprema. (Recall that each complete meet-semilattice is also a complete join-semilattice.) Usually, $q^A$ is defined as a function from $(0,1)$ to ${\mathbb{R}}$ that is left-continuous. Leaving out the probabilities $0$ and $1$ is artificial. The property of left-continuity of a quantile function becomes a simple consequence of the existence of the Galois connection: being a left adjoint, the quantile function $q^A$ preserves joins, so in particular $$\forall p\in [0,1]: \sup_{s<p} q^A(s) = q^A(\sup_{s<p} s) = q^A(p).$$ Note that since $C^A(-\infty)=0$, we have $q^A(0)=-\infty$. For any $p>0$, it holds that $q^A(p)\gneq-\infty$, and $q^A(1)=\inf\{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\mid C^A(r)\geq 1\}=\sup({{\operatorname{im}}}A)$. The function $q^A$ assigns to each probability $p\in (0,1]$ the smallest value $r$ (which is easily seen to lie in the image of the random variable $A$) such that the probability of $A$ having a value not exceeding $r$ is (at least) $p$. Intuitively speaking, the quantile function $q^A$ is the ‘inverse’ of the CDF $C^A$. $L$-valued measures, $L$-CDFs and $L$-quantile functions {#Subsec_LValuedMeasures} -------------------------------------------------------- Let $(\Omega,{{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega))$ be a measurable space, and let $A:\Omega{\rightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ be a random variable as before (where ${{\operatorname{im}}}A\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}\subset{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$). We want to define a function ${\tilde C^A}$ similar to the cumulative distribution function $C^A:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}[0,1]$, but without any reference to a probability measure $\mu$. To this end, we think of the inverse image $A^{-1}$ of the random variable as a ‘${{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$-valued measure’. We will see that it is advantageous to assume that ${{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$ is a complete Boolean algebra, not just a $\sigma$-complete one. A standard result shows that if ${{\mathcal{B}}}_{\sigma}(\Omega)$ is a $\sigma$-complete Boolean algebra, and if one is given a probability measure $\mu:{{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega){\rightarrow}[0,1]$, then $${{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega) := {{\mathcal{B}}}_{\sigma}(\Omega)/{\mathcal{N}}(\Omega)$$ is a complete Boolean algebra, where ${\mathcal{N}}(\Omega)$ denotes the subsets of measure $0$ with respect to $\mu$. In fact, for quantum theory we will consider more general lattices $L$ than just complete Boolean algebras of the form ${{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$. For the generalised notions of CDFs and quantile functions, we merely need that $L$ is a complete meet-semilattice (and hence also is a complete join-semilattice). $L$ need not be distributive. We equip the extended reals ${\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ with the topology generated by the set ${{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}}$ itself and by the intervals $(r,s)$, where $r,s\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$, $r\leq s$ and $(r,r)=\emptyset$ by convention. The relative topology of ${\mathbb{R}}\subset{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ is the standard topology on ${\mathbb{R}}$. By ${{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}})$, we denote the $\sigma$-complete Boolean algebra of Borel subsets of ${\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$. Let ${{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$ be a complete Boolean algebra of (equivalence classes of) subsets of a set $\Omega$, and let $A^{-1}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}){\rightarrow}{{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$ be the inverse image of a random variable $A:\Omega{\rightarrow}{{\operatorname{im}}}A\subset{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ such that $A^{-1}$ preserves all existing meets. The ${{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$-cumulative distribution function (${{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$-CDF) ${\tilde C^A}$ of $A^{-1}$ is the function $$\begin{aligned} \label{Def_tCAForB(Om)} {\tilde C^A}: {\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}&{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)\\ \nonumber r &{\longmapsto}A^{-1}([-\infty,r]).\end{aligned}$$ More generally, we can replace ${{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$ in the definition above by a complete meet-semilattice $L$, and assume that $A^{-1}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}){\rightarrow}L$ preserves all existing meets. This implies in particular that $$A^{-1}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}})=A^{-1}({\bigwedge}\emptyset)={\bigwedge}\emptyset=\top_L,$$ the top element of $L$. Moreover, $$A^{-1}(\emptyset)=A^{-1}({\bigwedge}_{S\in{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}})} S)={\bigwedge}_{S\in{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}})} A^{-1}(S)\supseteq{\bigwedge}_{T\in L} T=\bot_L,$$ the bottom element of $L$. We assume that $A^{-1}$ is such that $A^{-1}(\emptyset)=\bot_L$. This generalises the classical case: if $L={{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$, then $A^{-1}(\emptyset)=\emptyset=\bot_{{{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)}$. $A^{-1}$ is interpreted as an $L$-valued measure, and the $L$-CDF of $A^{-1}$ is the function $$\begin{aligned} \label{Def_L-CDF} {\tilde C^A}: {\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}&{\longrightarrow}L\\ \nonumber r &{\longmapsto}A^{-1}([-\infty,r]).\end{aligned}$$ Note that here, $A^{-1}$ is a symbolic notation, since there may be no function $A$ such that $A^{-1}$ is its inverse image function. In the definition of ${\tilde C^A}$, we can include $-\infty$ in the interval $[-\infty,r]$, since $A^{-1}$ is defined on ${{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}})$, the Borel subsets of ${\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ (and not just on ${{\mathcal{B}}}({\mathbb{R}})$, the Borel subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}$). Let $(r_i)_{i\in I}\subseteq{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ be an arbitrary net of extended real numbers. It is easy to see that $$\label{Eq_InfsToIntersects} [-\infty,\inf_{i\in I} r_i] = \bigcap_{i\in I} [-\infty,r_i] \in {{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}).$$ In particular, the meet (intersection) on the right-hand side exists in the $\sigma$-complete Boolean algebra ${{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}})$ even if $I$ is an uncountable index set or net. The assumption that $A^{-1}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}){\rightarrow}{{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$ preserves all existing meets means that $$\label{Eq_A-1(Meet)IsMeet(A-1)} A^{-1}(\bigcap_{i\in I} S_i) = {\bigwedge}_{i\in I} A^{-1}(S_i)$$ for all families $(S_i)_{i\in I}\subseteq{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}})$ such that $\bigcap_{i\in I} S_i\in{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}})$. In particular, $$\label{Eq_AInversePresMeets} A^{-1}([-\infty,\inf_{i\in I} r_i]) \stackrel{{(\ref{Eq_InfsToIntersects})}}{=} A^{-1}(\bigcap_{i\in I}[-\infty,r_i]) \stackrel{{(\ref{Eq_A-1(Meet)IsMeet(A-1)})}}{=} {\bigwedge}_{i\in I} A^{-1}([-\infty,r_i]).$$ Let $L$ be a complete meet-semilattice, and let $A^{-1}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}){\rightarrow}L$ be an $L$-valued measure that preserves all existing meets. Then the $L$-CDF ${\tilde C^A}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}L$ of $A^{-1}$ preserves all meets. We have, for all families $(r_i)_{i\in I}\subseteq{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$, $$\begin{aligned} {\tilde C^A}(\inf_{i\in I} r_i) &= A^{-1}([-\infty,\inf_{i\in I} r_i])\\ &\stackrel{{(\ref{Eq_AInversePresMeets})}}{=} {\bigwedge}_{i\in I} A^{-1}([-\infty,r_i])\\ &= {\bigwedge}_{i\in I} {\tilde C^A}(r_i).\end{aligned}$$ Here we make use of the fact that ${\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ is a complete meet-semilattice, while ${{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}})$ is just $\sigma$-complete. Since ${\tilde C^A}$ preserves meets, it has a left adjoint: Let ${\tilde C^A}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}L$ be the $L$-CDF of an $L$-valued measure $A^{-1}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}){\rightarrow}L$. The $L$-quantile function ${\tilde q^A}$ of $A^{-1}$ is the left adjoint of ${\tilde C^A}$, $$\begin{aligned} {\tilde q^A}: L &{\longrightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\\ \nonumber T &{\longmapsto}\inf\{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\mid T\leq{\tilde C^A}(r)\}.\end{aligned}$$ The map ${\tilde q^A}$ between the complete join-semilattices $L$ and ${\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ preserves all joins by the adjoint functor theorem for posets. Relation to standard CDFs and quantile functions. Let $A:\Omega{\rightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ be a random variable, and let $A^{-1}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}){\rightarrow}{{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$ be the corresponding ${{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$-valued measure. If ${\tilde C^A}$ is the ${{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$-CDF of $A^{-1}$, and $\mu:{{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega){\rightarrow}[0,1]$ is a probability measure, then the usual CDF of $A$ with respect to $\mu$ is $$C^A=\mu\circ{\tilde C^A}: {\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega) {\longrightarrow}[0,1],$$ as can be seen from the definition of ${\tilde C^A}$, [(\[Def\_tCAForB(Om)\])]{}, and the definition of $C^A$, [(\[Def\_CA\])]{}. (Note that now $A^{-1}$ is defined on ${{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}})$, not just on ${{\mathcal{B}}}({\mathbb{R}})$ as in [(\[Def\_CA\])]{}, so we can write $A^{-1}([-\infty,r])$ instead of $A^{-1}((-\infty,r])$.) This generalises directly to the situation of $L$-valued measures $A^{-1}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}){\rightarrow}L$ and probability measures $\mu: L {\rightarrow}[0,1]$; for these we have the decomposition $$\label{Eq_CDFDecomposed} C^A=\mu\circ{\tilde C^A}: {\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\longrightarrow}L {\longrightarrow}[0,1]$$ of the usual CDF $C^A$ into the $L$-CDF ${\tilde C^A}$, followed by the probability measure $\mu$. We had assumed that $A^{-1}$ is meet-preserving, which implies that ${\tilde C^A}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}L$ is meet-preserving as well. Hence, a CDF $C^A$ is a meet-preserving map if and only if $\mu\|_{{{\operatorname{im}}}{\tilde C^A}}:L{\rightarrow}[0,1]$ preserves all meets. This can be seen as a regularity condition on the measure $\mu$. If the probability measure $\mu$ preserves meets, then it has a left adjoint $$\begin{aligned} \kappa: [0,1] &{\longrightarrow}L\\ \nonumber s &{\longmapsto}{\bigwedge}\{T\in L \mid s\leq\mu(T)\}.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, in this case $C^A=\mu\circ{\tilde C^A}$ preserves meets, so it has a left adjoint $q^A:[0,1]{\rightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$, the quantile function of the random variable $A$ with respect to the measure $\mu$. Clearly, $q^A$ can be decomposed into two left adjoints as $$\label{Eq_QuantFctDecomposed} q^A={\tilde q^A}\circ\kappa.$$ Quantum probability and projection-valued measures {#Subsec_QProbab} -------------------------------------------------- The quantum analogue of a random variable $A$ is usually taken to be a bounded self-adjoint operator ${{\hat A}}:{\mathcal{H}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{H}}$ on a Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$. We briefly recall, without proofs, how this connects with the classical case, where a random variable $A:\Omega{\rightarrow}{\mathbb{R}}$ is a measurable function from a sample space $\Omega$ to the reals. Good references are [@KR83; @Rud73]. The article [@RedSum07] gives a nice general introduction to quantum probability. Classical probability and abelian von Neumann algebras. Let $\Omega$ be a measure space that is either discrete (that is, a finite or countable set, equipped with the counting measure), continuous (that is, isomorphic to $[0,1]$, equipped with the Lebesgue measure), or of mixed type, with a discrete and a continuous part. Let $L^\infty(\Omega)$ be the Banach space of equivalence classes (modulo measure-zero subsets) of complex, bounded, measurable functions on $\Omega$, with the essential supremum as norm. This is an abelian Banach algebra under pointwise multiplication, and in fact is an abelian von Neumann algebra. Moreover, every abelian von Neumann algebra is isomorphic to an algebra of the form $L^\infty(\Omega)$ for $\Omega$ a measure space of one of the types listed above. Let $\Sigma$ denote the Gelfand spectrum of $L^\infty(\Omega)$. By Gelfand duality, there is an isometric $$-isomorphism $$L^\infty(\Omega)\simeq C(\Sigma).$$ Note that the Gelfand topology on $\Sigma$ is such that the equivalence classes of measurable functions on $\Omega$ correspond to continuous functions on $\Sigma$. The spectrum $\Sigma$ is an extremely disconnected compact Hausdorff space in the Gelfand topology, that is, the closure of each open set is open, and the interior of each closed set is closed. The clopen, i.e., closed and open subsets of $\Sigma$ form a complete (not just $\sigma$-complete) Boolean algebra ${{\mathcal{C}}l}(\Sigma)$. Hence, we can view the real-valued elements in $C(\Sigma)$, which are the Gelfand transforms of the real-valued elements in $L^\infty(\Omega)$, as random variables. The Gelfand spectrum $\Sigma$ is their joint sample space, with the clopen subsets ${{\mathcal{C}}l}(\Sigma)$ as measurable subsets. Since $C(\Sigma)$ is an abelian $C^$-algebra, it can be represented faithfully by a $C^$-algebra $V$ of bounded operators on a Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$, and as $C(\Sigma)$ is weakly closed, i.e., a von Neumann algebra, so is $V$. Let ${\overline{A}}$ be a real-valued function in $C(\Sigma)$, and let ${{\hat A}}$ be the corresponding self-adjoint operator in $V$. Then $$\begin{aligned} {\overline{A}}:\Sigma &{\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{sp}}{{\hat A}}\\ \nonumber {\lambda}&{\longmapsto}{\overline{A}}({\lambda}):={\lambda}({{\hat A}}).\end{aligned}$$ The random variable ${\overline{A}}$ has $\Sigma$ as its sample space and ${\operatorname{sp}}{{\hat A}}$ as its set of outcomes. Of course, one can equivalently regard the bounded self-adjoint operator ${{\hat A}}$ as the representative of the random variable. The smallest abelian von Neumann algebra that contains a given bounded self-adjoint operator ${{\hat A}}$ is ${V_{{{\hat A}}}}:=\{{{\hat A}},\hat 1\}''$, the double commutant of the set $\{{{\hat A}},\hat 1\}$. In this case, the random variable $$\begin{aligned} {\overline{A}}:\Sigma_{{V_{{{\hat A}}}}} &{\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{sp}}{{\hat A}}\\ \nonumber {\lambda}&{\longmapsto}{\lambda}({{\hat A}}).\end{aligned}$$ is a bijection. Intuitively, the sample space $\Sigma_{{V_{{{\hat A}}}}}$ is the smallest one that can accommodate the random variable ${\overline{A}}$. If $V\supset{V_{{{\hat A}}}}$ is any bigger abelian von Neumann algebra that contains ${{\hat A}}$, the random variable ${\overline{A}}:\Sigma_V{\rightarrow}{\operatorname{sp}}{{\hat A}}$ is a surjective, but not an injective map. If we consider a random variable in the form of a bounded self-adjoint operator ${{\hat A}}$, lying in the abelian von Neumann algebra ${V_{{{\hat A}}}}$, then the spectral theorem shows that the ‘inverse image’ of this random variable is the well-known projection-valued spectral measure $${e^{\hat A}}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\operatorname{sp}}{{\hat A}}) {\longrightarrow}{\mathcal{P}}({V_{{{\hat A}}}}),$$ sending Borel sets of numerical outcomes (i.e., values in the spectrum of ${{\hat A}}$) to projections in ${V_{{{\hat A}}}}$. In the notation of subsection \[Subsec\_LValuedMeasures\], ${e^{\hat A}}$ is a ${\mathcal{P}}({V_{{{\hat A}}}})$-valued measure. $L={\mathcal{P}}({V_{{{\hat A}}}})$ is a complete Boolean algebra, so in particular, it is a complete meet-semilattice. If $V$ is some abelian von Neumann algebra such that $V\supset{V_{{{\hat A}}}}$, then there is a spectral measure ${e^{\hat A}}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\operatorname{sp}}{{\hat A}}){\rightarrow}{{\mathcal{P}}(V)}$, given by $${e^{\hat A}}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\operatorname{sp}}{{\hat A}}) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{P}}({V_{{{\hat A}}}}) \hookrightarrow {{\mathcal{P}}(V)},$$ where ${\mathcal{P}}({V_{{{\hat A}}}}) \hookrightarrow {{\mathcal{P}}(V)}$ is the inclusion of the complete Boolean algebra ${\mathcal{P}}({V_{{{\hat A}}}})$ into the complete Boolean algebra ${{\mathcal{P}}(V)}$. This inclusion preserves all meets and joins (see e.g. Lemma 1 in [@DoeDew12a]). For each abelian von Neumann algebra $V$, there is an isomorphism of complete Boolean algebras $$\begin{aligned} \label{Def_alphaV} \alpha_V:{{\mathcal{P}}(V)}&{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal{C}}l}(\Sigma_V)\\ \nonumber {{\hat P}}&{\longmapsto}\{{\lambda}\in\Sigma_V \mid {\lambda}({{\hat P}})=1\}.\end{aligned}$$ Using this, the spectral measure ${e^{\hat A}}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\operatorname{sp}}{{\hat A}}){\rightarrow}{{\mathcal{P}}(V)}$ can also be regarded as a map $${e^{\hat A}}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\operatorname{sp}}{{\hat A}}) {\rightarrow}{{\mathcal{P}}(V)}{\rightarrow}{{\mathcal{C}}l}(\Sigma_V),$$ taking values in the clopen (that is, measurable) subsets of the sample space $\Sigma_V$, the Gelfand spectrum of $V$. We extend the domain of ${e^{\hat A}}$ canonically to ${{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}})$ by $$\label{Def_SpecMeasOnExtendedReals} \forall {\Delta}\in{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}): {e^{\hat A}}({\Delta}):={e^{\hat A}}({\Delta}\cap{\operatorname{sp}}{{\hat A}}).$$ Written in this form, ${e^{\hat A}}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}){\rightarrow}{{\mathcal{C}}l}(\Sigma_V)$ is indeed the inverse image of the random variable ${\overline{A}}:\Sigma_V{\rightarrow}{\operatorname{sp}}{{\hat A}}\subset{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$. In the notation of subsection \[Subsec\_LValuedMeasures\], ${e^{\hat A}}$ is a ${{\mathcal{C}}l}(\Sigma_V)$-valued measure. $L={{\mathcal{C}}l}(\Sigma_V)$ is a complete Boolean algebra, so in particular it is a complete meet-semilattice, with meets given by $$\forall (S_i)_{i\in I}\subseteq{{\mathcal{C}}l}(\Sigma_V): {\bigwedge}_{i\in I} S_i = {\operatorname{int}} \bigcap_{i\in I} S_i.$$ This is clearly an open set, and it is also closed since it is the interior of a closed set and $\Sigma_V$ is extremely disconnected. Noncommutative probability and nonabelian von Neumann algebras.* So far, we have simply rewritten some aspects of classical probability (sample space, random variables and their inverse images) leading to a formulation with self-adjoint operators and abelian von Neumann algebras. The step to noncommutative quantum probability is taken by considering nonabelian von Neumann algebras. Self-adjoint operators still represent random variables, and the spectral theorem holds such that we can speak of the inverse images of random variables, in the form of spectral measures ${e^{\hat A}}$. In fact, the spectral measure of a self-adjoint operator ${{\hat A}}$ in the noncommutative case is the composite $${e^{\hat A}}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{P}}({V_{{{\hat A}}}}) \hookrightarrow {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})},$$ where ${\mathcal{P}}({V_{{{\hat A}}}})\hookrightarrow{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ is the inclusion of the complete Boolean algebra ${\mathcal{P}}({V_{{{\hat A}}}})$ into the complete orthomodular lattice ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$. This inclusion preserves all meets and joins. ${e^{\hat A}}$ is a ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$-valued measure in the noncommutative case. $L={\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ is a complete orthomodular lattice, so in particular it is a complete meet-semilattice. Yet, what is not immediate in the nonabelian case is a suitable generalisation of the sample space in the form of the Gelfand spectrum $\Sigma_V$ of an abelian von Neumann algebra $V$. In section \[Sec\_QProbabAndSigma\], we will show that such a joint sample space for all quantum random variables exists. It is given by the so-called spectral presheaf ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ of a nonabelian von Neumann algebra ${\mathcal{N}}$. For now, we focus on the usual projection-valued measures of the form ${e^{\hat A}}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}){\rightarrow}{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$. Here, the Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$ on which the algebra ${\mathcal{N}}$ is represented plays the role analogous to the sample space of the system, with the closed subspaces corresponding to the projections in ${\mathcal{N}}$ playing the role of measurable subsets. Different from the abelian case, the subspaces (respectively projections) do not form a Boolean algebra, but a non-distributive orthomodular lattice. The right-continuous spectral family ${E^{{{\hat A}}}}$ of the self-adjoint operator ${{\hat A}}\in{\mathcal{N}}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} {E^{{{\hat A}}}}:{\mathbb{R}}&{\longrightarrow}{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}\\ \nonumber r &{\longmapsto}{e^{\hat A}}((-\infty,r]).\end{aligned}$$ As in Part I [@DoeDew12a], we can extend the domain of ${E^{{{\hat A}}}}$ canonically to the extended reals ${\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ by defining ${{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_{-\infty}:=\hat 0$ and ${{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_{\infty}:=\hat 1$. Then $$\begin{aligned} {E^{{{\hat A}}}}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}&{\longrightarrow}{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}\\ \nonumber r &{\longmapsto}{e^{\hat A}}([-\infty,r]).\end{aligned}$$ It is now obvious that the extended spectral family ${E^{{{\hat A}}}}$ is the ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$-cumulative distribution function (${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$-CDF) of the projection-valued measure ${e^{\hat A}}$, in the sense of [(\[Def\_L-CDF\])]{}. This leads to the probabilistic interpretation of the $q$-observable function $${o^{{{\hat A}}}}:{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}{\longrightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$$ of ${{\hat A}}$: as the left adjoint of ${E^{{{\hat A}}}}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$, it is the ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$-quantile function of the quantum random variable described by the ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$-valued measure ${e^{\hat A}}$. The fact that ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ is not a Boolean algebra as in the classical case is irrelevant, since the definition of the left adjoint of ${E^{{{\hat A}}}}$ does not depend on distributivity. We just need that $L={\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ is a complete meet-semilattice. The observation that quantum random variables have quantile functions, in the form of left adjoints of their spectral families, is new as far as we are aware. Just like the spectral measure ${e^{\hat A}}$ and the spectral family ${E^{{{\hat A}}}}$, the $q$-observable function ${o^{{{\hat A}}}}$ characterises the quantum random variable ${{\hat A}}$ completely (cf. Thm. 3 in Part I [@DoeDew12a]). States as probability measures on projections. The projection-valued measure ${e^{\hat A}}$ of the quantum random variable ${{\hat A}}$ is not the analogue of the probability measure $\mu:{{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega){\rightarrow}[0,1]$ in the classical case. Rather, the quantum version of a probability measure is provided by a state of the quantum system. As the generalised version of Gleason’s theorem [@Mae90] shows, each quantum state $\rho:{\mathcal{N}}{\rightarrow}{\mathbb{C}}$ is equivalently given by a map $$\mu_\rho:{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}{\rightarrow}[0,1]$$ such that - $\mu_\rho(\hat 1)=1$, - for ${{\hat P}},{\hat Q}\in{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ such that ${{\hat P}}{\hat Q}={\hat Q}{{\hat P}}=\hat 0$, it holds that $\mu_\rho({{\hat P}}+{\hat Q})=\mu_\rho({{\hat P}})+\mu_\rho({\hat Q})$. Such a map $\mu_\rho$ is called a finitely additive probability measure on projections. If $\mu_\rho$ is completely additive, then the corresponding state $\rho$ is normal. The state $\rho$ and the measure $\mu_\rho$ are related in the following way: $$\mu_\rho=\rho\|_{{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}}.$$ In the following, we will only consider normal quantum states. As is well-known, every normal state $\rho$ is of the form $$\forall{{\hat A}}\in{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}: \rho({{\hat A}})={{\operatorname{tr}}}({\tilde\rho}{{\hat A}})$$ for some positive trace-class operator ${\tilde\rho}$ of trace $1$. Normality of $\rho$ is equivalent to $\mu_\rho=\rho\|_{{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}}$ being a join-preserving map: let $(r_i)_{i\in I}\subseteq{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ be a family of (extended) real numbers. For each $n=1,2,...,\#I$, where $\#I$ is the cardinality of $I$, let $I_n$ denote an $n$-element subset of $I$ such that $I_n\subsetneq I_{n+1}$, and define $${{\hat P}}_n:={\bigvee}_{j\in I_n}{{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_{r_j}.$$ Then $({{\hat P}}_n)_{n=1,2,...,\#I}$ is an increasing net of projections in ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ converging strongly to ${\bigvee}_{i\in I}{{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_{r_i}$. Since a normal state $\rho$ preserves suprema of increasing nets, we have $$\label{Eq_murhoPreservesJoins} \mu_\rho({\bigvee}_{i\in I}{{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_{r_i})=\rho({\bigvee}_{i\in I}{{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_{r_i})=\sup_{i\in I}\rho({{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_{r_i})=\sup_{i\in I}\mu_\rho({{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_{r_i}).$$ There is a pairing between quantum random variables and quantum states (in the form of probability measures on projections). The probability that a quantum random variable ${{\hat A}}$ has a value in the Borel subset ${\Delta}\subseteq{\operatorname{sp}}{{\hat A}}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{Prob}}({{\hat A}},{\Delta})=\mu_\rho({e^{\hat A}}({\Delta})).\end{aligned}$$ This is the direct analogue of the classical $${\operatorname{Prob}}(A,\Gamma)=\mu(A^{-1}(\Gamma)),$$ where $A$ is a random variable and $\Gamma$ is a Borel subset of ${\mathbb{R}}$ (or ${\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$). The usual CDF of a quantum random variable ${{\hat A}}$ with respect to a state $\rho$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} C^{{{\hat A}}}=\mu_\rho\circ{E^{{{\hat A}}}}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}&{\longrightarrow}[0,1]\\ \nonumber r &{\longmapsto}\mu_\rho({{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_r),\end{aligned}$$ cf. [(\[Eq\_CDFDecomposed\])]{}. We will now show that $C^{{{\hat A}}}$ has a left adjoint. For this, we need that $C^{{{\hat A}}}$ preserves meets. The extended spectral family ${E^{{{\hat A}}}}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ preserves meets due to monotonicity and right-continuity (for details, see section 3 in Part I [@DoeDew12a]), which implies that $C^{{{\hat A}}}$ preserves meets, so we just have to show that $\mu_\rho$ preserves meets. Let $(r_i)_{i\in I}$ be an arbitrary family of real numbers. Then $$\begin{aligned} \mu_\rho({\bigwedge}_{i\in I}{{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_{r_i}) &= \mu_\rho(\hat 1-{\bigvee}_{i\in I}(\hat 1-{{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_{r_i}))\\ &= 1-\mu_\rho({\bigvee}_{i\in I}(\hat 1-{{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_{r_i}))\\ &\stackrel{{(\ref{Eq_murhoPreservesJoins})}}{=} 1-\sup_{i\in I}\mu_\rho(\hat 1-{{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_{r_i})\\ &=\inf_{i\in I}\mu_\rho({{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_{r_i}).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $\mu_\rho:{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}{\rightarrow}[0,1]$ has a left adjoint $$\begin{aligned} \kappa_\rho: [0,1] &{\longrightarrow}{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}\\ \nonumber s &{\longmapsto}{\bigwedge}\{{{\hat P}}\in{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}\mid s\leq\mu_\rho({{\hat P}})\},\end{aligned}$$ and $C^{{{\hat A}}}=\mu_\rho\circ{E^{{{\hat A}}}}$ has a left adjoint $$\begin{aligned} q^{{{\hat A}}}={o^{{{\hat A}}}}\circ\kappa_\rho: [0,1] &{\longrightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\\ \nonumber s &{\longmapsto}{o^{{{\hat A}}}}(\kappa_\rho(s)).\end{aligned}$$ This $q^{{{\hat A}}}$ is the usual quantile function of the quantum random variable ${{\hat A}}$ with respect to the normal state $\rho$. We can also obtain the quantile function $q^{{{\hat A}}}$ directly as the left adjoint of $C^{{{\hat A}}}$, that is, $$\begin{aligned} q^{{{\hat A}}}: [0,1] &{\longrightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\\ \nonumber s &{\longmapsto}\inf\{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\mid s\leq C^{{{\hat A}}}(r)\}.\end{aligned}$$ The two expressions for the quantile function $q^{{{\hat A}}}$ coincide, that is, $$\forall s\in[0,1]: ({o^{{{\hat A}}}}\circ\kappa_\rho)(s)=\inf\{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\mid s\leq C^{{{\hat A}}}(r)\}.$$ We have $$\label{Eq_qADef1} \inf\{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\mid s\leq C^{{{\hat A}}}(r)\} = \inf\{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\mid s\leq\mu_\rho({{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_r)\},$$ which is the smallest $r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ for which $\mu_\rho({{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_r)\geq s$. On the other hand, $$\label{Eq_qADef2} {o^{{{\hat A}}}}(\kappa_\rho(s))=\inf\{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\mid {\bigwedge}\{{{\hat P}}\in{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}\mid s\leq\mu_\rho({{\hat P}})\leq{{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_r\}.$$ Note that ${{\hat P}}\leq{{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_r$ implies $\mu_\rho({{\hat P}})\leq\mu_\rho({{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_r)$. Conversely, $\mu_\rho({{\hat P}})\leq\mu_\rho({{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_r)$ does not in general imply ${{\hat P}}\leq{{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_r$. But if we pick ${{\hat P}}=\kappa_\rho(s)$, which is the smallest projection for which $\mu_\rho({{\hat P}})\geq s$ holds, then $\mu_\rho({{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_r)\geq\mu_\rho({{\hat P}})\geq s$ implies ${{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_r\geq{{\hat P}}=\kappa_\rho(s)$. This shows that [(\[Eq\_qADef1\])]{} and [(\[Eq\_qADef2\])]{} coincide. Summary. We summarise the relations between classical and quantum probability in table 1. On the classical side, we assume that ${{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$ is a complete Boolean algebra, not just a $\sigma$-complete one. The relevant complete meet-semilattices are $L={{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$ on the classical side and $L={\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ on the quantum side. Note that as discussed above, on the classical side we can replace - the sample space $\Omega$ by the Gelfand spectrum $\Sigma_V$ of some abelian von Neumann algebra $V$, - each random variable $A$ by the Gelfand transform ${\overline{A}}:\Sigma_V{\rightarrow}{\operatorname{sp}}{{\hat A}}\subset{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ of some (bounded) self-adjoint operator ${{\hat A}}\in V$, - the complete Boolean algebra ${{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$ by the complete Boolean algebra ${{\mathcal{C}}l}(\Sigma_V)$. This emphasises the role of the Gelfand spectrum $\Sigma_V$ as a sample space in the classical case. \[Table\_CAndQProbab1\] ------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Classical Quantum Sample space $\Omega$ ${\mathcal{H}}$ Random variable $A:\Omega{\rightarrow}{{\operatorname{im}}}A\subset{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ ${{\hat A}}\in {\mathcal{N}}_{{\operatorname{sa}}}$ Inv. im. of random var. $A^{-1}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}){\rightarrow}{{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$ $e^{{{\hat A}}}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ $L$-CDF ${\tilde C^A}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}{{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$ ${E^{{{\hat A}}}}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ $r {\mapsto}A^{-1}([-\infty,r])$ $r {\mapsto}{{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_r={e^{\hat A}}([-\infty,r])$ $L$-quantile function ${\tilde q^A}:{{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega){\rightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ $\tilde q^{{{\hat A}}}={o^{{{\hat A}}}}:{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}{\rightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ $S {\mapsto}\inf\{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\mid S\leq{\tilde C^A}(S)\}$ ${{\hat P}}{\mapsto}\inf\{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\mid {{\hat P}}\leq {{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_r\}$ State $\mu:{{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega){\rightarrow}[0,1]$ $\mu_\rho:{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}{\rightarrow}[0,1]$ CDF $C^A:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}[0,1]$ $C^{{{\hat A}}}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}[0,1]$ $r {\mapsto}\mu(A^{-1}([-\infty,r]))$ $r {\mapsto}\mu_\rho({e^{\hat A}}([-\infty,r]))$ Quantile function $q^A:[0,1]{\rightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ $q^{{{\hat A}}}:[0,1]{\rightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ $s {\mapsto}\inf\{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\mid s\leq C^A(r)\}$ $s {\mapsto}\inf\{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\mid s\leq C^{{{\hat A}}}(r)\}$ ------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Comparison between classical and quantum probability Quantum probability and the spectral presheaf {#Sec_QProbabAndSigma} ============================================= The analogy between classical and quantum probability can be strengthened if we can find a suitable sample space for the quantum side, in analogy to the Gelfand spectrum $\Sigma_V$ of an abelian von Neumann algebra $V$. Given a nonabelian von Neumann algebra ${\mathcal{N}}$, with the self-adjoint operators in ${\mathcal{N}}$ representing random variables, such a sample space $\Sigma$ should - generalise the Gelfand spectrum $\Sigma_V$ to the nonabelian von Neumann algebra ${\mathcal{N}}$, - come equipped with a family of measurable subsets, analogous to the clopen subsets ${{\mathcal{C}}l}(\Sigma_V)$ of $\Sigma_V$, - serve as a common domain for the random variables, and hence as a common codomain for the associated spectral measures, - serve as a domain for the states of ${\mathcal{N}}$, seen as probability measures. The topos approach to quantum theory (see [@DoeIsh08a; @DoeIsh08b; @DoeIsh08c; @DoeIsh08d; @Doe09a; @Doe09b; @DoeIsh11; @Doe11a; @Doe11b; @DoeIsh12] and [@HLS09a; @HLS09b; @HLS11]) provides such a generalised sample space, in the form of the spectral presheaf ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ of a von Neumann algebra ${\mathcal{N}}$. We will introduce this presheaf shortly, but first we consider the base category over which it is defined. The context category and the spectral presheaf of a quantum system ------------------------------------------------------------------ Let ${\mathcal{N}}$ be a von Neumann algebra, and let ${{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$ be the set of non-trivial abelian von Neumann subalgebras of ${\mathcal{N}}$ that share the unit element with ${\mathcal{N}}$. When equipped with inclusion as a partial order, ${{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$ is called the context category of ${\mathcal{N}}$. The physical idea is that each context, i.e., each abelian subalgebra $V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$, provides a classical perspective on the quantum system at hand. The poset ${{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$ keeps track of how classical perspectives relate to each other, that is, how they overlap. Given a von Neumann algebra ${\mathcal{N}}$, one can define a Jordan algebra which has the same elements as ${\mathcal{N}}$ and multiplication given by $$\forall {{\hat A}},{\hat B}\in{\mathcal{N}}: {{\hat A}}\cdot{\hat B}:=\frac{1}{2}({{\hat A}}{\hat B}+{\hat B}{{\hat A}}).$$ It was shown in [@HarDoe10] that the poset ${{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$ determines the algebra ${\mathcal{N}}$ as a Jordan algebra, i.e., up to Jordan isomorphisms. The probabilistic aspects of quantum theory only depend on the Jordan structure on the set of self-adjoint operators representing physical quantities, as was already shown by Jordan, von Neumann and Wigner [@JNW34]. Hence, it is plausible that the probabilistic aspects of quantum theory can be formulated using structures over the poset ${{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$, which determines the Jordan structure of the quantum system described by ${\mathcal{N}}$. In the following, we will demonstrate that this is indeed the case. Let ${\mathcal{N}}$ be a von Neumann algebra, and let ${{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$ be its context category. The spectral presheaf ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ of ${\mathcal{N}}$ is the presheaf over ${{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$ given as follows: - on objects: for all $V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$, let ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}_V$ be the Gelfand spectrum of $V$, that is, the set of pure states of $V$ equipped with the relative weak$^$-topology, - on arrows: for all inclusions $i_{V'V}: V'\hookrightarrow V$, let ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}(i_{V'V})$ be function $$\begin{aligned} {{\underline{\Sigma}}}(i_{V'V}):{{\underline{\Sigma}}}_V &{\longrightarrow}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}_{V'}\\ \nonumber {\lambda}&{\longmapsto}{\lambda}\|_{V'}. \end{aligned}$$ It is well-known that the restriction map ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}(i_{V'V})$ is surjective and continuous. It is also closed and open. The spectral presheaf ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$, which ‘glues’ together the Gelfand spectra of all abelian subalgebras of ${\mathcal{N}}$ in a canonical way, will serve as the quantum sample space. Clearly, ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ is a generalisation of the Gelfand spectrum $\Sigma_V$ of an abelian von Neumann algebra $V$. Being a presheaf over ${{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$, ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ is an object in the topos ${{{\mathbf{Set}}^{{\mathcal{V(N)}}^{\rm op}}}}$ of presheaves over ${{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$. Each topos can be seen as a universe of (generalised) sets, see e.g. [@McLMoe92; @Joh02/03], so ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ is a generalised set in this sense. Next, we have to specify suitable measurable sub‘sets’ of ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$, which in this case are subobjects of ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$. A subobject of a presheaf is a subpresheaf. A subobject ${\underline{S}}$ of the spectral presheaf ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ is called clopen* if, for all $V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$, the component ${\underline{S}}_V$ is clopen in ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}_V$, the Gelfand spectrum of $V$. The set of clopen subobjects of ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ is denoted as ${{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$. A clopen subobject ${\underline{S}}\subseteq{{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ hence is a collection $({\underline{S}}_V)_{V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}}$ of clopen subsets, one in each Gelfand spectrum ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}_V$, $V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$. The condition of being a subobject means that whenever $V',V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$ such that $V'\subseteq V$, it holds that $${{\underline{\Sigma}}}(i_{V'V})({\underline{S}}_V)\subseteq{\underline{S}}_{V'}.$$ The set ${{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$ of clopen subobjects is partially ordered in an obvious way: $${\underline{S}}_1\leq{\underline{S}}_2: \quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad (\forall V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}:{\underline{S}}_{1;V}\subseteq {\underline{S}}_{2;V}).$$ With respect to this partial order, all meets and joins exist, so ${{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$ is a complete lattice. Concretely, given a family $({\underline{S}}_i)_{i\in I}$ of clopen subobjects, we have $$\begin{aligned} \forall V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}: &({\bigvee}_{i\in I}{\underline{S}}_i)_V={\operatorname{cl}}(\bigcup_{i\in I}{\underline{S}}_{i;V}),\\ &({\bigwedge}_{i\in I}{\underline{S}}_i)_V={\operatorname{int}}(\bigcap_{i\in I}{\underline{S}}_{i;V}).\end{aligned}$$ Taking the closure of the set-theoretic union respectively the interior of the intersection is necessary in order to obtain clopen subsets at each stage. Note that for each $V$, ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}_V$ is extremely disconnected, so the closure of an open set is open, and the interior of a closed set is closed. The lattice ${{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$ does not inherit the orthocomplementation from its components, the complete Boolean algebras ${{\mathcal{C}}l}({{\underline{\Sigma}}}_V)$, $V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$. Taking the complement in each component of a clopen subobject ${\underline{S}}\in{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$ does not give a subobject (unless ${\underline{S}}$ is the empty subobject or ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ itself). Instead, ${{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$ is a complete Heyting algebra (see Thm. 2.5 in [@DoeIsh08b]) with a pseudo-complement $$\begin{aligned} \neg:{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}} &{\longrightarrow}{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}\\ \nonumber {\underline{S}} &{\longmapsto}{\bigvee}\{{\underline{T}}\in{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}} \mid {\underline{S}}\wedge{\underline{T}}={\underline{0}}\},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\underline{0}}$ is the empty subobject. In general, $\neg{\underline{S}}\vee{\underline{S}}\leq{{\underline{\Sigma}}}$. In terms of the Heyting implication (which we will not discuss here, but see [@DoeIsh08b; @Doe12]), the negation is given by $\neg{\underline{S}}=({\underline{S}}\Rightarrow{\underline{0}})$ as usual. Interestingly, ${{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$ has even more structure. It is also a complete co-Heyting algebra with a second kind of pseudo-complement, given by $$\begin{aligned} \sim:{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}} &{\longrightarrow}{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}\\ \nonumber {\underline{S}} &{\longmapsto}{\bigwedge}\{{\underline{T}}\in{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}} \mid {\underline{S}}\vee{\underline{T}}={{\underline{\Sigma}}}\}.\end{aligned}$$ In general, $\sim{\underline{S}}\wedge{\underline{S}}\geq{\underline{0}}$. This makes ${{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$ into a complete bi-Heyting algebra. We remark that every Boolean algebra is a bi-Heyting algebra in which both kinds of negation coincide. For more details, see [@Doe12]. The complete bi-Heyting algebra ${{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$ of clopen subobjects of the spectral presheaf ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ of a noncommutative von Neumann algebra is the quantum analogue of the complete Boolean algebra ${{\mathcal{C}}l}(\Sigma_{{V_{{{\hat A}}}}})$ of clopen subsets of the Gelfand spectrum $\Sigma_{{V_{{{\hat A}}}}}$ of a commutative von Neumann algebra ${V_{{{\hat A}}}}$. Importantly, the spectral presheaf ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ has no global elements if ${\mathcal{N}}$ has no summand of type $I_2$, that is, one cannot choose one element ${\lambda}_V$ from each component ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}_V$ such that, whenever $V'\subset V$, it would hold that $${{\underline{\Sigma}}}(i_{V'V})({\lambda}_V)={\lambda}_{V'}.$$ In fact, such a choice of elements $({\lambda}_V)_{V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}}$ would give a valuation function, that is, a function $v:{\mathcal{N}}_{{\operatorname{sa}}}{\rightarrow}{\mathbb{R}}$ such that for all ${{\hat A}}\in{\mathcal{N}}_{{\operatorname{sa}}}$, it would hold that $v({{\hat A}})\in{\operatorname{sp}}{{\hat A}}$, and for all bounded Borel functions $f:{\mathbb{R}}{\rightarrow}{\mathbb{R}}$, one would have $v(f({{\hat A}}))=f(v({{\hat A}}))$. The Kochen-Specker theorem shows that such valuation functions do not exist if ${\mathcal{N}}$ has no summand of type $I_2$ (see [@KocSpe67]; for the generalisation to von Neumann algebras, see [@Doe05]). Isham and Butterfield observed in [@IshBut98; @IshBut00] that the Kochen-Specker theorem is equivalent to the fact that the spectral presheaf ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ has no global elements. Since global elements of a presheaf are the analogues of elements of a set (or points of a space), the quantum sample space ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ is a space without points in this sense. The fact that ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ has no points is ultimately the reason why we can reformulate quantum probability based on the set-like object ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$, without falling prey to the Kochen-Specker theorem.[^3] Random variables and their inverse images {#SubSec_QRandomVars} ----------------------------------------- In the perspective of the topos approach to quantum theory, a random variable is a generalised function from the sample space ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ (which in fact is a presheaf) to a presheaf of real numbers. There is a representation of self-adjoint operators ${{\hat A}}\in{\mathcal{N}}_{{\operatorname{sa}}}$ by arrows $$\label{Def_bdas(A)} {\breve\delta({{\hat A}})}:{{\underline{\Sigma}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\underline{{\mathbb{R}}^{\leftrightarrow}}}}$$ in the topos ${{{\mathbf{Set}}^{{\mathcal{V(N)}}^{\rm op}}}}$. This representation was discussed in detail elsewhere [@DoeIsh08c; @Doe11b], so we will not give details here. In a nutshell, ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ physically plays the role of a (generalised) state space of the quantum system, while ${{\underline{{\mathbb{R}}^{\leftrightarrow}}}}$ is a space of values of physical quantities, generalising the real numbers in the sense that not only sharp, definite real values exist, but also ‘unsharp’ values in the form of real intervals. The definition of the arrow ${\breve\delta({{\hat A}})}$ is based on the maps called inner and outer daseinisation of self-adjoint operators, which are approximations with respect to the spectral order on self-adjoint operators. For details, see [@Doe11b] and Part I [@DoeDew12a]. The arrow ${\breve\delta({{\hat A}})}$ is the analogue of a function $f_A$ from the state space to the real numbers. (Such a function $f_A$ represents a physical quantity $A$ in the classical case). Mathematically, ${\breve\delta({{\hat A}})}$ generalises the Gelfand transform ${\overline{A}}:\Sigma_V{\rightarrow}{\mathbb{R}}$ of a self-adjoint operator in an abelian von Neumann algebra $V$. In a probabilistic view of quantum theory, we can interpret the arrow ${\breve\delta({{\hat A}})}$ as a random variable (associated with the physical quantity $A$). But note that here, both the sample space ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ and the space of values ${{\underline{{\mathbb{R}}^{\leftrightarrow}}}}$ are presheaves, i.e., objects in the topos of presheaves, and the arrow ${\breve\delta({{\hat A}})}:{{\underline{\Sigma}}}{\rightarrow}{{\underline{{\mathbb{R}}^{\leftrightarrow}}}}$ is a natural transformation, that is, an arrow in the topos. In the following, we will consider a more modest approach, using only the generalised sample space ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$, while the space of values will be the traditional real numbers ${\mathbb{R}}$ or extended real numbers ${\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$. From projection-valued measures to clopen subobject-valued measures. We will not be concerned with the representation of random variables per se.[^4] As in the rest of the paper, the ‘inverse image map’, from Borel subsets of ${\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ to ${{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$, the measurable subobjects of ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$, will be more important. That is, the inverse image maps measurable subsets of outcomes to measurable subsets of the sample space. A probability measure then maps measurable subsets of the sample space to probabilities. We will relate a (topos-external) Borel set ${\Delta}$ of outcomes to a clopen subobject of the (topos-internal) sample space ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ via a ‘translation map’ (which in fact is the map called the outer daseinisation of projections, see Def. \[Def\_OuterDasOfProjs\]). We will show that this construction, together with the representation of quantum states as probability measures on ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$, reproduces the Born rule and hence the usual quantum mechanical predictions of expectation values. Given a self-adjoint operator ${{\hat A}}$, we obtain a projection ${{\hat P}}={e^{\hat A}}({\Delta})$ by the spectral theorem, where ${e^{\hat A}}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}){\rightarrow}{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ is the (extended) spectral measure of ${{\hat A}}$, see [(\[Def\_SpecMeasOnExtendedReals\])]{}.[^5] In standard quantum theory, this projection represents the proposition “${A\varepsilon}{\Delta}$”, that is, “if a measurement of the physical quantity $A$ is performed, the measurement outcome will be found to lie in the Borel set ${\Delta}$”. In the topos approach to quantum theory, the proposition “${A\varepsilon}{\Delta}$” is often interpreted in a more ‘realist’ or ‘ontological’ manner to mean “the physical quantity $A$ has a value in the set ${\Delta}$”. The truth value of such a proposition in a given state $\rho$ of the quantum system in general is neither (totally) true nor (totally) false. The key idea is to use the richer, intuitionistic internal logic of the topos ${{{\mathbf{Set}}^{{\mathcal{V(N)}}^{\rm op}}}}$ to assign a truth value – and not just a probability – to the proposition, independent of measurements and observers. This is described in detail for pure states in [@DoeIsh11] and for mixed states in [@DoeIsh12]. In the present article, we are concerned with aspects of a probabilistic interpretation of quantum theory, so we focus on the more ‘instrumentalist’ or ‘operational’ interpretation of “${A\varepsilon}{\Delta}$” so that it means “if a measurement of $A$ is performed, the outcome will lie in ${\Delta}$”. Next, we have to relate projections to clopen subobjects of the sample space ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$. Let ${{\hat P}}\in{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ be a projection, and let $V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$ be a context. We approximate ${{\hat P}}$ in $V$ (from above) by $$\label{Def_OuterDasOfPToV} {\delta^o({{{\hat P}}})_{V}}:={\bigwedge}\{{\hat Q}\in{{\mathcal{P}}(V)}\mid {{\hat P}}\leq{\hat Q}\}.$$ The projection ${\delta^o({{{\hat P}}})_{V}}$ is called the outer daseinisation of ${{\hat P}}$ to $V$. Using the isomorphism $\alpha_V:{{\mathcal{P}}(V)}{\rightarrow}{{\mathcal{C}}l}({{\underline{\Sigma}}}_V)$ (see [(\[Def\_alphaV\])]{}), the projection ${\delta^o({{{\hat P}}})_{V}}$ in $V$ corresponds to the clopen subset $$S_{{\delta^o({{{\hat P}}})_{V}}}:=\alpha_V({\delta^o({{{\hat P}}})_{V}})$$ of ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}_V$. Now, taking all contexts $V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$ into account at the same time, we define: \[Def\_OuterDasOfProjs\] The map $$\begin{aligned} {\underline{{\delta}}}:{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}&{\longrightarrow}{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}\\ \nonumber {{\hat P}}&{\longmapsto}{{\underline{\delta({{\hat P}})}}}=(S_{{\delta^o({{{\hat P}}})_{V}}})_{V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}}\end{aligned}$$ is called outer daseinisation of projections. Hence, the map ${\underline{{\delta}}}$ maps a projection ${{\hat P}}$ in a von Neumann algebra ${\mathcal{N}}$ to a clopen subobject ${{\underline{\delta({{\hat P}})}}}$ of the spectral presheaf ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ of the algebra. Locally, at each abelian subalgebra $V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$, the map ${\underline{{\delta}}}$ is given by the outer daseinisation ${\delta^o({{{\hat P}}})_{V}}$ of ${{\hat P}}$ to $V$ (see [(\[Def\_OuterDasOfPToV\])]{} above), which justifies calling the map ${\underline{{\delta}}}$ by the same name. The map ${\underline{{\delta}}}$ was introduced in [@DoeIsh08b] and discussed further in [@Doe11a; @Doe11b; @Doe12]. Its main properties are: - ${\underline{{\delta}}}$ is monotone, ${{\underline{\delta(\hat 0)}}}={\underline{\emptyset}}$ and ${{\underline{\delta(\hat 1)}}}={{\underline{\Sigma}}}$, - ${\underline{{\delta}}}$ is injective, but not surjective, - for all families $({{\hat P}}_i)_{i\in I}$ of projections in ${\mathcal{N}}$, it holds that ${{\underline{\delta({\bigvee}_i {{\hat P}}_i)}}}={\bigvee}_i {{\underline{\delta({{\hat P}}_i)}}}$, that is, ${\underline{{\delta}}}$ preserves all joins, - for all ${{\hat P}},{\hat Q}\in{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$, ${{\underline{\delta({{\hat P}}{\wedge}{\hat Q})}}}\leq{{\underline{\delta({{\hat P}})}}}{\wedge}{{\underline{\delta({\hat Q})}}}$. If the projection ${{\hat P}}$ is a spectral projection of some self-adjoint operator ${{\hat A}}$, that is, if ${{\hat P}}={e^{\hat A}}({\Delta})$, we write $${\underline{S}}({{\hat A}};{\Delta}):={{\underline{\delta({e^{\hat A}}({\Delta}))}}}.$$ Note that if we consider a context $V$ such that ${{\hat A}}\in V$, then all the spectral projections ${e^{\hat A}}({\Delta})$ are contained in $V$, so ${\delta^o({{e^{\hat A}}({\Delta})})_{V}}={e^{\hat A}}({\Delta})$. Hence, the component of the clopen subobject ${\underline{S}}({{\hat A}};{\Delta})$ at $V$ is given by $${\underline{S}}({{\hat A}};{\Delta})_V=S_{{\delta^o({{e^{\hat A}}({\Delta})})_{V}}}=\alpha_V({\delta^o({{e^{\hat A}}({\Delta})})_{V}})=\alpha_V({e^{\hat A}}({\Delta}))$$ which is the clopen subset of ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}_V$ corresponding to the usual spectral projection under the isomorphism $\alpha_V:{{\mathcal{P}}(V)}{\rightarrow}{{\mathcal{C}}l}({{\underline{\Sigma}}}_V)$. If we speak of the measurement of a physical quantity $A$ in standard quantum theory, we of course (implicitly) pick a context $V$ that contains ${{\hat A}}$, the self-adjoint operator representing $A$. In such contexts, the clopen subobject ${\underline{S}}({{\hat A}};{\Delta})$ corresponds to the usual spectral projection ${e^{\hat A}}({\Delta})$. Yet, different from standard quantum theory, we also define approximations to a spectral projection of ${{\hat A}}$ in those contexts $V$ that do not contain ${{\hat A}}$, in the form of the coarse-grained (i.e., larger) projections ${\delta^o({{e^{\hat A}}({\Delta})})_{V}}$ or their corresponding clopen subsets $S_{{\delta^o({{e^{\hat A}}({\Delta})})_{V}}}$. The clopen subobject ${\underline{S}}({e^{\hat A}}({\Delta}))$ collates all these approximations into one object, which can be interpreted as a measurable subobject of the quantum sample space ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$. Summing up, we have defined a map $$\breve A^{-1}: {{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}) {\longrightarrow}{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$$ from Borel subsets of the (extended) real line to clopen subobjects of the joint sample space, given by $$\breve A^{-1}({\Delta})={{\underline{\delta({e^{\hat A}}({\Delta}))}}}={\underline{S}}({{\hat A}};{\Delta}).$$ In the new topos-based perspective we are developing here, $\breve A^{-1}$ is the inverse image of the random variable (physical quantity) $A$. We have replaced the projection-valued spectral measure ${e^{\hat A}}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}){\rightarrow}{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ by a clopen subobject-valued measure $\breve A^{-1}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}){\rightarrow}{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$. A full topos-internal treatment of quantum random variables and their inverse images would proceed by using the arrow ${\breve\delta({{\hat A}})}:{{\underline{\Sigma}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\underline{{\mathbb{R}}^{\leftrightarrow}}}}$ (see ) and its ‘inverse image’, which involves pullbacks of suitably defined ‘clopen subobjects’ of ${{\underline{{\mathbb{R}}^{\leftrightarrow}}}}$. ${{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$-valued CDFs and quantile functions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Given a random variable, described by a self-adjoint operator ${{\hat A}}$ or the corresponding inverse image map $\breve A^{-1}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}){\rightarrow}{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$, we can now define a clopen subobject-valued version of the cumulative distribution function: $$\begin{aligned} \label{Def_EbrA} {E^{\breve{A}}}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}&{\longrightarrow}{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}\\ \nonumber r &{\longmapsto}\breve A^{-1}([-\infty,r])={{\underline{\delta({{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_r)}}}={\underline{S}}({{\hat A}};[-\infty,r]).\end{aligned}$$ Note that we can include $-\infty$ in the sets $[-\infty,r]$ since we define our map over the extended reals. Clearly, ${E^{\breve{A}}}$ is monotone and ${E^{\breve{A}}}(-\infty)={\underline{\emptyset}}$, the empty subobject of ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ (since ${{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_{-\infty}=\hat 0$), and ${E^{\breve{A}}}(\infty)={{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ (since ${{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_{\infty}=\hat 1$). \[Prop\_EbrARightCont\] Let ${\mathcal{N}}$ be a von Neumann algebra, and let ${{\hat A}}\in{\mathcal{N}}_{{\operatorname{sa}}}$ a self-adjoint operator. The map ${E^{\breve{A}}}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$ is right-continuous. We already saw that the bottom element $-\infty={\bigwedge}_{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}} r$ is mapped to the bottom element ${\underline{\emptyset}}={\bigwedge}_{{\underline{S}}\in{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}} {\underline{S}}$, and that the top element $\infty={\bigwedge}\emptyset$ is mapped to the top element ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}={\bigwedge}\emptyset$. Let $r\in{\mathbb{R}}$. For each $V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$, we have $$\begin{aligned} ({\bigwedge}_{s>r} {{\underline{\delta({{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_s)}}})_V &= {\bigwedge}_{s>r} {\delta^o({{{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_s})_{V}}\\ &= {\bigwedge}_{s>r} {\bigwedge}\{{\hat Q}\in{{\mathcal{P}}(V)}\mid {{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_s\leq{\hat Q}\}\\ &= {\bigwedge}\{{\hat Q}\in{{\mathcal{P}}(V)}\mid {\bigwedge}_{s>r}{{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_s\leq{\hat Q}\}\\ &= {\bigwedge}\{{\hat Q}\in{{\mathcal{P}}(V)}\mid {{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_r\leq{\hat Q}\}\\ &= {\delta^o({{{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_r})_{V}} = {{\underline{\delta({{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_r)}}}_V,\end{aligned}$$ so $${\bigwedge}_{s>r} {E^{\breve{A}}}(s) = {\bigwedge}_{s>r} {{\underline{\delta({{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_s)}}} = {{\underline{\delta({\bigwedge}_{s>r} {{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_s)}}} ={{\underline{\delta({{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_r)}}} = {E^{\breve{A}}}(r).$$ We remark that the daseinisation map ${\underline{{\delta}}}:{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}{\rightarrow}{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$ does not preserve meets in general, but it preserves the particular meets needed here. We have shown that ${E^{\breve{A}}}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$ is the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the inverse image $\breve A^{-1}$ of the random variable $A$. In the notation of subsection \[Subsec\_LValuedMeasures\], $\breve A^{-1}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}){\rightarrow}{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$ is an $L$-valued measure, and ${E^{\breve{A}}}$ is its $L$-CDF, where $L$ is the complete meet-semilattice ${{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$. It follows easily from Prop. \[Prop\_EbrARightCont\] that ${E^{\breve{A}}}$ is a meet-preserving map between complete lattices, so it has a left adjoint ${o^{\breve{A}}}$, given by $$\begin{aligned} {o^{\breve{A}}}:{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}} &{\longrightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\\ \nonumber {\underline{S}} &{\longmapsto}\inf\{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\mid {\underline{S}}\leq{E^{\breve{A}}}(r)\}.\end{aligned}$$ This function is the ${{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$-quantile function of the ${{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$-CDF ${E^{\breve{A}}}$. If we consider a clopen subobject ${\underline{S}}\in{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$ of the form ${\underline{S}}={{\underline{\delta({{\hat P}})}}}$, then $$\begin{aligned} {o^{\breve{A}}}({{\underline{\delta({{\hat P}})}}}) &= \inf\{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\mid {{\underline{\delta({{\hat P}})}}}\leq{E^{\breve{A}}}(r)\}\\ &= \inf\{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\mid {{\underline{\delta({{\hat P}})}}}\leq{{\underline{\delta({{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_r)}}}\}\\ &= \inf\{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\mid {{\hat P}}\leq{{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_r\}\\ &= {o^{{{\hat A}}}}({{\hat P}}),\end{aligned}$$ so the function ${o^{\breve{A}}}:{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}{\rightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ generalises the $q$-observable function ${o^{{{\hat A}}}}:{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}{\rightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$, which is the ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$-quantile function of the ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$-valued measure ${e^{\hat A}}$. Just as $\breve A^{-1}$, the inverse image of the random variable, is constructed in two steps, the CDF ${E^{\breve{A}}}$ is as well: first, we have the map ${E^{{{\hat A}}}}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ (the extended spectral family of ${{\hat A}}$), then, the outer daseinisation of projections ${\underline{{\delta}}}:{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}{\rightarrow}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}$, so $${E^{\breve{A}}}={\underline{{\delta}}}\circ{E^{{{\hat A}}}}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}.$$ States as probability measures on the spectral presheaf {#Subsec_StatesAsProbabMeasures} ------------------------------------------------------- We briefly discuss the representation of quantum states as probability measures on the spectral presheaf, introduced in [@Doe09a] and further developed in [@DoeIsh12]. For some related work, see [@HLS11]. Let $\rho$ be a state of the von Neumann algebra ${\mathcal{N}}$ of physical quantities. Let ${\mathcal{A}}({{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})},[0,1])$ denote the set of antitone (i.e., order-reversing) functions from the context category ${{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$ to the unit interval. The probability measure on the spectral presheaf ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ associated with $\rho$ is the map $$\begin{aligned} \mu_\rho:{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}} &{\longrightarrow}{\mathcal{A}}({{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})},[0,1])\\ \nonumber {\underline{S}}=({\underline{S}}_V)_{V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}} &{\longmapsto}(\rho(\alpha_V^{-1}({\underline{S}}_V)))_{V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}}.\end{aligned}$$ Consider two contexts such that $V'\subset V$. The fact that ${\underline{S}}$ is a (clopen) subobject is equivalent to the fact that $\alpha_{V'}^{-1}({\underline{S}}_V)\geq\alpha_V^{-1}({\underline{S}}_V)$. Hence, $$(\mu_\rho({\underline{S}}))_{V'}=\rho(\alpha_{V'}^{-1}({\underline{S}}_V))\geq\rho(\alpha_V^{-1}({\underline{S}}_V))=(\mu_\rho({\underline{S}}))_V,$$ so $\mu_\rho$ indeed is an antitone function. Note that we assign a probability $(\mu_\rho({\underline{S}}))_V\in [0,1]$ to every context $V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$ such that smaller contexts are assigned larger probabilities (which is a consequence of coarse-graining). It is straightforward to show that for all states $\rho$ of ${\mathcal{N}}$, - $\mu_\rho({\underline{\emptyset}})=0_{{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}}$, where $0_{{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}}$ is the function that is constantly $0$ on ${{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$, and analogously, $\mu_\rho({{\underline{\Sigma}}})=1_{{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}}$, - for all ${\underline{S}}_1,{\underline{S}}_2\in{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$, $$\mu_\rho({\underline{S}}_1)+\mu_\rho({\underline{S}}_2)=\mu_\rho({\underline{S}}_1){\vee}\mu_\rho({\underline{S}}_2)+\mu_\rho({\underline{S}}_1){\wedge}\mu_\rho({\underline{S}}_2),$$ where addition (and meets and joins) are taken contextwise. Any map $$\begin{aligned} \mu:{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}} &{\longrightarrow}{\mathcal{A}}({{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})},[0,1])\\ \nonumber {\underline{S}}=({\underline{S}}_V)_{V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}} &{\longmapsto}(\mu_V({\underline{S}}_V))_{V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}}\end{aligned}$$ such that (1.) and (2.) hold is called a probability measure on ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$. Note that $\mu$ has components $\mu_V$, $V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$, where $\mu_V:({{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}})_V\simeq{{\mathcal{C}}l}({{\underline{\Sigma}}}_V){\rightarrow}[0,1]$. If $\mu_1,\mu_2$ are probability measures on ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ and $c\in [0,1]$, then we define the convex combination $c\mu_1+(1-c)\mu_2$ by $$\forall V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}: (c\mu_1+(1-c)\mu_2)_V = c\mu_{1;V}+(1-c)\mu_{2;V}.$$ It was shown in [@Doe09a] that if ${\mathcal{N}}$ has no type $I_2$-summand, every probability measure $\mu$ on ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ determines a unique quantum state $\rho_\mu$ of ${\mathcal{N}}$ such that $\mu_{\rho_\mu}=\mu$ and $\rho_{\mu_\rho}=\rho$. Let ${\mathcal{N}}$ be a von Neumann without a summand of type $I_2$. There is a bijection between the convex set ${\mathcal{S}}({\mathcal{N}})$ of states of ${\mathcal{N}}$ and the convex set ${\mathcal{M}}({{\underline{\Sigma}}})$ of probability measures on its spectral presheaf. A probability measure $\mu\in{\mathcal{M}}({{\underline{\Sigma}}})$ corresponds to a normal state $\rho_\mu$ if and only if it preserves joins of increasing nets of clopen subobjects, see [@DoeIsh12]. The codomain of a probability measure $\mu_\rho$ is the set ${\mathcal{A}}({{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})},[0,1])$ of antitone functions from ${{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$ to $[0,1]$. This set is in fact isomorphic to the set of global sections of a certain presheaf ${\underline{{\mathbb{R}}^\succeq}}$ (see [@Doe09a]). Seen topos-internally, this presheaf is the presheaf of upper reals in ${{{\mathbf{Set}}^{{\mathcal{V(N)}}^{\rm op}}}}$. Hence, a probability measure $\mu_\rho$ takes its values in the global sections of a suitable topos-internal space of ‘values’. Intuitively speaking, there is one probability for each context. From the usual topos-external perspective, we expect to obtain just a single probability. In the next subsection, we show how to do this explicitly. State-proposition pairing and the Born rule ------------------------------------------- Let “${A\varepsilon}{\Delta}$” be a proposition, which we interpret as “upon measurement, the outcome of the random variable $A$ will be found to lie in ${\Delta}$”. In subsection \[SubSec\_QRandomVars\], we had associated a clopen subobject of ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ with “${A\varepsilon}{\Delta}$”, namely $\breve A^{-1}({\Delta})={\underline{S}}({{\hat A}};{\Delta})={{\underline{\delta({e^{\hat A}}({\Delta}))}}}$. Given a quantum state $\rho$, we defined the associated probability measure $\mu_\rho:{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{A}}({{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})},[0,1])$. Hence, we can define a pairing between propositions and states by $$\label{Def_StatePropPairing} \text{(``}{A\varepsilon}{\Delta}\text{''},\rho) {\longmapsto}\mu_\rho(\breve A^{-1}({\Delta})).$$ This is exactly analogous to the classical case: there, a physical quantity $A$ is represented by a measurable function $f_A:\Sigma{\rightarrow}{\mathbb{R}}$ from the state space $\Sigma$ of the system to the real numbers, and a proposition “${A\varepsilon}{\Delta}$” is represented by the measurable subset $f_A^{-1}({\Delta})\subseteq\Sigma$ of the state space. Moreover, a classical state is a probability measure $\mu_c:{{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega){\rightarrow}[0,1]$, where ${{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$ denotes the measurable subsets of $\Omega$. The state-proposition pairing in the classical case is given by $$\text{(``}{A\varepsilon}{\Delta}\text{''},\rho) {\longmapsto}\mu_c(f_A^{-1}({\Delta})).$$ Yet, in the quantum case we have a function $\mu_\rho(\breve A^{-1}({\Delta})):{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}{\rightarrow}[0,1]$, assigning one probability to each context $V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$, while classically, we have just one probability. Moreover, the usual Born rule of quantum theory gives only one probability: the Born rule says that in the state $\rho$, the probability that upon measurement of $A$ the outcome will lie in ${\Delta}$ is given by $${\operatorname{Prob}}(\text{``}{A\varepsilon}{\Delta}\text{''};\rho)=\rho({e^{\hat A}}({\Delta})).$$ As mentioned before, measuring of $A$ implicitly means choosing a context that contains $A$. Let $V$ be a context that contains ${{\hat A}}$, the self-adjoint operator representing $A$. As we saw in subsection \[SubSec\_QRandomVars\], in such a context $V$ the component $(\breve A^{-1}({\Delta}))_V={\underline{S}}({{\hat A}};{\Delta})$ is given by ${e^{\hat A}}({\Delta})$ (or the corresponding clopen subset $S_{{e^{\hat A}}({\Delta})}\subseteq{{\underline{\Sigma}}}_V$). Hence, we obtain $$(\mu_\rho(\breve A^{-1}({\Delta})))_V=(\mu_\rho)_V(S_{{e^{\hat A}}({\Delta})})=\rho({e^{\hat A}}({\Delta}))$$ if ${{\hat A}}\in V$. In this way, we reproduce the Born rule, the predictive content of quantum theory. Moreover, if ${{\hat A}}\notin V$, then the component $(\breve A^{-1}({\Delta}))_V={\underline{S}}({{\hat A}};{\Delta})$ is given by ${\delta^o({{e^{\hat A}}({\Delta})})_{V}}$, which in general is a larger projection than ${e^{\hat A}}({\Delta})$. Hence, in such a context we obtain $$(\mu_\rho(\breve A^{-1}({\Delta})))_V=(\mu_\rho)_V(S_{{\delta^o({{e^{\hat A}}({\Delta})})_{V}}})=\rho({\delta^o({{e^{\hat A}}({\Delta})})_{V}}),$$ which is larger than or equal to the probability determined by the Born rule. (This is another consequence of coarse-graining.) We have shown: The minimum of the function $\mu_\rho(\breve A^{-1}({\Delta})):{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}{\rightarrow}[0,1]$ resulting from our state-proposition pairing [(\[Def\_StatePropPairing\])]{} is the usual quantum expectation value $\rho({e^{\hat A}}({\Delta}))$ provided by the Born rule. The quantum-theoretical CDF of a quantum random variable with respect to a state $\rho$ is obtained as the composition $$C^{\breve A}:=\min_{V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}}\circ\;\mu_\rho\circ{E^{\breve{A}}},$$ where $\mu_\rho:{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{A}}({{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})},[0,1])$ is the probability measure on ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ corresponding to $\rho$. Note that $C^{\breve A}$ takes values in $[0,1]$, just as a CDF usually does. Concretely, $$\begin{aligned} C^{\breve A}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}&{\longrightarrow}[0,1]\\ \nonumber r &{\longmapsto}\min_{V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}} \mu_{\rho}({E^{\breve{A}}}(r)).\end{aligned}$$ By definition, ${E^{\breve{A}}}(r)=\breve A^{-1}([-\infty,r])={{\underline{\delta({{\hat E}^{{{\hat A}}}}_r)}}}$ (cf. [(\[Def\_EbrA\])]{}). The minimum is attained at those contexts $V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}$ that contain ${{\hat A}}$, which confirms that $C^{\breve A}$ indeed is the CDF of the random variable described by ${{\hat A}}$ (or its Gelfand transform ${\overline{A}}$). Finally, the corresponding quantile function is the left adjoint of $C^{\breve A}$, that is, $$\begin{aligned} q^{\breve A}:[0,1] &{\longrightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\\ \nonumber s &{\longmapsto}\inf\{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\mid s\leq C^{\breve A}(r)\}.\end{aligned}$$ We summarise our results in table 2, which should be compared to table 1 above. In table 2, we use the Gelfand spectrum $\Sigma_V$ of an abelian von Neumann algebra $V$ as the sample space on the classical side. Since the Gelfand transform ${\overline{A}}:\Sigma_V{\rightarrow}{\operatorname{sp}}{{\hat A}}\subset{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ of a self-adjoint operator ${{\hat A}}\in V$ is the representative of a random variable in the classical case, the inverse image of the random variable is a map ${\overline{A}}^{-1}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}){\rightarrow}{{\mathcal{C}}l}(\Sigma_V)$. On the quantum side, the spectral presheaf ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$, which is a reasonably straightforward generalisation of the Gelfand spectrum to nonabelian von Neumann algebras, plays the role of the sample space. The relevant complete meet-semilattices are $L={{\mathcal{C}}l}(\Sigma_V)$ (which is a complete Boolean algebra isomorphic to ${{\mathcal{P}}(V)}$, see [(\[Def\_alphaV\])]{}) in the classical case and $L={{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$ (which is a complete bi-Heyting algebra) in the quantum case. \[Table\_CAndQProbab2\] ------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Classical Quantum Sample space $\Sigma_V$ ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ Inv. im. of random var. ${\overline{A}}^{-1}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}){\rightarrow}{{\mathcal{C}}l}(\Sigma_V)$ $\breve A^{-1}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}) {\rightarrow}{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$ ${\Delta}{\mapsto}{\overline{A}}^{-1}({\Delta})$ ${\Delta}{\mapsto}{{\underline{\delta({e^{\hat A}}({\Delta}))}}}={\underline{S}}({{\hat A}};{\Delta})$ $L$-CDF ${\tilde C^A}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}{{\mathcal{C}}l}(\Sigma_V)$ ${E^{\breve{A}}}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$ $r {\mapsto}{\tilde C^A}(r)={\overline{A}}^{-1}([-\infty,r])$ $r {\mapsto}{E^{\breve{A}}}_r=\breve A^{-1}([-\infty,r])$ $L$-quantile function ${\tilde q^A}:{{\mathcal{C}}l}(\Sigma_V){\rightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ $\tilde q^{\breve A}={o^{\breve{A}}}:{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}{\rightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ $S {\mapsto}\inf\{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\mid S\leq{\tilde C^A}(S)\}$ ${\underline{S}} {\mapsto}\inf\{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\mid {\underline{S}}\leq{E^{\breve{A}}}(r)\}$ State $\mu:{{\mathcal{C}}l}(\Sigma_V){\rightarrow}[0,1]$ $\mu_\rho:{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{A}}({{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})},[0,1])$ CDF $C^A=\mu\circ{\tilde C^A}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}[0,1]$ $C^{\breve A}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}[0,1]$ $r {\mapsto}\mu(A^{-1}([-\infty,r]))$ $r {\mapsto}\min_{V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}}\mu_\rho(\breve A^{-1}([-\infty,r]))$ Quantile function $q^A:[0,1]{\rightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ $q^{\breve A}:[0,1]{\rightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ $s {\mapsto}\inf\{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\mid s\leq C^A(r)\}$ $s {\mapsto}\inf\{r\in{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}\mid s\leq C^{\breve A}(r)\}$ ------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ : Classical probability and quantum probability in the topos-based perspective Summary and outlook {#Sec_Summary} =================== $L$-valued measures, CDFs, and quantile functions. We observed in section \[Sec\_qObsFctsAndProbab\] that even in the classical case of a random variable $A$ and a probability measure $\mu$ on a measurable space $\Omega$, there is a Galois connection between the cumulative distribution function $C^A$ and the quantile function $q^A$. This becomes obvious from the adjoint functor theorem for posets when the domain of $C^A$ (and hence the codomain of $q^A$) is extended canonically to the extended reals ${\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$. This observation was then generalised to measures taking values not in $[0,1]$, but in a complete meet-semilattice $L$. This includes - the case $L={{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$ of (equivalence classes of) measurable subsets (modulo null subsets) of a classical sample space $\Omega$, where the $L$-valued measure is the inverse image map $A^{-1}$ of a random variable $A$, - the usual quantum-mechanical case of $L={\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$, that is, of projection-valued measures, where the $L$-valued measure of a random variable $A$, represented by a self-adjoint operator ${{\hat A}}$, is the spectral measure ${e^{\hat A}}$, - the presheaf- and topos-based case of $L={{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$ of clopen subobjects of the spectral presheaf ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$, which plays the role of a joint sample space for all quantum random variables, as shown in section \[Sec\_QProbabAndSigma\] (and summarised below). It is not important if $L$ is a distributive lattice (such as ${{\mathcal{B}}}(\Omega)$ in the classical case), or a non-distributive one (such as ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ in the quantum case), it is just required that $L$ be a complete meet-semilattice.[^6] $L$-CDFs can be defined for $L$-valued measures in the obvious way, see [(\[Def\_L-CDF\])]{}. Since $L$-CDFs are meet-preserving maps, they have left adjoints, which we call $L$-quantile functions. An ordinary CDF can be decomposed into an $L$-CDF, followed by the measure, see [(\[Eq\_CDFDecomposed\])]{}. Analogously, each ordinary quantile function can be decomposed into the adjoint of a measure, followed by the $L$-quantile function, see [(\[Eq\_QuantFctDecomposed\])]{}. This presupposes that the measure preserves meets, which is a regularity condition that for example holds for normal quantum states. We then showed that $q$-observable functions, introduced in Part I [@DoeDew12a], are ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$-quantile functions for ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$-valued measures – that is, spectral measures – defined by quantum observables seen as quantum random variables. This gives a clear interpretation of $q$-observable functions in terms of quantum probability theory. In this perspective, the (extended) spectral family ${E^{{{\hat A}}}}$ plays the role of the ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$-CDF. Quantum probability in a topos-based perspective. We have shown that the spectral presheaf ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ of the von Neumann algebra ${\mathcal{N}}$ of observables of a quantum system can serve as a joint sample space for all quantum observables of the system. The Kochen-Specker theorem is a no-go theorem that shows that no measurable space in the usual, set-based sense can play the role of a joint sample space for non-compatible quantum observables (represented by non-commuting self-adjoint operators). In the topos approach to quantum theory, the Kochen-Specker theorem is circumvented by the fact that ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ is not simply a set but a presheaf. Moreover, the spectral presheaf is a natural generalisation of the Gelfand spectrum $\Sigma_V$ of an abelian von Neumann algebra $V$. As is well-known, $\Sigma_V$ can serve as a sample space in the classical case, that is, for co-measurable physical quantities/random variables, which can be represented by commuting self-adjoint operators (or their Gelfand transforms). In the classical case, the clopen subsets of $\Sigma_V$ form a complete Boolean algebra ${{\mathcal{C}}l}(\Sigma_V)$ and serve as measurable subsets and hence as the codomain of inverse images of random variables, $A^{-1}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({{\operatorname{im}}}A){\rightarrow}{{\mathcal{C}}l}(\Sigma_V)$. In the presheaf-based formulation of quantum probability, the clopen subobjects of ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ form a complete bi-Heyting algebra ${{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$ that generalises the complete Boolean algebra ${{\mathcal{C}}l}(\Sigma_V)$ of clopen subsets of the Gelfand spectrum. Conceptually, a bi-Heyting algebra can be seen as a mild generalisation of a Boolean algebra: a bi-Heyting algebra is a distributive lattice (in contrast to the usual non-distributive lattice ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ of projections used in standard quantum probability). The only difference between a Boolean algebra and a bi-Heyting algebra lies in the way complements are defined: a bi-Heyting algebra has two kinds of negations or pseudo-complements, one coming from the Heyting structure, the other from the co-Heyting structure. In a Boolean algebra, which also is a bi-Heyting algebra, the two negations coincide. (For a logical interpretation of the bi-Heyting structure of ${{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$, see [@Doe12].) Inverse images of quantum random variables are represented by mappings $\breve A^{-1}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}){\rightarrow}{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$ from standard, topos-external Borel subsets of outcomes to clopen subobjects of the topos-internal sample space ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$. The clopen subobject-valued map $\breve A^{-1}$ generalises the usual projection-valued spectral measure ${e^{\hat A}}:{{\mathcal{B}}}({\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}){\rightarrow}{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$. The associated cumulative distribution function ${E^{\breve{A}}}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$ and its left adjoint ${o^{\breve{A}}}:{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}{\rightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ are the analogues of the spectral family ${E^{{{\hat A}}}}:{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$ and the quantum quantile function ${o^{{{\hat A}}}}:{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}{\rightarrow}{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$. States of the quantum system are given by probability measures $\mu_\rho:{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{A}}({{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})},[0,1])$. Crucially, the Born rule is captured by the new formalism, and quantum mechanical probabilities are calculated in a way completely analogous to the classical case: propositions “${A\varepsilon}{\Delta}$” are mapped to measurable subobjects ${\underline{S}}({{\hat A}};{\Delta})$ of the quantum sample space ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$, and each quantum state, given by a probability measure $\mu_\rho$ on ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$, assigns an element $\mu_\rho({\underline{S}}({{\hat A}};{\Delta}))$ of ${\mathcal{A}}({{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})},[0,1])$ to each ${\underline{S}}\in{{\operatorname{Sub}}_{{\operatorname{cl}}}{{\underline{\Sigma}}}}$. The minimum of the function $\mu_\rho({\underline{S}}({{\hat A}};{\Delta}))$ is the usual quantum mechanical probability that upon measurement of the random variable (physical quantity) $A$, the outcome will lie in ${\Delta}$: $${\operatorname{Prob}}(\text{``}{A\varepsilon}{\Delta}\text{''};\rho)=\min_{V\in{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{N}})}}(\mu_\rho({\underline{S}}({{\hat A}};{\Delta}))).$$ The minimum is attained at all contexts $V$ that contain the self-adjoint operator ${{\hat A}}$. Summing up, we have derived a formulation of quantum probability that is structurally very similar to classical probability, more so than the usual, Hilbert space-based formulation. Outlook. As is well-known, the probabilistic aspects of quantum theory can naturally be formulated and generalised using positive operator-valued measures (POVMs, also called semispectral measures) [@Hol82; @NieChu00]. In future work, it will be interesting to consider generalisations of our constructions to POVMs, and to relate our constructions to more advanced aspects of noncommutative probability and their applications in the Fock space formalism of quantum theory [@Par92]. Acknowledgements: We thank Prakash Panangaden and Chris Isham for discussions. We also thank Masanao Ozawa, Izumi Ojima, Miklós Rédei, Pekka Lahti, Massoud Amini and John Harding for their kind interest and for further suggestions. We hope to be able to develop some of these suggestions in future work. [9]{} S. Awodey, Category Theory, Second Edition, Oxford Logic Guides 52, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010). P. Billingsley, Convergence of Probability Measures, Second Edition, Wiley-Interscience, New York, Chichester (1999). H. Comman, “Upper Regularization for Extended Self-Adjoint Operators”, Journal of Operator Theory 55, no. 1, 91–116 (2006). A. Döring, “Kochen-Specker theorem for von Neumann algebras”, Int. Jour. Theor. Phys. [44]{}, 139–160 (2005). A. Döring, “Quantum States and Measures on the Spectral Presheaf”, Adv. Sci. Lett. 2, special issue on “Quantum Gravity, Cosmology and Black Holes”, ed. M. Bojowald, 291–301 (2009). A. Döring, “Topos theory and ‘neo-realist’ quantum theory”, in Quantum Field Theory, Competitive Models, eds. B. Fauser, J. Tolksdorf, E. Zeidler, Birkhäuser, Basel, Boston, Berlin (2009). A. Döring, “Topos quantum logic and mixed states”, in Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Quantum Physics and Logic (QPL 2009), Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 270, No. 2 (2011). A. Döring, “The Physical Interpretation of Daseinisation”,in Deep Beauty, ed. Hans Halvorson, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 207–238 (2011). A. Döring, “Topos-based Logic for Quantum Systems and Bi-Heyting Algebras”, to appear in Logic & Algebra in Quantum Computing, Lecture Notes in Logic, Association for Symbolic Logic in conjunction with Cambridge University Press; arXiv:1202.2750 (2012). A. Döring, B. Dewitt, “Self-adjoint Operators as Functions I: Lattices, Galois Connections, and the Spectral Order”, arXiv:1208.4724 (2012). A. Döring, C.J. Isham, “A topos foundation for theories of physics: I. Formal languages for physics”, J. Math. Phys. 49, Issue 5, 053515 (2008). A. Döring, C.J. Isham, “A topos foundation for theories of physics: II. Daseinisation and the liberation of quantum theory”, J. Math. Phys. 49, Issue 5, 053516 (2008). A. Döring, C.J. Isham, “A topos foundation for theories of physics: III. Quantum theory and the representation of physical quantities with arrows ”, J. Math. Phys. 49, Issue 5, 053517 (2008). A. Döring, C.J. Isham, “A topos foundation for theories of physics: IV. Categories of systems”, J. Math. Phys. 49, Issue 5, 053518 (2008). A. Döring, and C.J. Isham, “‘What is a Thing?’: Topos Theory in the Foundations of Physics”, in New Structures for Physics, ed. B. Coecke, Lecture Notes in Physics 813, Springer, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London, New York, 753–937 (2011). A. Döring, C.J. Isham, “Classical and Quantum Probabilities as Truth Values”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 53, 032101 (2012). W. Gilchrist, Statistical Modelling with Quantile Functions, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton (2000). H.F. de Groote, “On a canonical lattice structure on the effect algebra of a von Neumann algebra”, arXiv:math-ph/0410018v2 (2004). J. Harding, A. Döring, “Abelian subalgebras and the Jordan structure of a von Neumann algebra”, arXiv:1009.4945 (2010). C. Heunen, N.P. Landsman, B. Spitters, “A topos for algebraic quantum theory”, Comm. Math. Phys. 291, 63–110 (2009). C. Heunen, N.P. Landsman, B. Spitters, “Bohrification of von [N]{}eumann algebras and quantum logic”, Synthese, online first, DOI: 10.1007/s11229-011-9918-4 (2011). C. Heunen, N.P. Landsman, B. Spitters, “Bohrification”, in Deep Beauty, ed. H. Halvorson, Cambridge University Press, 271–313 (2011). A.S. Holevo, Probabilistic and statistical aspects of quantum theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam (1982). C.J. Isham and J. Butterfield, “A topos perspective on the [K]{}ochen-[S]{}pecker theorem: [I.]{} [Q]{}uantum states as generalised valuations”, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 37, 2669–2733 (1998). C.J. Isham, J. Hamilton and J. Butterfield, “A topos perspective on the [K]{}ochen-[S]{}pecker theorem: [III.]{} [V]{}on [N]{}eumann algebras as the base category”, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 39, 1413-1436 (2000). P.T. Johnstone, Sketches of an Elephant: A Topos Theory Compendium, Vols. 1&2, Oxford Logic Guides 43&44, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002/03). P. Jordan, J. von Neumann, E. Wigner, “On an Algebraic Generalization of the Quantum Mechanical Formalism”, Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 35, No. 1 29–64 (1934). R.V. Kadison, J.R. Ringrose, Fundamentals of the Theory of Operator Algebras, Volume 1: Elementary Theory, Academic Press, New York, London (1983). S. Kochen, E.P. Specker, “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics”, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics [17]{}, 59–87 (1967). S. Mac[L]{}ane, I. Moerdijk, Sheaves in Geometry and Logic: A First Introduction to Topos Theory, Springer, New York, Berlin, Heidelberg (1992). S. Maeda, “Probability Measures on Projections in von Neumann Algebras”, Reviews in Mathematical Physics 1, No. 2, 235–290 (1990). M. Nielsen, I. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000). M.P. Olson, “The selfadjoint operators of a von Neumann algebra form a conditionally complete lattice”, [Proc. of the AMS]{} [28]{}, 537–544 (1971). K.R. Parthasarathy, An introduction to quantum stochastic calculus, Birkhäuser, Basel (1992). M. Rédei, S.J. Summers, “Quantum probability theory”, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 38, 390–417 (2007). W. Rudin, Functional Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York, St. Louis, San Francisco (1973). L. Wasserman, All of Statistics, A Concise Course in Statistical Inference, Springer, New York (2004). [^1]: That is, $o({\bigvee}_{i\in I}{{\hat P}}_i)=\sup_{i\in I}o({{\hat P}}_i)$ for all families $({{\hat P}}_i)_{i\in I}\subseteq{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{N}})}$. [^2]: The set of càdlàgs is typically denoted as $D$ and can be equipped with the Skorohod topology, which we will not introduce here. For details, see e.g. [@Bil99]. [^3]: Related to this, pure states in the topos-based formulation of quantum theory do not correspond to points of the sample space (as they do in classical theory), quite simply because the sample space ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$ has no points. We do not discuss the representation of pure states here; see [@DoeIsh11]. The representation of general states is given in subsection \[Subsec\_StatesAsProbabMeasures\] below. [^4]: They can be defined as suitable partial functions from ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}$, or rather, the disjoint union of its fibres, to ${\overline{{\mathbb{R}}}}$. [^5]: In previous papers by AD and C. Isham, the notation ${\hat E}[{A\varepsilon}{\Delta}]$ had been used for ${e^{\hat A}}({\Delta})$. [^6]: We recall that each complete meet-semilattice also is a complete join-semilattice.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The discriminator of an integer sequence $\textbf{s} = (s(i))_{i \geq 0}$, introduced by Arnold, Benkoski, and McCabe in 1985, is the function $D_{\textbf{s}} (n)$ that sends $n$ to the least integer $m$ such that the numbers $s(0), s(1), \ldots, s(n - 1)$ are pairwise incongruent modulo $m$. In this note we present a class of exponential sequences that have the special property that their discriminators are shift-invariant, i.e., that the discriminator of the sequence is the same even if the sequence is shifted by any positive constant.' author: - \| Sajed Haque and Jeffrey Shallit\ School of Computer Science\ University of Waterloo\ Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1\ Canada\ [[email protected]]{}\ [[email protected]]{} title: 'A Class of Exponential Sequences with Shift-Invariant Discriminators' --- Discriminators {#intro} ============== Let $m$ be a positive integer. If $S$ is a set of integers that are pairwise incongruent modulo $m$, we say that $m$ discriminates $S$. Now let $\textbf{s} = (s(i))_{i \geq 0}$ be a sequence of distinct integers. For all integers $n \geq 1$, we define $D_\textbf{s} (n)$ to be the least positive integer $m$ that discriminates the set $\{s(0), s(1), \ldots, s(n - 1)\}$. The function $D_\textbf{s} (n)$ is called the discriminator of the sequence s. The discriminator was first introduced by Arnold, Benkoski, and McCabe [@ABM85]. They derived the discriminator for the sequence $1, 4, 9, \ldots$ of positive integer squares. More recently, discriminators of various sequences were studied by Schumer and Steinig [@SchumerSteinig88], Barcau [@Barcau88], Schumer [@Schumer90], Bremser, Schumer, and Washington [@BSW90], Moree and Roskam [@MoreeRoskam95], Moree [@Moree96], Moree and Mullen [@MoreeMullen96], Zieve [@Zieve98], Sun [@Sun13], Moree and Zumalacárrequi [@MoreeZumalacarregui16], and Haque and Shallit [@HaqueShallit16]. In all of these cases, however, the discriminator is based on the first $n$ terms of a sequence, for $n \geq 2$. Therefore, the discriminator can depend crucially on the starting point of a given sequence. For example, although the discriminator for the first three positive squares, $\{1, 4, 9 \}$, is $6$, we can see that the number $6$ does not discriminate the length-3 “window” into the shifted sequence, $\{4, 9, 16 \}$, since $16 \equiv \modd{4} {6}$. Furthermore, there has been very little work on the discriminators of exponential sequences. Sun [@Sun13] presented some conjectures concerning certain exponential sequences, while in a recent [tour de force]{}, Moree and Zumalacárrequi [@MoreeZumalacarregui16] computed the discriminator for the sequence $\left( \frac{\|(-3)^j - 5\|}{4} \right)_{j \geq 0}$. We say that the discriminator of a sequence is shift-invariant if the discriminator for the sequence is the same even if the sequence is shifted by any positive integer $c$, i.e., for all positive integers $c$ the discriminator of the sequence $(s(n))_{n \geq 1}$ is the same as the discriminator of the sequence $(s(n + c))_{n \geq 0}$. In this paper, we present a class of exponential sequences whose discriminators are shift-invariant. We define this class of exponential sequences as follows: $$(\operatorname{ex}(n))_{n \geq 0} = \left(a \frac{(t^2)^n - 1}{2^b}\right)_{n \geq 0}$$ for odd positive integers $a$ and $t$, where $b$ is the smallest positive integer such that $t \not\equiv \modd{\pm 1} {2^b}$. A typical example is the sequence $\left(\frac{9^n - 1}{8}\right)_{n \geq 0}$. We show that the discriminator for all sequences of this form is $D_{\operatorname{ex}} (n) = 2^{\lceil \log_2 n \rceil}$. Furthermore, we show that this discriminator is shift-invariant, i.e., it applies to every sequence $(\operatorname{ex}(n + c))_{n \geq 0}$ for $c \geq 0$. The outline of the paper is as follows. In Section \[two\] we obtain an upper bound for the discriminator of $\left(\frac{(t^2)^n - 1}{2^b}\right)_{n \geq 0}$ and all of its shifts. In Section \[three\] we prove some lemmas that are essential to our lower bound proof. Finally, in Section \[four\] we put the results together to determine the discriminator for $ \left(a \frac{(t^2)^n - 1}{2^b}\right)_{n \geq 0}$ and all of its shifts. Upper bound {#two} =========== In this section, we derive an upper bound for the discriminator of the sequence $\left(\frac{(t^2)^n - 1}{2^b}\right)_{n \geq 0}$ and all of its shifts. We start with some useful lemmas. \[tsqrmod2pow\] Let $t$ be an odd integer, and let $b$ be the smallest positive integer such that $t \not\equiv \modd{\pm 1} {2^b}$. Then $t^2 \equiv \modd{2^b + 1} {2^{b + 1}}$. Note that since every odd integer equals $\pm 1$ modulo 4, we must have $b \geq 3$. From the definition of $b$, we have $t \equiv \modd{2^{b - 1} \pm 1} {2^b}$. Hence $t = 2^b c + 2^{b - 1} \pm 1$ for some integer $c$. By squaring both sides of the equation, we get $$\begin{aligned} t^2 &= 2^{2b} c^2 + 2^{2(b - 1)} + 2^{2b} c \pm 2^{b + 1} c \pm 2^b + 1\\ &= 2^{b + 1} \left(2^{b - 1} c^2 + 2^{b - 3} + 2^{b - 1} c \pm c \right) \pm 2^b + 1,\\ \implies t^2 &\equiv \modd{\pm 2^b + 1} {2^{b + 1}},\\ \implies t^2 &\equiv \modd{2^b + 1} {2^{b + 1}}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $t$ be an odd integer, and let $b$ be the smallest positive integer such that $t \not\equiv \modd{\pm 1} {2^b}$. Then we have $$\label{tpowmod2pow} t^{2^k} \equiv \modd{2^{k + b - 1} + 1} {2^{k + b}}$$ for all integers $k \geq 1$. By induction on $k$. Base case: : From Lemma \[tsqrmod2pow\], we have $t^2 \equiv \modd{2^b + 1} {2^{b + 1}}$. Induction: : Suppose Eq. holds for some $k \geq 1$, i.e., $t^{2^k} \equiv \modd{2^{k + b - 1} + 1} {2^{k + b}}$. This means that $t^{2^k} = 2^{k + b} c + 2^{k + b - 1} + 1$ for some integer $c$. Once again, by squaring both sides of the equation, we get $$\begin{aligned} \left(t^{2^k}\right)^2 = t^{2^{k + 1}} &= 2^{2k + 2b} c^2 + 2^{2k + 2b - 2} + 1 + 2^{2k + 2b} c + 2^{k + b + 1} c + 2^{k + b}\\ &= 2^{k + b + 1} \left(2^{k + b - 1} c^2 + 2^{k + b - 3} + 2^{k + b - 1} c + c \right) + 2^{k + b} + 1,\\ \implies t^{2^{k + 1}} &\equiv \modd{2^{k + b} + 1} {2^{k + b + 1}}.\end{aligned}$$ This shows that Eq. holds for $k + 1$ as well, thus completing the induction. This gives the following corollary. \[tsqrordermod2pow\] Let $t$ be an odd integer, and let $b$ be the smallest positive integer such that $t \not\equiv \modd{\pm 1} {2^b}$. Then for $k \geq 1$, the powers of $t^2$ form a cyclic subgroup of order $2^k$ in $(\Zee/2^{k + b})^$. Let $\ell = k + 1$. Since $\ell \geq 1$, we can apply Eq. to get $$\begin{aligned} (t^2)^{2^{\ell - 1}} = t^{2^\ell} &\equiv \modd{2^{\ell + b - 1} + 1} {2^{\ell + b}},\\ \implies (t^2)^{2^{\ell - 1}} &\equiv \modd{1} {2^{\ell + b - 1}},\\ \implies (t^2)^{2^k} &\equiv \modd{1} {2^{k + b}}.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, by applying Eq. directly, we get $$\begin{aligned} (t^2)^{2^{k - 1}} = t^{2^k} &\equiv 2^{k + b - 1} + 1 \not\equiv \modd{1} {2^{k + b}},\\ \implies (t^2)^{2^{k - 1}} &\not\equiv \modd{1} {2^{k + b}} .\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the order of the subgroup generated by $t^2$ in $(\Zee/2^{k + b})^$ is $2^k$. \[exupperbound\] Let $t$ be an odd integer, and let $b$ be the smallest positive integer such that $t \not\equiv \modd{\pm 1} {2^b}$. Then for $k \geq 0$, the number $2^k$ discriminates every set of $2^k$ consecutive terms of the sequence $\left(\frac{(t^2)^n - 1}{2^b}\right)_{n \geq 0}$. For every $i \geq 0$, it follows from Corollary \[tsqrordermod2pow\] that the numbers $$(t^2)^i, (t^2)^{i + 1},\ldots, (t^2)^{i + 2^k - 1}$$ are distinct modulo $2^{k + b}$. By subtracting 1 from every element, we have that the numbers $$(t^2)^i - 1, (t^2)^{i + 1} - 1, \ldots, (t^2)^{i + 2^k - 1} - 1$$ are distinct modulo $2^{k + b}$. Furthermore, these numbers are also congruent to 0 modulo $2^b$ because $t^2 \equiv \modd{1} {2^b}$ from Lemma \[tsqrmod2pow\]. It follows that the set of quotients $$\left\{\frac{(t^2)^i - 1}{2^b}, \frac{(t^2)^{i + 1} - 1}{2^b}, \ldots, \frac{(t^2)^{i + 2^k - 1} - 1}{2^b}\right\}$$ consists of integers that are distinct modulo $\frac{2^{k + b}}{2^b} = 2^k$. Such a set of quotients coincides with every set of $2^k$ consecutive terms of the sequence $\left(\frac{(t^2)^n - 1}{2^b}\right)_{n \geq 0}$. Since the numbers in each set are distinct modulo $2^k$, the desired result follows. Lower bound {#three} =========== In this section, we establish some results useful for the lower bound on the discriminator of the sequence $\left(\frac{(t^2)^n - 1}{2^b}\right)_{n \geq 0}$. We start with an easy technical lemma, whose proof is omitted. \[log3mleqmover3\] Let $m$ be a positive integer. Then $\log_3 m \leq \frac{m}{3}$. The main lemma for proving the lower bound is as follows: \[exlowerbound\] Let $t$ be an odd integer, and let $b$ be the smallest positive integer such that $t \not\equiv \modd{\pm 1} {2^b}$. Then for all $k \geq 0$ and $1 \leq m \leq 2^{k + 1}$, there exists a pair of integers, $i$ and $j$, where $0 \leq i < j \leq 2^k$, such that $(t^2)^i \equiv \modd{(t^2)^j} {2^b m}$. Let the prime factorization of $m$ be $$\begin{aligned} m &= 2^x \prod_{1 \leq \ell \leq u} p_\ell^{y_\ell} \prod_{1 \leq \ell \leq v} q_\ell^{z_\ell},\end{aligned}$$ where $u, v, x, y_\ell, z_\ell \geq 0$, while $p_1, p_2, \ldots, p_u$ are the prime factors of $m$ that also divide $t$, and $q_1, q_2, \ldots, q_v$ are the odd prime factors of $m$ that do not divide $t$. For each $\ell \leq u$, let $e_\ell$ be the integer such that $p_\ell^{e_\ell} \|\| t$, i.e., we have $p_\ell^{e_\ell} \| t$ but $p_\ell^{e_\ell + 1} \nmid t$. We need to find a pair $(i, j)$ such that $(t^2)^i \equiv \modd{(t^2)^j} {2^b m}$. From the Chinese remainder theorem, we know it suffices to find a pair $(i, j)$ such that $$\begin{aligned} (t^2)^i &\equiv \modd{(t^2)^j} {2^{x + b}},\\ (t^2)^i &\equiv \modd{(t^2)^j} {p_\ell^{y_\ell}}, \text{ for all }1 \leq \ell \leq u,\\ \text{and } (t^2)^i &\equiv \modd{(t^2)^j} {q_\ell^{z_\ell}}, \text{ for all }1 \leq \ell \leq v.\end{aligned}$$ For the first of these equations, we know from Corollary \[tsqrordermod2pow\] that $(t^2)^i \equiv \modd{(t^2)^{i + 2^x}} {2^{x + b}}$. In other words, it suffices to have $2^x \| (j - i)$ to satisfy $(t^2)^i \equiv \modd{(t^2)^j} {2^{x + b}}$. Next, we consider the $u$ equations of the form $(t^2)^i \equiv \modd{(t^2)^j} {p_\ell^{y_\ell}}$. Since $p_\ell^{e_\ell}$ is a factor of $t$, it follows that $(t^2)^{y_\ell / 2 e_\ell}$ is a multiple of $(p_\ell^{2e_\ell})^{y_\ell / 2 e_\ell} = p_\ell^{y_\ell}$. Therefore, $(t^2)^{y_\ell / 2 e_\ell} \equiv \modd {0} {p_\ell^{y_\ell}}$. Any further multiplication by $t^2$ also yields 0 modulo $p_\ell^{y_\ell}$. Thus, it suffices to have $j > i \geq \frac{y_\ell}{2 e_\ell}$ in order to ensure that $(t^2)^i \equiv \modd{(t^2)^j} {p_\ell^{y_\ell}}$. Finally, there are $v$ equations of the form $(t^2)^i \equiv \modd{(t^2)^j} {q_\ell^{z_\ell}}$. In each case, $q_\ell$ is co-prime to $t$, which means that $(t^2)^{\varphi(q_\ell^{z_\ell})/2} = t^{\varphi(q_\ell^{z_\ell})} \equiv \modd {1} {q_\ell^{z_\ell}}$, where $\varphi(n)$ is Euler’s totient function. Now $\frac{\varphi (q_\ell^{z_\ell})}{2} = \frac{q_\ell^{z_\ell - 1}(q_\ell - 1)}{2}$. Thus, it is sufficient to have $\frac{q_\ell^{z_\ell - 1}(q_\ell - 1)}{2} \| (j - i)$ in order to ensure that $(t^2)^i \equiv \modd{(t^2)^j} {q_\ell^{z_\ell}}$. Merging these ideas together, we choose the following values for $i$ and $j$: $$\begin{aligned} i &= \max_{1 \leq \ell \leq u} \left\lceil \frac{y_\ell}{2 e_\ell} \right\rceil,\\ j &= \max_{1 \leq \ell \leq u} \left\lceil \frac{y_\ell}{2 e_\ell} \right\rceil + 2^x \prod_{1 \leq \ell \leq v} \frac{q_\ell^{z_\ell - 1}(q_\ell - 1)}{2},\end{aligned}$$ to ensure that $(t^2)^i \equiv \modd{(t^2)^j} {2^b m}$. It is clear that $0 \leq i < j$. In order to show that $j \leq 2^k$, we first observe that $$\begin{aligned} j &= \max_{1 \leq \ell \leq u} \left\lceil \frac{y_\ell}{2 e_\ell} \right\rceil + 2^x \prod_{1 \leq \ell \leq v} \frac{q_\ell^{z_\ell - 1}(q_\ell - 1)}{2} = \max_{1 \leq \ell \leq u} \left\lceil \frac{y_\ell}{2 e_\ell} \right\rceil + \frac{2^x}{2^v} \prod_{1 \leq \ell \leq v} q_\ell^{z_\ell - 1}(q_\ell - 1)\\ & \leq \max_{1 \leq \ell \leq u} \left\lceil \frac{y_\ell}{2} \right\rceil + \frac{2^x}{2^v} \prod_{1 \leq \ell \leq v} q_\ell^{z_\ell} = \max_{1 \leq \ell \leq u} \left\lceil \frac{y_\ell}{2} \right\rceil + \frac{m}{2^v \prod_{1 \leq \ell \leq u} p_\ell^{y_\ell}}.\end{aligned}$$ We now consider the following two cases: Case 1: $u = 0$. : If $v = 0$ as well, then $j = 2^x = m < 2^{k + 1}$, which means that $x \leq k$ and thus $j \leq 2^k$. Otherwise, if $v \geq 1$, then we have $$j \leq \max_{1 \leq \ell \leq u} \left\lceil \frac{y_\ell}{2} \right\rceil + \frac{m}{2^v \prod_{1 \leq \ell \leq u} p_\ell^{y_\ell}} = \frac{m}{2^v} \leq \frac{m}{2} < \frac{2^{k + 1}}{2} = 2^k.$$ Case 2: $u \geq 1$. : Let $r$ be such that $y_r = \max_{1 \leq \ell \leq u} y_\ell$, and thus, $p_r$ is the corresponding prime number with exponent $y_r$. Since $p_r^{y_r} \geq p_r \geq 3$, we have $$j \leq \max_{1 \leq \ell \leq u} \left\lceil \frac{y_\ell}{2} \right\rceil + \frac{m}{2^v \prod_{1 \leq \ell \leq u} p_\ell^{y_\ell}} \leq \left\lceil \frac{y_r}{2} \right\rceil + \frac{m}{p_r^{y_r}} \leq \frac{y_r + 1}{2} + \frac{m}{3} \leq \frac{y_r}{2} + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{m}{3}.$$ Note that $y_r \leq \log_{p_r} m \leq \log_{3} m \leq \frac{m}{3}$ from Lemma \[log3mleqmover3\], which means that $$j \leq \frac{y_r}{2} + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{m}{3} \leq \frac{m}{6} + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{m}{3} = \frac{m}{2} + \frac{1}{2} = \frac{m + 1}{2}.$$ Since both $m$ and $j$ are integers, this implies that $$j \leq \left\lceil \frac{m}{2} \right\rceil \leq \left\lceil \frac{2^{k + 1}}{2} \right\rceil \leq 2^k.$$ In both cases, we have $j \leq 2^k$, thus fulfilling the required conditions. Discriminator of $(\operatorname{ex}(n))_{n \geq 0}$ and its shifted counterparts {#four} ================================================================================= In this section, we combine the results of the previous sections to determine the discriminator for $(\operatorname{ex}(n))_{n \geq 1}$, as well as its shifted counterparts. We first prove a general lemma about the discriminator of some scaled sequences. \[coprimescaledisc\] Given a sequence $s(0), s(1), \ldots,$ and a non-zero integer $a$, let $s'(0), s'(1), \ldots,$ denote the sequence such that $s'(i) = a s(i)$ for all $i \geq 0$. Then, for every $n$ such that $\gcd(\|a\|, D_s (n)) = 1$, we have $D_{s'} (n) = D_s (n)$. From the definition of the discriminator, we know that for every $m < D_s (n)$, there exists a pair of integers $i$ and $j$ with $i < j < n$, such that $m \| s(j) - s(i)$. Thus, for this same pair of $i$ and $j$, we have $$m \| a(s(j) - s(i)) = as(j) - as(i) = s'(j) - s'(i).$$ Therefore, $m$ cannot discriminate the set $\{s'(0), s'(1), \ldots, s'(n - 1)\}$ and so $D_{s'} (n) \geq D_s (n)$. But for $m = D_s (n)$, we know that for all $i$ and $j$ with $i < j < n$, we have $m \nmid s(j) - s(i)$. Since $\gcd (m, \|a\|) = 1$, it follows that $$m \nmid a (s(j) - s(i)) = as(j) - as(i) = s'(j) - s'(i)$$ for all $i$ and $j$ with $i < j < n$. Therefore, $m = D_s (n)$ discriminates the set $$\{s'(0), s'(1), \ldots, s'(n - 1)\}$$ and so $D_{s'} (n) \leq D_s (n)$. Putting these results together, we have $D_{s'} (n) = D_s (n)$. We now compute the discriminator for $(\operatorname{ex}(n))_{n \geq 0} = \left(a \frac{(t^2)^n - 1}{2^b}\right)_{n \geq 0}$, and also for its shifted counterparts, which we denote by $(\operatorname{exs}(n, c))_{n \geq 0} = (\operatorname{ex}(n + c))_{n \geq 0}$ for some integer $c \geq 0$. Let $t$, $a$, $b$, and $c$ be integers such that $a$ and $t$ are odd, $c \geq 0$, and let $b$ be the smallest integer such that $t \not\equiv \modd{\pm 1} {2^b}$. Then the discriminator for the sequence $(\operatorname{exs}(n, c))_{n \geq 0} = \left(a \frac{(t^2)^{n + c} - 1}{2^b}\right)_{n \geq 0}$ is $$D_{\operatorname{exs}} (n) = 2^{\lceil \log_2 n \rceil}.$$ First we compute the discriminator for $a = 1$, where the sequence is of the form $(\operatorname{exs}(n))_{n \geq 0} = \left(\frac{(t^2)^{n + c} - 1}{2^b}\right)_{n \geq 0}$. The case for $n = 1$ is trivial. Otherwise, let $k \geq 0$ be such that $2^k < n \leq 2^{k + 1}$. We show that $D_{\operatorname{exs}} (n) = 2^{k + 1}$. From Lemma \[exupperbound\], we know that $2^{k + 1}$ discriminates the set, $$\{\operatorname{ex}(c), \operatorname{ex}(c + 1), \ldots, \operatorname{ex}(c + 2^{k + 1} - 1)\},$$ as well as every smaller subset of these numbers. Therefore, $2^{k + 1}$ discriminates $$\{\operatorname{exs}(0, c), \operatorname{exs}(1, c), \ldots, \operatorname{exs}(n - 1, c)\}.$$ In other words, $D_{\operatorname{exs}}(n) \leq 2^{k + 1}$. Now let $m$ be a positive integer such that $m < 2^{k + 1}$. By Lemma \[exlowerbound\], we know that there exists a pair of integers, $i$ and $j$, such that $$\begin{aligned} (t^2)^i \equiv \modd{(t^2)^j} {2^b m} &\implies (t^2)^c (t^2)^i \equiv \modd{(t^2)^c (t^2)^j} {2^b m},\\ &\implies (t^2)^{i + c} - 1 \equiv \modd{(t^2)^{j + c} - 1} {2^b m}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that since $(t^2) \equiv \modd{1} {2^b}$ from Lemma \[tsqrmod2pow\], we have $(t^2)^{i + c} - 1 \equiv (t^2)^{j + c} - 1 \equiv 1 - 1 \equiv \modd{0} {2^b}$. Therefore, $$(t^2)^{i + c} - 1 \equiv \modd{(t^2)^{j + c} - 1} {2^b m} \implies \frac{(t^2)^{i + c} - 1}{2^b} \equiv \modd{\frac{(t^2)^{j + c} - 1}{2^b}} {m}.$$ In other words, $\operatorname{exs}(i, c) \equiv \modd {\operatorname{exs}(j, c)} {m}$ while both numbers are in the set $$\{\operatorname{exs}(0, c), \operatorname{exs}(1, c), \ldots, \operatorname{exs}(n - 1, c)\}$$ since $i < j \leq 2^k < n$. Therefore, $m$ fails to discriminate this set. Since this applies for all $m < 2^{k + 1}$, we have $D_{\operatorname{exs}}(n) \geq 2^{k + 1}$. Since we have $2^{k + 1} \leq D_{\operatorname{exs}} \leq 2^{k + 1}$, this means that $D_{\operatorname{exs}} (n) = 2^{k + 1}$ and thus $D_{\operatorname{exs}} (n) = 2^{\lceil \log_2 n \rceil}$, provided that $a = 1$. Even for $a \neq 1$, we observe that the value of $2^{\lceil \log_2 n \rceil}$ is a power of 2 for all $n$, and so it is co-prime to all odd $a$. Therefore, we can apply Lemma \[coprimescaledisc\] to prove that the discriminator remains unchanged for odd values of $a$, thus proving that the discriminator for the sequence, $(\operatorname{exs}(n, c))_{n \geq 0} = \left(a \frac{(t^2)^{n + c} - 1}{2^b}\right)_{n \geq 0}$ is $D_{\operatorname{exs}} (n) = 2^{\lceil \log_2 n \rceil}$. Final remarks ============= We have considered sequences of the form $(\operatorname{ex}(n))_{n \geq 0} = \left(a \frac{(t^2)^n - 1}{2^b}\right)_{n \geq 0}$ for odd integers $a$ and $t$, where $b$ is the smallest positive integer such that $t \not\equiv \modd{\pm 1} {2^b}$. We showed that the discriminator for this sequence is characterized by $D_{\operatorname{ex}} (n) = 2^{\lceil \log_2 n \rceil}$ and that the discriminator is shift-invariant, i.e., all sequences of the form $(\operatorname{ex}(n + c))_{n \geq 0}$ for $c \geq 0$ share the same discriminator. This raises the question of what other sequences have shift-invariant discriminators. It is easy to show that sequences defined by a linear equation, i.e. of the form $(an + b)_{n \geq 0}$, have shift-invariant discriminators. Furthermore, the first author has recently shown [@Haque17] that the sequence $(2^k cn^2 + bcn)_{n \geq 0}$, for a positive integer $k$ and odd integers $b, c$, also has a shift-invariant discriminator $2^{\lceil \log_2 n \rceil}$. It is an open problem as to whether there are any sequences, other than those mentioned here, whose discriminators are shift-invariant. Futhermore, all sequences whose discriminators are known to be shift-invariant have discriminators with linear growth, but we do not know if this is true of all shift-invariant discriminators. Acknowledgments =============== We are grateful to Pieter Moree for introducing us to this interesting topic of discriminators. He also suggested the idea of generalizing $t$ to be any positive odd integer, thus broadening the class of exponential sequences presented in this paper. [99]{} L. K. Arnold, S. J. Benkoski, and B. J. McCabe. The discriminator (a simple application of Bertrand’s postulate). (1985), 275–277. M. Barcau. A sharp estimate of the discriminator. (1988), 247–250. P. S. Bremser, P. D. Schumer, and L. C. Washington. A note on the incongruence of consecutive integers to a fixed power. (1990), 105–108. S. Haque. Quadratic sequences with discriminator $p^{\lceil log_p n \rceil}$. Manuscript in preparation, January 2017. S. Haque and J. Shallit. Discriminators and $k$-regular sequences. (2016), Paper A76. P. Moree. The incongruence of consecutive values of polynomials. (1996), 321–335. P. Moree and G. L. Mullen. Dickson polynomial discriminators. (1996), 88–105. P. Moree and H. Roskam. On an arithmetical function related to Euler’s totient and the discriminator. (1995), 332–340. P. Moree and A. Zumalacárregui. Salajan’s conjecture on discriminating terms in an exponential sequence. (2016), 646–665. P. Schumer. On the incongruence of consecutive cubes. (1990), 42–48. P. Schumer and J. Steinig. On the incongruence of consecutive fourth powers. (1988), 145–149. Zhi-Wei Sun. On functions taking only prime values. (2013), 2794–2812. M. Zieve. A note on the discriminator. (1998), 122–138.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The full exploitation of non-abelian symmetries in tensor network states (TNS) derived from a given lattice Hamiltonian is highly attractive in various aspects. From a theoretical perspective, it can offer deep insights into the entanglement structure and quantum information content of strongly correlated quantum many-body states. From a practical perspective, it allows one to push numerical efficiency by orders of magnitude. Physical expectation values based on TNS require the full contraction of a given tensor network, with the elementary ingredient being a pairwise contraction. While well-established for no or just abelian symmetries, this can become quickly extremely involved and cumbersome for general non-abelian symmetries. As shown in this work, however, the latter can be tackled in a transparent and efficient manner by introducing so-called X-symbols which deal with the underlying pairwise contraction of generalized Clebsch-Gordan tensors (CGTs). These X-symbols can be computed deterministically once and for all, and hence also be tabulated. Akin to $6j$-symbols, X-symbols are generally much smaller than their constituting CGTs. In applications, they solely affect the tensors of reduced matrix elements, and therefore, once tabulated, allow one to completely sidestep the explicit usage of CGTs, and thus to greatly increase numerical efficiency.' author: - Andreas Weichselbaum bibliography: - '../../Dropbox/source/info/mybib.bib' title: 'X-Symbols for Non-Abelian Symmetries in Tensor Networks' --- Tensor network states (TNS) provide a powerful natural framework for the numerical treatment of strongly correlated quantum many-body physics on lattice Hamiltonians [@White92; @Schollwoeck11; @Orus14]. Starting in one dimension (1D) with matrix product states (MPS), the numerical renormalization group (NRG, [@Wilson75; @Bulla08; @Wb12_FDM]) and the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG, [@White92; @Schollwoeck05; @Schollwoeck11]) represent powerful, non-perturbative, and accurate methods to deal with strongly correlated system at arbitrary temperature both, statically and dynamically. An attractive extension of the 1D MPS structure was provided by the multiscale-entanglement renormalization ansatz (MERA, [@Vidal07_MERA; @Cirac09]), already also with an eye on higher dimensions, even if significantly more expensive numerically. The very flexible framework of TNS for lattice Hamiltonians has already also seen a wide range of applications in two dimensions (2D) via projected entangled pair states (PEPS) [@Verstraete04_peps; @Kraus10; @Cirac09; @Corboz10; @Phien15] or higher [@Xie12; @Saez13; @Ran17]. By providing an efficient way to study entanglement in strongly correlated systems, this also generated significant interest from a quantum information perspective [@Anders06; @Schuch10; @Eisert10]. While highly efficient in 1D, the numerical cost for dealing with TNS in 2D or higher, however, grows exorbitantly even though still polynomially. Therefore the exploitation of symmetries is extremely relevant and important also on practical grounds. This includes for correlated systems in quasi-1D, i.e., for long systems of narrow width, or in the presence of multiple (symmetric) flavors [@Costi09; @White09tj; @Wb12_SUN]. Symmetries on [all]{} indices in a tensor network state, physical and bond indices alike, are well-defined only in generalized tree-tensor networks [@Singh13], i.e, tensor network states without loops along virtual bonds that link tensors. In the presence of loops, significant ambiguities arise. Nevertheless, on practical grounds, one typically sees that enforcing symmetries on all indices also in a TNS with loops shows clear gains in efficiency [@Bauer11; @Liu15]. An intuitive handwaving argument for this may be provided based on the interpretation of bonds as auxiliary state spaces which motivated PEPS to start with. In the presence of non-abelian symmetries, all tensors can be decomposed into a tensor product structure of reduced matrix element tensors (RMTs) and generalized Clebsch Gordan coefficient tensors (CGTs) [@Singh10; @Wb12_SUN] as a direct generalization of the Wigner-Eckart theorem. This results in two immediate consequences that can be used to greatly improve numerical efficiency: (i) By splitting of a CGT factor for each elementary, i.e., simple symmetry present, this allows one to (strongly) reduce the effective dimensionality $D \to D^\ast$ of a given index or state space by switching from a state-based description to a description based on multiplets eventually dealt with by the RMTs. (ii) The CGTs are purely related to the symmetry of a given problem. Hence much of it can be dealt with once and for all by tabulating the relevant information. A general framework for dealing with general non-abelian symmetries in TNS was introduced in @Wb12_SUN ([-@Wb12_SUN]) [@Wb12_SUN] based on a general transparent tensor representation referred to as . Irreducible representations multiplet fusion rules together with the corresponding CGTs were tabulated there. However, contractions of CGTs were not tabulated due to the presence of outer multiplicity (OM). The prescription in [@Wb12_SUN] to deal with OM in the pairwise contraction of tensors was to always recontract all CGTs based on their particular instantiation in OM space. However, from a practical point of view, this led to significant computational overhead for larger non-abelian symmetries, such as SU($N\gtrsim4$). As will be shown in the present work, however, there also exists a transparent general way to deal with the problem of OM in the pairwise contraction of CGTs based the introduction of so-called X-symbols (where ‘X’ is simply a reference to generalized tensor multiplication, i.e., contraction). These can be computed once and for all, and thus also tabulated. X-symbols provide an alternative approach to $6j$ symbols etc. Yet they are much more naturally suited to tensor network algorithms, since they strictly deal with the elementary operation of the contraction of a pair of tensors (and hence a pair of CGTs) on an arbitrary subset of shared indices. Given the many reviews and detailed publications that already exist on TNS, e.g., see [@Schollwoeck11; @Wb12_SUN; @Wb12_FDM; @Orus14; @Orus19] and references therein, an elementary understanding of tensor network states is assumed in this work. With this in mind, the paper is organized as follows. [Sec. \[sec:TNS\]]{} sets the stage with focus on symmetries in TNS which strongly builds on @Wb12_SUN ([-@Wb12_SUN]) [@Wb12_SUN] . [Sec. \[sec:prelim\]]{} provides conventions and preliminaries required for the rest of the paper. [Sec. \[sec:ctr\]]{} then introduces X-symbols and discusses their relevance in TNS, followed by summary and outlook. Symmetries in tensor network states \[sec:TNS\] =============================================== Tensor network states describe lattice Hamiltonians. They typically share the same lattice structure yet with nearest-neighbor bonds only (whereas the Hamiltonian may be longer ranged). Each lattice site $n$ is assigned a tensor $A_n$ that links its physical state space $\|\varphi_\sigma\rangle_{n}$ to its connected (variationally determined) auxiliary state spaces $\|a_x\rangle$. In a pictorial language, the indices of a tensor are drawn as lines, also referred to as the legs of a tensor. All state spaces are indexed. E.g., the index $\sigma$ above spans the local state space of a single physical site, whereas the index $x=l,r,\ldots$ spans specific named bonds, such as l(eft), r(ight), etc. \[e.g. see \]. Arrows on all legs ------------------ The physical state spaces are orthonormal from the very outset, having ${}_{n'}\langle \varphi_{\sigma'} \| \varphi_{\sigma}\rangle_n= \delta_{\ \sigma}^{\sigma'} \delta_{\ n}^{n'}$. For generalized tree-tensor networks (TTN) [@Murg10] which, by definition, contain no loops along any path of bond indices, cutting any auxiliary bond separates the TNS into two disconnected blocks. As a direct consequence, all auxiliary or bond state spaces can be made orthonormal. If a given TTN is an exact symmetry eigenstate globally, all bond indices can be fully symmetrized, i.e., assigned symmetry labels without increasing the bond dimension [@Singh13]. In the case of a TTN, the auxiliary bond state spaces describe well-defined orthonormal effective quantum-many-body state spaces that represent entire blocks of the system. Each such block only contains one open bond index, starting from which it necessarily stretches all the way to the open or infinite outer boundary of the physical system, and hence also of the TTN considered. For a TTN, many-body state spaces are typically generated iteratively by adding one site after another to a block. Therefore any index or leg describes an orthonormal many-body state space that either enters a tensor as part of a tensor product space, or leaves a tensor with the interpretation of an effective combined state space. So while several lines may enter a tensor, there is always at most one line that can leave a tensor. For finite TTN simulations then, auxiliary indices all flow towards the orthogonality center (OC) [@Stoudenmire10], This is the only tensor in an entire TTN that may have no outgoing index. It combines the orthonormal states spaces of various blocks into a normalized global wave function. If multiple global states are targeted, e.g., if the global symmetry multiplet is not a scalar, then the OC also carries along an outgoing leg, namely the index that resolves the global state or multiplet. In a pictorial description, this naturally suggests that each index (leg or line) in a tensor network (TN) is given an arrow. Correspondingly, in mathematical notation, an outgoing (incoming) index to a tensor can be written as a lowered (raised) index, which is equivalent to covariant (contravariant) index notation, respectively. A contracted, i.e., summed over index then necessarily is outgoing from one tensor and ingoing into another, consistent with Einstein summation convention that an index is summed over if it appears twice, namely as a raised and lowered index. By having adopted the convention that the physical state space of site $n$ is denoted by $\|\varphi_\sigma\rangle_n$, i.e., with lowered indices, this implies that the index (leg) in a tensor where it enters must be a raised index. Thus combining, for example, the state space of site $n$ with an effective bond state space $a_l$ (‘left’), the fused state space $a_r$ (‘right’) is given by, $$\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{indices} \label{eq:indices}$$ where the summation over double indices is implicit, hence the bracket around the sum. TTNs guarantee that orthonormal state spaces, and hence also symmetries, are well-defined throughout. This is crucially important for efficient algorithms [@Schollwoeck05; @Schollwoeck11]. These orthogonal state spaces ensure an orthogonal environment, and hence optimal conditions [@Lubasch14] when truncating bond dimensions to the most entangled and thus most relevant quantum-many-body states constituting a given global state. In this sense, orthogonality and hence arrows are crucially important in TTNs. In more general TNSs in the presence of loops, however, it is no longer possible to associate all indices with well-defined strictly orthonormal state spaces in the strong sense this can be achieved with TTN [@Singh13]. Instead, one can adopt the much less rigorous PEPS-like interpretation that bonds host actual auxiliary state spaces where one simply imposes that these are orthonormal and adhering to the symmetries of the overall Hamiltonian. When dynamically truncating, and thus adapting auxiliary state spaces, it is no longer possible then to have a perfectly orthonormal environment. Instead, one needs to resort to optimal conditioning [@Lubasch14]. If one decides to exploit global symmetries, in any case, this necessitates that symmetries need to be enforced locally with each tensor, and therefore that all lines in a TNS carry arrows. For TNSs with loops then, such as a 2D PEPS, individual tensors typically also carry multiple outgoing legs. Independent of whether or not global symmetries are enforced, however, when describing specific algorithms in tensor networks, arrows on all legs, or equivalently raised and lowered indices generally represent a powerful natural concept for the underlying tensor algebra. General tensor decomposition ---------------------------- In the presence of (non-abelian) symmetries, the tensor coefficients $A$ (without hat) of any tensor operator $\hat{A}$ (with hat) can be decomposed into a sum over tensor products of reduced matrix elements $\Vert A\Vert$ times generalized Clebsch-Gordan coefficients $C$, [@Singh10; @Wb12_SUN] $$\begin{aligned} A = \bigoplus_q \Vert A\Vert_q \otimes C_q \text{ .}\label{eq:tensor:decomp:0}\end{aligned}$$ The tensor $A$ can have arbitrary rank $r$ which is defined here as the number of legs (indices) attached. The sum over $q$ indicates sum over symmetry sectors. For each independent elementary (i.e., simple) symmetry considered, another CGT can be split off [@Wb12_SUN], collectively written as $C_q$ above. To be precise, in this paper, a CGT always refers to a specific elementary simple symmetry such as SU(N), Sp(2n), or SO(n) \[see also [App. \[app:rsym\]]{}\], and can always also be chosen real. Yet the same way, an algorithm needs to deal with RMTs and CGTs separately, also CGTs for different symmetries can be dealt with completely separately and in parallel. Hence while, for the sake of the argument for simplicity only a single elementary non-abelian symmetry is considered, all arguments in this paper straightforwardly also generalize to the presence of multiple symmetries. The decomposition in [Eq. ]{} holds for general symmetries, non-abelian and abelian symmetries alike. For abelian symmetries, however, all multiplets contain only a single state. Hence the tensorial structure of the CGTs reduces to simple numbers there. For non-abelian symmetries, on the other hand, one still also needs to systematically account for outer multiplicity as explained below. The overall tensorial structure such as rank or directions of incoming and outgoing indices, i.e., the arrow configuration, is exactly inherited by all terms, RMTs as well as CGTs. In order to avoid excessive proliferation of indices, for the sake of readability, simplified shortcut notations are adopted as explained in the following. In particular, this also concerns the at times somewhat loose distinction between raised or lowered indices if the distinction is not explicitly important in a specific context. In [Eq. ]{}, for example, the combined symmetry labels for all legs have simply been written as subscript $q$, even though legs may have mixed raised and lowered indices. The symmetry labels (simply also referred to as ‘$q$-labels’) for all $r=l+l'$ legs of a given CGT are given by the full set $$\begin{aligned} q &\equiv& (q^1\!, ..., q^{l}, q_{1'},..., q_{l'}) \equiv (q_1\!,... q_{l} \, \| \, q_{1'},..., q_{l'}) \text{.} \quad \label{eq:qlabels}\end{aligned}$$ Here each $q^i$ (or $q_{i'}$) is a tuple of multiplet labels of fixed length that specifies the symmetry sector on a given index (vector space) $i$ for all symmetries considered. While the order of legs within the group of incoming (or outgoing) legs is important, incoming and outgoing indices can be arbitrarily interspersed, otherwise. This means that the position of raised indices relative to lowered indices is irrelevant. Therefore, e.g., all incoming indices can be listed first, as shown in [Eq. ]{}. While the first decomposition of $q$ in [Eq. ]{} explicitly specifies raised and lowered indices, the equivalent last decomposition splits the group of incoming ($l$ legs) via the bar ‘$\|$’ from the group of outgoing indices ($l'$ legs). It uses all lower indices, if relevant, otherwise. This is useful, for example, when discussing standard rank-3 CGTs $q\equiv (q_1 q_2\|q_3)$ which fuse $q_1$ and $q_2$ into the combined total $q_3$. E.g., consider $(q \bar{q}\|0)$ which fuses multiplet(s) $q$ with their dual(s) into the scalar representation, simply denoted as 0. This has no more raised or lowered indices whatsoever, which thus requires the last notation in [Eq. ]{}. Depending on the context, the combined label $q$ as a whole as in [Eq. ]{} may also be written as superscript, instead, with no specific meaning of the location, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Only when $q$ appears paired up as raised and lowered index, e.g., $C_q D^q$, the legs $q$ are considered traced over with arrows reverted in $D$ relative to $C$ (cf. conjugate tensors below). Decomposed $q$ labels with the same CGT always adhere to the interpretation of raised and lowered indices. The CGTs corresponding to the standard rank-3 CGTs above then, for example, correspond to $C_q \equiv C^{q_1 q_2}_{q_3}$ or $C^{q \bar{q}}_0$. The same index convention as in [Eq. ]{} also holds for the RMTs, i.e., using the notation $n\equiv (n^1 \ldots n^{l} n_{1'},\ldots, n_{l'})$ for the index into the tensor of reduced matrix elements which identifies specific symmetry multiplets in a state space decomposition [@Wb12_SUN]. By convention, in the notation of $q$ in [Eq. ]{} or also $n$, incoming indices are listed first. Note, however, that this is reverse to the bra-ket notation, e.g. as in [Eq. ]{}, which places incoming states as kets, and hence needs to be read right-to-left. Outer multiplicity\[sec:OM\] ---------------------------- In the presence of non-abelian symmetries, tensors as in [Eq. ]{} are typically faced with the problem of outer multiplicity (OM) in their CGTs. This means that for exactly the same symmetry labels $q$ multiple ($m_q>1$) orthogonal CGTs can arise \[cf. [Eq. ]{} later\]. Hence the CGTs acquire an additional multiplicity index $\mu = 1,\ldots, m_q$, i.e., $C_q \to C_{q,\mu}$. If a given CGT has no outer multiplicity, then $m_q=1$ which represents a singleton dimensions and thus may be safely skipped. If a given combination of symmetry labels is not permissible from a symmetry point of view, then $m_q=0$. While there is no OM in the well-known SU(2) at the level of standard Clebsch-Gordan coefficients (having rank $r=3$), OM routinely also occurs in SU(2) for CGTs of rank $r>3$ \[see [App. \[app:rsym\]]{}\]. A simple example for the emergence of OM in SU(2) for a rank-4 CGT is shown in (\[eq:OM\]a), $$\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{OM} \label{eq:OM}$$ which represents the contraction of two multiplicity-free rank-3 CGTs $C$ and $C'$, over the shared intermediate multiplet $q_i=S_i$. However, typically there will exist multiple choices for the intermediate spin multiplet $S_i$. Therefore when ‘zooming out’, i.e., contracting the intermediate index, the resulting rank-4 tensor (brown circle) acquires outer multiplicity $\mu=1, \ldots m_q$. Here $m_q$ is the number of permissible intermediate $S_i$ for fixed open outer multiplets $S_1^{(\prime)}$ and $S_2^{(\prime)}$. In the present case, the presence of several permissible internal multiplets $S_i$ directly translates into OM indexed by $\mu$. Recoupling of the internal (contracted) structure results in an orthogonal rotation in OM space. For overall consistency, the OM index \[green line in (\[eq:OM\]a)\] also carries an arrow. Since this comes ‘out’ of a given CGT decomposition for $C \ast C'$, arbitrarily but fixed, the index $\mu$ is chosen an outgoing index. The strategy above can be used to determine the level of OM for arbitrary symmetries and CGTs, as discussed later in [Sec. \[sec:OM:dim\]]{}. The presence of OM introduces an additional vector space. The CGTs in [Eq. ]{} then become a linear superposition in OM space, described by the normalized coefficients $w_{\mu}^{\ \mu'} $, $$\begin{aligned} A = \bigoplus_q \Bigl( \Vert A\Vert_{q}^{\mu} \otimes \bigl( w_{\mu}^{\ \mu'} C_{q\mu'} \bigr)\Bigr) \text{ ,}\label{eq:tensor:decomp}\end{aligned}$$ with implicit summation of the multiplicity indices (Einstein summation convention). This coefficient matrix $w$ can always be chosen (sub)unitary, i.e., having $w w^\dagger=1$. Effectively, the role of $w$ is such that it ‘ties together’ the otherwise plain tensor product between RMTs $\Vert A\Vert_{q}$ and CGTs $C_q$, as graphically depicted in Eq.(\[eq:OM\]b+c). Within a given symmetry sector $q$, $\Vert A\Vert_{q}^{\mu}$ are the reduced matrix elements that come with the CGT component $\sum_{\mu'} w_{\mu}^{\ \mu'} C_{q\mu}$. In other words, for different orthogonal outer multiplicity components, there can be a completely different set of reduced matrix elements. For this reason, the matrix $w$ in [Eq. ]{} can have at most as many rows (indexed by $\mu$) as there are columns (indexed by $\mu' \leq m_q$). Fewer rows than $m_q$ are allowed (the tensor $A$ then simply does not span the full OM space), such that $w^\dagger w \neq 1$. However if there had been more than $m_q$ rows, QR or singular value (SV) decomposition of $w = z \tilde{w}$ would allow one to reduce to the effective form in [Eq. ]{} with $z$ contracted onto the RMT $\Vert A\Vert_{q}^{\mu}$, and an altered, now unitary $\tilde{w}$. The CGTs $C_q$ can be computed once and for all and then stored (tabulated) in a central, dynamically generated database. For the storage of any tensor $A$ then only a [reference]{} to the CGTs is required in terms of metadata. Associating $w$ with $C_q$, i.e., considering $\sum_{\mu'} w_{\mu}^{\ \mu'} C_{q\mu'}$, in principle, one can explicitly store these individual OM components with $\Vert A\Vert_{q}^\mu$ for each $\mu$, resulting in a non-unique listing of symmetry sectors $q$ in the listing of non-zero blocks of $A$ in [Eq. ]{}. This was the procedure in [@Wb12_SUN]. However, instead, one can explicitly add an OM index $\mu$ onto the RMT to the already existing indices $n$, and contract $w$ onto it, $\Vert A\Vert_{q n} \to \sum_\mu \Vert A\Vert_{q n}^{\mu} w_{\mu}^{\ \mu'}$. Then the tensor $A$ can be written as a [unique]{} listing over symmetry sectors $q$ \[see [App. \[app:QSpace:v3\]]{}\]. While the matrix $w$ may be eliminated this way, for practical purposes, it may be explicitly kept with the tensor decomposition in [Eq. ]{} nevertheless. For example, this then allows one to simply absorb operations in OM space such as orthogonal transformations into $w$, while the possibly large CGTs and RMTs can remain unaltered. Conventions and preliminaries\[sec:prelim\] =========================================== Conjugate tensors ----------------- The [conjugate tensor]{} $A^\dagger$ of any given tensor $A$ is defined by the following prescription: take the complex conjugate of all of its matrix elements, i.e., $A^\ast$ (relevant for RMTs only, since CGTs are real), then revert all arrows, and take a mirror image of the tensor when depicted graphically [@Wb12_SUN]. Effectively, the latter is the generalization of the transposition part in what one means by $A^\dagger$, e.g. if $A$ is an operator sandwiched in between a bra-ket bracket. Taking the mirror image, actually, is a rather common graphical procedure in TNS, even if one typically does not further dwell on this. For example, when computing expectation values $\langle\psi\| ... \|\psi \rangle$ for a given MPS, this involves the contraction of an $A$-tensor as in with itself, as shown in (\[eq:Xconj\]a), $$\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Xconj} \label{eq:Xconj}$$ Here $A^\dagger$ (empty square at the bottom) is the mirror image of $A$ (filled square at the top) with the arrows on all lines reverted, while also taking complex conjugated matrix elements. The mirror plane is indicated by the horizontal thick yellow line. Another example is the representation of an operator $\hat{S}$ that acts on a local state space as depicted in (\[eq:Xconj\]b) which, e.g., may be inserted into the vertical line labeled by $\sigma$ in (\[eq:Xconj\]a). The operator $\hat{S}$ can consist of set of operators indexed by $\alpha$ that is irreducible w.r.t. the symmetries under consideration. This makes it an irreducible operator (irop), which thus naturally acquires the third index $\alpha$ [@Wb12_SUN]. It can also be non-Hermitian, e.g. considering fermionic hopping, or spin raising and lowering operators. Here (\[eq:Xconj\]c) summarizes what one means by taking its Hermitian conjugate: matrix elements are complex conjugated ($S\to S^\ast$), top and bottom index are exchanged (tangled, yet non-crossing lines), all arrows are reverted, and a mirror image is taken (here w.r.t. to the vertical thick yellow line which flips the irop index $\alpha$ to the left). Untangling the lines by rotating the tensor clockwise by 180 degrees which leaves the tensor unaltered per se, leads to the correct final result, indicated by $S^\dagger$ to the right. It looks much the same as (\[eq:Xconj\]b), but now with reverted index $\alpha$. The latter is important, for example, when deriving scalar operators from bilinears, as in $\hat{S}_n\cdot \hat{S}_{n'}^\dagger$ where the dot product simply translates to a contracted directed line $\alpha$. The above procedure of conjugating tensors also shows up systematically when dealing with fermionic PEPS [@Corboz10]. In terms of index order convention, taking a mirror image implies w.r.t. the original tensor that if indices are read clockwise in $A$ starting from the some arbitrary but fixed index, they need to be read counter-clockwise in $A^\dagger$. Yet as pointed out earlier with [Eq. ]{}, incoming and outgoing indices can be grouped while ensuring that the order within these groups is preserved. As a further graphical emphasis that one is dealing with a conjugate tensor in a TN sketch, this paper frequently uses the convention already applied in [Eq. ]{} above that one switches from a filled tensor (box, circle, etc.) to an empty outlined object, or vice versa. As a further example, in [Eq. ]{}a, the conjugate tensor $C'$ with two outgoing indices was depicted with an empty circle, in contrast to the standard rank-3 CGT $C$ with two incoming indices depicted by a filled circle. In a mathematical notation, a conjugate tensor can be indicated by flipping the location of its indices, e.g., $\bigl( C_{q \mu} \bigr) ^\dagger \equiv C^{q \mu}$. CGT normalization convention in OM space \[sec:CGT:norm\] --------------------------------------------------------- When considering a CGT $C_q$ for an arbitrary but fixed set of symmetry labels $q$, a convenient natural normalization convention in OM space is, $$\begin{aligned} \mathrm{Tr}\bigl( C_{q \mu} C_{q \mu'}^\dagger \bigr) \equiv \mathrm{Tr}\bigl( C_{q \mu} C^{q \mu'} \bigr) = \delta_{\mu}^{\ \mu'} \text{ ,}\label{eq:Cnorm}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathrm{Tr}\bigl( C_{q \mu} C_{q \mu'}^\dagger \bigr)$ stands for the full contraction (tensor trace) of $C_q$ with the conjugate of itself, only keeping OM indices open. By pairing with its conjugate tensor, this also reverts the arrow of the OM index, hence raises the index $\mu'$ in [Eq. ]{}. The CGT normalization in [Eq. ]{} simply generates an orthonormal basis in the OM ‘vector’ space. This is convenient when performing a decomposition in OM space. For rank-3 CGTs, the normalization in [Eq. ]{} is closely related to the normalization of Wigner-3j symbols [@Messiah66]. It is different, though, from the normalization of the standard Clebsch-Gordan coefficients e.g. for SU(2) $(S_1 S_2 \| S_3)$ that fuse $(S_1,S_2)$ into an orthonormal basis in $S_3$ (and not in OM). The latter would result in a norm in [Eq. ]{} that is equal to $\|S_3\|$, i.e., the dimension of multiplet $S_3$. Consequently, this would make the normalization dependent on the direction of arrows in a given CGT. This is rather inconvenient on general grounds, and specifically so in the TNS context, since the presence or not of OM [does neither depend on the direction of arrows nor the specific order]{} of symmetry labels. This follows from the discussion below that raising or lowering of an index on a CGT is equivalent to applying a unitary matrix on that index while also switching to the dual representation on that leg \[cf. [Sec. \[sec:1j\]]{}\]. Conversely, a permutation of indices on a CGT can only induce orthogonal rotations in OM space \[cf. [Sec. \[sec:perm\]]{}\] which clearly also leaves the OM dimension invariant. Therefore based on the normalization in [Eq. ]{}, the standard CGTs with $q=(q_1,q_2 \| q_3) \equiv (q^1 q^2 q_3)$ have the same normalization for any permutation of the symmetry labels together with arbitrary raising or lowering of indices. Raising and lowering of labels, however, changes the interpretation of which multiplets are fused together. By raising all indices in a CGT, for $q=(q^1 q^2 q^3)$, this is equivalent to fusing all three multiplets of a standard CGT into a total scalar representation denoted by $q_\mathrm{tot}=0$, i.e., $q=(q_1,q_2, q_3\|0)$, and subsequently skipping the trailing singleton dimension. The resulting rank-3 CGT has all-incoming legs, i.e., with $q=(q^1 q^2 q^3)$ is exactly equivalent to Wigner-3j (‘$3q$’) symbols up to an overall sign. In practice, here we follow the sign convention of the standard Clebsch-Gordan coefficients, that the first non-zero matrix element in a CGT $C_q$ is chosen positive. Fully contracted CGT networks \[sec:Tr:full\] --------------------------------------------- When a tensor network is fully contracted, all indices are paired up and summed over. This holds for both, the RMTs as well as the CGTs. Here, for the sake of the argument, however, the focus is on an isolated fully contracted TNS solely comprised of CGTs. The OM for each participating CGT is assumed fixed to some arbitrary but fixed linear superpositions in OM space \[e.g. see [Eq. ]{}\], such that there is no open index left in the TNS, and the full contraction yields some number $x$. By construction, this number can be non-zero only if the CGT network is permissible from a symmetry point of view. Now if one opens up a single index in this otherwise fully contraction CGT network, say with symmetry label $q_i$, the result is proportional to a rank-2 CGT $C_{q_i}^{q_i}$, i.e., with one incoming and one outgoing index. The only such CGT that exists is the identity matrix up to normalization. Its graphical representation is a single directed line. Therefore it follows that a CGT network that is fully contracted up to a single opened up index $i$, necessarily is proportional to the identity matrix $1^{\|q_i\|}$ of dimension $\|q_i\|$, i.e., the size of multiplet $q_i$. As a specific example, consider the tensor network in [Eq. ]{} of just one CGT fully contracted with itself for arbitrary but fixed $\mu$ and $\mu'$. Then opening up one bond index $i$ with symmetry label $q_{i}$, one obtains $$\begin{aligned} \mathrm{Tr}_{\backslash q_i}\bigl( C_{q \mu} C_{q \mu'}^\dagger \bigr) = \tfrac{\delta_{\mu}^{\ \mu'}}{\|q_i\|} 1^{\|q_i\|} \text{ ,}\label{eq:Cnorm:1}\end{aligned}$$ The normalization is determined by the requirement that the final trace over $i$, when performed, results back in [Eq. ]{}. Reverting arrows and -symbols \[sec:1j\] ---------------------------------------- Reverting the arrow on a given bond in a TNS changes its interpretation, as well as the interpretation of the associated tensors. As this will be useful also later in the CGT context, consider first the elementary process where the orthogonality center in an MPS is iteratively propagated from site $n \to n{+}1$ with associated tensors $\tilde{A}_n$ and $A_{n+1}$ contracted on their shared auxiliary bond [@Schollwoeck11], $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{A}_n A_{n+1} &=& \bigl( A_n \underbrace{\tilde{X}_n\bigr) A_{n+1}}_{ \equiv \tilde{A}_{n+1}} \equiv \underbrace{\tilde{A}_n \bigl( \tilde{X}_n^{-1}}_{ \equiv A_n } \underbrace{\tilde{X}_n \bigr) A_{n+1}}_{ \equiv \tilde{A}_{n+1}} \text{ ,}\label{eq:bupdate}\end{aligned}$$ where the tilde indicates the tensor that carries the OC. Before the iteration step, the OC is located on site $n$, and the bond in between sites $(n,n+1)$ describes an orthonormal effective many-body state space for the entire right block of sites $n'>n$. After the iteration step, conversely, the arrow on the bond changed its direction, and now describes the orthonormal effective many-body space for the entire left block of sites $n' \leq n$. On a procedural level, one starts with the tensor $\tilde{A}_n$ in [Eq. ]{} that carries the OC and performs QR or SV decomposition on it [@Schollwoeck11; @Wb12_SUN]. This yields $\tilde{A}_n = A_n \tilde{X}_n$, where $A_n$ is a new isometry, and the OC is now shifted onto the tensor $\tilde{X}_n$ located on the bond in between sites $(n,n+1)$. When contracted onto $A_{n+1}$, this makes the former isometry $A_{n+1}$ the new OC $\tilde{A}_{n+1}$. Formally, in the last equality of [Eq. ]{}, the direction of a bond is flipped by using the Gauge freedom inherent to TNS [@Schollwoeck11]. This consists of inserting the identity $1 = \tilde{X}_n^{-1} \tilde{X}_n$ and then associating the tensors $\tilde{X}_n^{-1}$ and $\tilde{X}_n$ with the left and right $A$-tensors, respectively. However, as shown to left of [Eq. ]{}, often it is not necessary to actually compute the inverse of $\tilde{X}_n$ as this may be ill-conditioned. Eventually, one can exactly flip the orientation of a leg in a TNS without changing the global physical state. One only changes the local perspective and interpretation by splitting off the tensor $\tilde{X}_n$ from $\tilde{A}_n$ and contracting it onto the neighboring tensor $A_{n+1}$. The discussion of flipping the direction of an arrow an a given elementary CGT $C_q$ with fixed symmetry labels $q$ follows much of the same spirit. In contrast to RMTs, however, the procedure is naturally much more constrained for CGTs. For example, a CGT is already always in a canonical form \[cf. higher-order SV decomposition, \]. Even more, with [Eq. ]{}, it has constant singular value spectrum w.r.t. to any of its bonds, since by symmetry, all states in a given multiplet are necessarily equally important. As will be shown below then, the matrix $\tilde{X}$ in [Eq. ]{} to flip the direction of an arrow must be unitary for CGTs, while in the same process the representation also needs to be switched to its dual. In order to show this, it is sufficient to narrow the discussion further down to a single directed line with symmetry label $q$, assuming a single elementary non-abelian symmetry for the sake of the argument without restricting the case. This line may represent, e.g., an auxiliary index in a TNS, and may be associated with the CGT $C_q^{\ q} \propto 1^{\|q\|}$. In general, now any irreducible representation (irep) $q$ has a unique dual representation $\bar{q}$. This dual shares the same multiplet dimension, i.e, $\|q\| = \|\bar{q}\|$, and it is the only irep that, when fused together with $q$, permits the scalar representation as an outcome, i.e., having $(q \bar{q} \| 0)$ exactly once. The corresponding CGT $C_0^{q\bar{q}}$ therefore never has OM, but is unique up to an overall sign convention. By definition, the scalar representation, always denoted by $q=0$ here, is fully symmetric under symmetry operations. Hence its multiplet only consists of a single state, i.e., $\|0\|=1$. For example, SU(2) is self-dual, i.e., $\bar{q}=q$ for all $q$, such that the product space of spin $q=S$ with itself (and itself only) always also yields a singlet with $S_\mathrm{tot}=0$, having $(SS\|0)$. The same argument can be further extended also to U(1) abelian symmetries such as charge ($N$) or spin ($S_z$). There the dual is simply given by $\bar{q}=-q$, since $q+(-q)=0$. By making use of the dual representation, this allows one to define the unitary matrix $U^{q \bar{q}}_{(0)} \equiv \sqrt{\|q\|} \cdot C_0^{q\bar{q}}$ of dimension $\|q\|$ for any representation $q$ as depicted in (\[eq:revert\]a), $$\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{revert} \label{eq:revert}$$ The singleton dimension in the scalar representation, indicated by the dashed line to the right, will be frequently skipped in $U$ to emphasize that $U$ is a matrix, indeed. Hence the subscript $0$ has been written in brackets. Now $\mathrm{Tr}(U^\dagger U)$ \[Eq.(\[eq:revert\]b)\] is proportional to a rank-3 CGT fully contracted with its conjugate. So when opening up a single index, namely the one for $q$, this must be proportional to the identity matrix \[cf. [Eq. ]{}\], and with the normalization as chosen in Eq.(\[eq:revert\]a), $U^{q\bar{q}}$ must therefore be unitary (strictly speaking, orthogonal, since CGTs are always real). This now permits to insert a simple identity $U^\dagger U {=}1$ on a given leg in a TNS, as depicted in Eq.(\[eq:revert\]c) which provides a simple recipe to revert the arrow on any contracted line with symmetry label $q$ that links CGTs, much in the spirit of [Eq. ]{} earlier. By simply contracting $U$ and $U^\dagger=U^{-1}$ onto the two neighboring tensors linked via the contraction, as indicated by the broad arrows to the left and to the right in light color in (\[eq:revert\]d), the arrow on the black line in the center now points in the opposite direction as compared to (\[eq:revert\]c). At the same time, the symmetry label on the bond flipped to its dual, i.e., $q\to \bar{q}$. When not mentioned explicitly, the latter will be implicitly assumed whenever individual indices are lowered or raised. Since the unitary matrix $U^{q \bar{q}}$ effectively only refers to a single symmetry label $q$, the unitary $U^{q\bar{q}}$ is referred to as a -symbol with reference to the literature on SU(2) [@Derome65; @Butler75]. One needs to be careful, however, when skipping the singleton dimension \[dashed line in (\[eq:revert\]c)\], which is reduced to the little residual ‘stems’ to the top in (\[eq:revert\]d): these stems are important to keep track of the order of $U^{q\bar{q}}$ vs. $U^{\bar{q} q}$ e.g., for self-dual $q$. They must point in the same direction, to ensure that the conjugate of precisely the [same]{} object $U^{q\bar{q}}$ is inserted together with $U^{q\bar{q}}$ in order to guarantee an identity matrix overall. Specifically, the dashed line in (\[eq:revert\]c) must not cross the solid horizontal line. Otherwise sign-errors can arise, since $[U^{q\bar{q}}]^T = \pm U^{\bar{q} q}$ where the sign depends on $q$. For example, for SU(2) a sign arises for all half-integer spins. In summary, symbols can be utilized to revert arrows on lines in a TNS, or equivalently, to raise or lower indices in mathematical notation (in this sense, the symbol acts like a metric tensor within the tensor algebra of a given multiplet). In principle, therefore it also suffices to tabulate the CGTs with all-upper indices only (all incoming), since indices can be lowered by applying ’s. ### Generation of -symbols A -symbol can be computed, in principle, via an irep decomposition of $(q \bar{q}\|\ast)$. Starting from maximum weight states, however, the largest ireps are always generated first, with the -symbol the very last CGT to be generated. This is not practical for very large multiplets, bearing in mind that $\|q\| = \|\bar{q}\|$. Also, in TNS one typically fuses a given large effective state space (bond index) with new local state spaces of small dimension. That is large (effective) multiplets get fused routinely with (much) smaller ones. But for most part, one can avoid fusing two large multiplets. This is specifically important for large symmetries such as SU($N\gtrsim 4$) \[cf. [App. \[app:rsym\]]{}\]. Therefore an alternative route to computing -symbols is desirable. Note that -symbols are only square matrices of dimension $\|q\|$, which is in stark contrast to fully decompose a $\|q\|^2$ dimensional vector space into irreducible representations. Moreover, -symbols are (close to) anti-diagonal, i.e, very sparse like CGTs in general. In the absence of inner multiplicity (IM) [@Wb12_SUN] such as for SU(2), they are strictly antidiagonal with alternating entries $\pm 1$. The non-trivial part for -symbols arises from the anti-diagonal block structure due to IM which requires consistent conventions on how to decompose IM spaces [@Wb12_SUN]. The symbol derives from a standard rank-3 CGT. When the underlying symmetry already permits OM for standard rank-3 CGTs, this also implies the presence of IM, and hence block structure in symbols. The symbol itself, however, is unique otherwise up to a global sign convention which is simply inherited here from the overall sign convention on CGTs. The approach taken then, for example, in to compute symbols is based on the fact that the scalar multiplet $q=0$ is destroyed by every one of the $\alpha=1,\ldots,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}_{\mathrm{\ifx\@empty{}\else{sym}\fi}}}}$ generalized raising and lowering operators $S_\alpha^{(\dagger)}$, with ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}_{\mathrm{\ifx\@empty{}\else{sym}\fi}}}}$ the rank of a given symmetry \[cf. [App. \[app:rsym\]]{}\]. Having explicit access to the sparse generators $S_\alpha^{(\dagger)}$ in the representation $q$ of some given symmetry of rank ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}_{\mathrm{\ifx\@empty{}\else{sym}\fi}}}}$, one can resort to a variational Krylov based minimization, and compute the ground state of the sparse pseudo Hamiltonian (cost function), $$H_{q}^{1j} = \sum_{\alpha\leq {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}_{\mathrm{\ifx\@empty{}\else{sym}\fi}}}}} \bigl( S_\alpha^{\phantom{\dagger}} S_\alpha^{\dagger} + S_\alpha^{\dagger} S_\alpha^{\phantom{\dagger}} \bigr)_q \text{ .}$$ This is in general a well-conditioned problem with a unique ground state (the -symbol) at ‘energy’ zero and with a ‘gap’ of order 1. By construction, this ground state must be simultaneously maximum [and]{} minimum weight state, hence represents a scalar multiplet. The Kryolv based minimization then allows one to directly converge the -symbols via iterative means down to ones numerical floating point precision. The sparse nature of the the -symbols strongly limits the variational parameter space, and hence leads to fast convergence. ### -symbols via contractions A useful application of -symbols arises when computing a ground state of a system which itself is in a global singlet symmetry sector, i.e., the scalar representation $q_\mathrm{tot}=0$. By skipping this global singleton dimensions, this requires access to simple -symbols during setup. However, when sweeping through the TNS, the OC repeatedly gets located on an auxiliary bond deep inside the TNS where a wide range of multiplets can be explored. Here the shifting of the OC can also be achieved by contraction, e.g., by projecting onto identity $A$-tensors (which correspond to simple $A$-tensor as in [Eq. ]{} yet initially without truncation [@Wb12_SUN]). The tensor $\tilde{X}$ that carries the OC on a bond is of rank-2 with all indices incoming. Therefore, up to normalization, all of its CGTs necessarily must correspond to -symbols. In this sense, -symbols can also be generated via contractions, e.g., when sweeping the OC through the TNS. Determination of OM dimension \[sec:OM:dim\] -------------------------------------------- Outer multiplicity of a given CGT is independent of the direction of its legs. This is apparent from the above explicit construction of reverting arrows which solely corresponds to applying a specific unitary on a given leg. Therefore OM is an intrinsic quantity of a CGT. Consequently, the OM index in a pictorial description needs to be attached to the tensor itself (and not to any of the leg), as already shown with the tensor $C$ in Eq.(\[eq:OM\]c). The OM dimension for rank-3 CGTs can be determined via standard fusion rules of a pair of irreducible representations. If such a tensor product arises from building a quantum many body state starting from the vacuum state and iterative fusion of local state spaces, they need to be computed in full via a standard decomposition of a pair of ireps [@Wb12_SUN]. These rank-3 CGTs also build the elementary basis and starting point for subsequent contractions of CGTs. Now if one encounters a CGT of rank $r>3$, its full OM can be determined iteratively in a constructive way from smaller rank tensors assuming that their OM is known. For example, for a rank-4 CGT, the example in (\[eq:OM\]a) for SU(2) can generalized as follows: since arrow directions can be altered at will without affecting the OM dimension (bearing in mind to also switch to dual representations), one can build the sequential MPS-like structure in (\[fg:OM:dim\]a), $$\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{OMdim} \label{fg:OM:dim}$$ by taking the fused multiplet $q_i$ out of a CGT $C_1$ into a tensor product space with irep $q_3$, and then picking the desired irep $q_4$. For fixed $q$’s then, given that there is no loop in (\[fg:OM:dim\]a), the combined OM $\mu_\mathrm{tot} = 1, \ldots,m_\mathrm{tot}$ of the CGT described by brown box is simply the product of the multiplicities of $C_1$ and $C_2$. Bearing in mind, that the intermediate contracted multiplet $q_i$ can vary, the total OM of the CGT with $q=(q_1 q_2 q_3 q^4)$ is given by, $$\begin{aligned} m_\mathrm{tot} = \sum_{q_i} m_1(q_i) \times m_2(q_i) \text{ .}\label{eq:OM:dim}\end{aligned}$$ This can be shown by building an OM basis for the CGTs derived from (\[fg:OM:dim\]a) for all $\mu_1 {\leq} m_1$, $\mu_2 {\leq} m_2$, and for all permissible $q_i$. However, these are already all orthogonal to each other, as seen from computing their overlap as in (\[fg:OM:dim\]b). Starting with the orthogonality of the standard rank-3 tensors, the contraction in left blue box in (\[fg:OM:dim\]b) is proportional to the identity matrix, i.e., reduces to a simple line with weight $\propto \delta_{\mu_1\mu'_1} \delta_{q_i q'_i}$. When repeated iteratively with the next (here last) pair of CGTs $C_2$ and $C'_2$, this directly leads to [Eq. ]{}. As emphasized there, the multiplicities $m_1$ and $m_2$ clearly depend on the choice of $q_i$. The above procedure can be extended towards any sequence of CGTs also of higher rank, that are contracted in a linear sequence without loops. As a result this demonstrates, that the full outer multiplicity grows rapidly (exponentially) with increasing rank of a tensor. As a general strategy then to avoid proliferation of OM spaces, this suggests (i) to reduce the rank of a tensor by fusing indices as far as possible in a TN algorithm. Moreover, the actual level of OM generated also depends on the specific TN calculation performed. For the largest CGTs encountered, typically a far smaller OM space is explicitly generated by contractions than theoretically possible. Hence (ii) one can refrain from insisting to build the full OM space in any circumstances encountered. Rather, one can build the OM space on demand \[see [App. \[app:QSpace:v3\]]{}\]. If a new OM component is encountered via contractions, it can be added once and for all to ones database. On the downside, a build up of the CGT database this way becomes dependent on the history of calculations. So one must be extremely careful to ensure consistency across independent calculations or threads that simultaneously access the same central database. This can be achieved by coordinating updates, e.g., via locking mechanisms, in order to avoid race conditions resulting in inconsistent histories. Contractions \[sec:ctr\] ======================== Pairwise contractions and X-symbols ----------------------------------- Contractions in any TN state, in practice, are always tackled by elementary pairwise contractions, in complete analogy to evaluating the product of multiple matrices. Hence the elementary step for contracting a TN state is the contraction of two tensors. To be specific, consider some rank-4 tensor with arbitrary but fixed index order $1,\ldots,4$, as shown in (\[fg:tensor4\]a), $$\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{tensor4} \label{fg:tensor4}$$ In the presence of symmetries, it is redrawn schematically in the spirit of (\[eq:OM\]a,c) in (\[fg:tensor4\]b), depicting the decomposition of symmetry sectors into the tensor product of RMTs and CGTs. For simplicity only a single CGT is shown, while in the presence of multiple symmetries, each has its own CGT. Also with reference to [Eq. ]{}, there is a sum over symmetry sectors while in the pictorial representation in (\[fg:tensor4\]b) the focus is on one arbitrary but fixed set of symmetry labels $q$ with the matrix $w$ that links the CGT to the corresponding RMT. To further simplify the following discussion, (\[fg:tensor4\]b) is redrawn in (\[fg:tensor4\]c) with indices and arrows removed, while bearing in mind that, of course, arrows and index order stay intact. Also the matrix $(w_q)_\mu^{\ \mu'}$ can be fully merged with (i.e., contracted onto) $\Vert A\Vert_q$. Hence the matrix $w$ is not explicitly needed for the sake of the argument here, and thus is skipped. The shading of the CGT at the top of (\[fg:tensor4\]c), finally, indicates that the CGT itself does not need to be explicitly stored with the tensor $A$ itself, but that a reference to a central database suffices. Depending on the contraction, however, the resulting CGTs may need to be updated centrally, e.g., if a new OM component is encountered. Now consider a pair of tensors, $A$ and $B$, as in contracted on a shared set of indices (state spaces), as shown in (\[fg:xsym1\]a), $$\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{xsym1} \label{fg:xsym1}$$ This is a generalized matrix multiplication, thus is symbolically written as $A\ast B$. In the presence of non-abelian symmetries, they contain references to CGTs \[(\[fg:xsym1\]b)\]. Via the tensor product structure in [Eq. ]{}, the tensorial structure such as rank and direction of in- or out-going indices is exactly the same for both, RMTs as well as CGTs. Therefore when performing a contraction of two tensors on a specified set of indices in a TNS, precisely the same contraction needs to be performed on the level of the RMTs, $\Vert A\Vert \ast \Vert B \Vert$, as well as on the level of CGTs, $C\ast D$. These are separate from each other, and hence can be dealt with completely independently. The contraction of the RMTs always needs to be performed explicitly, as this is part of the physical problem under investigation. The contraction of CGTs, however, is purely related to symmetries, and hence can be computed once and for all and tabulated. Now consider the contraction of some arbitrary but fixed pair of CGTs, $C \ast D$ as in (\[fg:xsym1\]b), shown in (\[fg:xsym2\]a), $$\includegraphics[width=0.96\linewidth]{xsym2} \label{fg:xsym2}$$ The contraction of two CGTs $C \ast D$ necessarily yields another CGT labeled $E$ here, with its own orthonormal OM space. Assuming its OM space is complete, then the contraction of $C\ast D$ can be projected by inserting the identity $E^\dagger E = 1$ in (\[fg:xsym2\]b). When fully contracting the conjugate $E^\dagger$ onto $C\ast D$, this results in what is referred to as an [X-symbol]{}, $$\begin{aligned} X ^{\mu_C \mu_D}_{\mu_D} \equiv \mathrm{Tr} \Bigl[ \bigl( \mathrm{Tr}_{i_C^{(\ast)},i_D^{(\ast)}}[C^{\mu_C}\ast D^{\mu_D}] \bigr) \ast E^\dagger_{\mu_E} \Bigr] \text{ ,}\label{eq:xsym}\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is contracted on legs $i_C$ with $D$ on legs $i_D$, the result of which is fully contracted with $E^\dagger$, while keeping OM indices open. The X-symbol is derived from a contraction (hence ‘X’) of a pair of CGTs of arbitrary rank and with fixed symmetry labels. It has all TNS-related indices fully contracted \[yellow lines(\[fg:xsym2\]b)\]. Consequently, X-symbols always only have three open indices $\mu_C$, $\mu_D$, and $\mu_E$, all of which are indices into outer multiplicity spaces (green lines). With $E$ a CGT fixed by symmetry, it can be referenced in the final object \[again suggested by the shading in (\[fg:xsym2\]c)\]. This overall result now can be inserted back into (\[fg:xsym1\]c). The pictorial representation in (\[fg:xsym1\]c) then exemplifies the central result of this work: in the process of a pairwise contraction of tensors, it suffices to contract the centrally stored X-symbol onto the OM indices of the corresponding pair of RMTs, thus merging and decomposing the OM spaces. Nothing else remains to be done on the level of CGTs themselves. Therefore if all X-symbol are available and up to date in the database, the CGTs themselves can be completely sidestepped. The X-symbols fully take care of the symmetry related multiplicity spaces in an efficient and general manner. Each X-symbol needs to remember where it came from via metadata, as schematically indicated with [Eq. ]{}. This includes references to the three participating CGTs $C$, $D$, and $E$ (which also specifies all their symmetry labels, order and direction of legs), and what indices have been contracted \[$i_C$ and $i_D$ in [Eq. ]{}\]. Moreover, one may contract the conjugate of the input tensors $C$ or $D$ \[indicated then by $i_C^\ast$ or $i_D^\ast$ in [Eq. ]{}\], hence the X-symbol also stores conjugation flags for all three CGTs. If the OM space is build successively via contractions as they occur, the X-symbol also needs to remember identifiers as to the state of CGTs such as a high-resolution time stamp of their last modification time when the X-symbol was computed. Then if any of the CGTs gets updated later along the course of a calculation, these serve as flags as to whether or not also the X-symbol needs to be updated when the same contraction is re-encountered at a later stage. Note that if $C$ and $D$ already have complete OM individually, this does [not at all]{} imply that also the $C\ast D$ will exhaust the OM space of the resulting CGT $E$ \[cf.[Eq. ]{}\]. When (re)computing an X-symbol, if $E$ is already present e.g. from other earlier contractions, $C\ast D$ needs to projected onto it. If the OM space of the current $E$ was already complete, the projection can fully represent the result. If the OM space of $E$ was not complete, then new OM components out of $C\ast D$ may arise, which need to be extracted and orthonormalized via Schmidt decomposition (performed twice for numerical stability). As this extends the OM space of the CGT $E$, finally, it needs to updated centrally. Relation to $6j$-symbols ------------------------ Consider the fully contracted tensor network of four standard rank-3 CGTs with a total of six contracted lines in (\[fg:6j\]a), $$\includegraphics[width=0.96\linewidth]{6j} \label{fg:6j}$$ The part left of the yellow vertical marker, for example, may represent the matrix elements of an operator $S^\dagger$ acting on the local site incorporated by tensor $A$ in a matrix product state [@Schollwoeck11; @Wb12_SUN; @Wb12_FDM see also [Eq. ]{}]. With focus on CGTs here, the above tensor network is viewed only at the level of CGTs in a particular configuration with all $q$-labels fixed. Then the contraction of the TN left of the yellow marker line results in a rank-3 CGT $(q_{2'} \| q_2 q_4) \equiv (q_4 q_2 \| q_{2'})^\dagger$. The result of the contraction $A^\dagger \ast S^\dagger \ast A$ therefore resembles the conjugate of a standard rank-3 CGT. In order to determine the precise decomposition, it can be projected onto the CGT $(q_4 q_2 \| q_{2'})$, marked as $Y$ in (\[fg:6j\]a,b). The TN in (\[fg:6j\]a) contains six contracted indices, and therefore six symmetry sectors $q=\{ q_1, q_2, q_{2'}, q_3, q_{3'}, q_4 \}$. They connect four standard rank-3 CGTs, resulting in a fully contracted TN. Overall, therefore (\[fg:6j\]a) represents a ‘$6q$’ symbol, or in the SU(2) context, the well-known $6j$-symbol. Contrary to the case of SU(2), however, which has no OM at the rank-3 level, for general symmetries, each of the four participating CGTs in (\[fg:6j\]a) can carry outer multiplicity. Therefore the resulting $6q$ symbol has four open OM indices for a general non-abelian symmetry, i.e., represents a rank-4 tensor purely in terms of OM indices. Now the contraction in (\[fg:6j\]a) can be performed pairwise. The order of contractions is somewhat arbitrary, where the one chosen in (\[fg:6j\]b) is $((A \ast S^\dagger)\ast A^\dagger) \ast Y$. Each of the pairwise contractions of CGTs can make use of X-symbols. The first contraction $A\ast S^\dagger$, say, makes use of the X-symbol $x_1$. The resulting CGT contracted with $A^\dagger$ makes use of the X-symbol $x_2$, the result of which when contracted with $Y$ makes use of $x_3$. For the pairwise contraction of full tensors which include RMTs and CGTs, the X-symbols actually need to be contracted onto the RMTs as discussed with (\[fg:xsym1\]c). In that sense, the TN in (\[fg:6j\]b) shows a TN in terms of the RMTs that come with the CGTs in (\[fg:6j\]a). Now the sequence of X-symbols depicted in (\[fg:6j\]b; green lines) can be isolated, while keeping OM indices open. With (\[fg:xsym2\]c) then, the resulting MPS-like sequence of X-symbols in (\[fg:6j\]c) exactly corresponds to the contraction of the CGTs in (\[fg:6j\]a). Since the TN in (\[fg:6j\]a) is fully contracted, the CGT describing the overall result is a rank-0 CGT, which itself clearly has no outer multiplicity. Consequently, the sequence in (\[fg:6j\]c) stops with a singleton dimension indicated by a dashed line with label ‘0’. It follows therefore from the above constructive approach, that any fully contracted TN built from CGTs can be decomposed into a linear sequence of contractions based on X-symbols. In this sense, X-symbols are equally general as $3n$-$j$ symbols, in that any $3n$-$j$ symbol can be computed from them. Yet X-symbols are much more naturally suited to tensor network algorithms, in that they provide a general prescription for the elementary operation of a pairwise contraction of two tensors. Permutations \[sec:perm\] ------------------------- The indices of any tensor in a TNS need to be chosen in some arbitrary but fixed order. The precise choice of order within the TNS is typically a matter of convention, but of no further concern, otherwise. Permutations, if performed correspond to resorting of matrix elements according to the new index order. The same also holds for CGTs. Therefore, by convention, it suffices to only tabulate [sorted]{} CGTs which have their symmetry labels ($q$-labels) sorted within the set of incoming or outgoing indices, e.g., in a lexicographical style. Any reference to a specific CGT then includes a reference to a sorted CGT together with a permutation $p$ describing the actual index order. The adopted sign convention is that the stored sorted CGT starts with a positive coefficient. The permuted references adhere to this original sorted tensor up to the permutation only, i.e., there is no further sign change. This approach of making use of sorted CGTs, i.e., with sorted $q$-labels, allows one to significantly reduce redundancy of the CGTs that need to be stored, or subsequently, also contracted. The above is a well-defined prescription for CGTs that have different $q$-labels on all of their legs. However, subtleties arise if symmetry labels are degenerate, i.e., when precisely the same representation occurs on more than one leg within the group of either incoming or outgoing indices. Such a permutation $\mathtt{p}$ which leaves the $q$-labels invariant, generates a non-trivial orthogonal rotation $U_\mathtt{p}$ in OM space. This $U_\mathtt{p}$ can be explicitly computed by fully contracting $C$ with the conjugate of itself permuted by $\mathtt{p}$, the result of which yields an X-symbol. Therefore the matrix $U_\mathtt{p}$ has all the properties of an X-symbol, and can be computed once and for all and tabulated in ones database together with the other X-symbols. Similar to the discussion with (\[fg:6j\]c) earlier, the full contraction of two CGTs results in a CGT $E$ of rank-0 which has no OM. Hence the resulting $X$-symbol has a singleton dimension w.r.t. $E$, which can be skipped. This way, the X-symbol reduces to the matrix $U_\mathtt{p}$ above. It can be absorbed into the matrix $w$ as in (\[fg:tensor4\]b) if $w$ is kept track of, or directly contracted onto the RMT for the situation in (\[fg:tensor4\]c). Generating elementary rank-3 CGTs with full OM ---------------------------------------------- An elementary starting point for TN calculations are the standard rank-3 CGTs that fuse the typically small representations of a physical site. As a TN grows, however, the multiplets on the auxiliary bond indices can quickly explore a far larger set of representations. In contractions then, often one does not require the full tensor-product decomposition for any rank-3 CGT encountered, but only very specific combinations. Since the full tensor-product decomposition of the fusion of two large multiplets can become prohibitive for large symmetries in terms of computational cost \[cf. [App. \[app:rsym\]]{}\], the question arises, to what extent specific (standard) rank-3 CGTs can be obtained by other means. Now being interested in some specific CGT $(q_1 q_2 \| q_3)$, in a TNS setting, the typical situation is such that at least one of the legs corresponds to either the local state space of a physical site or to the ireps according to which practically relevant irreducible operators transform. All of these are typically considered to be multiplets of small dimension. Therefore for TN simulations, in practice, one of the ireps $q_i$ in a rank-3 CGTs, with $i=1,2,3$ can be considered small. Frequently, it may even refer to the defining representation or its dual in which case these may be referred to as [primitive]{} CGTs [@Butler76a; @Searle88]. One simple strategy to compute such rank-3 CGTs with their full OM, is to exploit the freedom that arrows can be reverted at will (while also switching to dual ireps). Hence the multiplets $q_i$ can be sorted according to their dimension $\|q_i\|$. Then the full tensor-product decomposition may be performed by taking the tensor product of the [smallest]{} two ireps, and subsequently reverting arrows as needed, making use of -symbols. On the other hand, new CGTs are also routinely generated via contractions. A possible strategy thus concerns the explicit generation of new standard rank-3 CGTs, i.e., with two incoming and one outgoing index, via a recursive scheme based on contractions for the sake of numerical efficiency [@Schulten75; @Butler76a; @Luscombe98]. To start with, consider the standard rank-3 CGT in (\[fg:recurse\]a), $$\includegraphics[width=0.96\linewidth]{recurse} \label{fg:recurse}$$ Clearly, one is free to trivially add a disconnected line e.g. in the defining representation, e.g., along indices 1 and 3 as indicated by the blue line in (\[fg:recurse\]b) with the defining representation labeled as ‘1’ \[e.g., one box in a SU(N) Young tableau\]. This additional line then may be fused with both, $q_1$ and $q_3$ \[(\[fg:recurse\]c)\], giving rise (also) to larger multiplets $q'_{1}$ and $q'_{3}$. The contracted result in (\[fg:recurse\]c) again is a standard CGT, but now in $(q'_{1},q_2 \| q'_{3})$. The simple procedure above therefore demonstrates that a standard rank-3 CGT in some larger ireps \[depicted by the thicker lines in (\[fg:recurse\]d)\] can be decomposed via a contraction of three smaller CGTs in a triangular configuration with thinner lines (smaller ireps) \[(\[fg:recurse\]e)\]. This also includes [primitive]{} CGTs, i.e., CGTs that contain the defining irep on one of their legs [@Butler76a; @Searle88]. As an aside, note that the triangular configuration represents the minimal TN of rank-3 CGTs that, when contracted, gives rise to another rank-3 CGT. The simple argument with (\[fg:recurse\]a-c) can be reformulated into a more general strategy on how to compute standard CGTs recursively for some specific set of larger ireps from CGTs in smaller ireps, based on (\[fg:recurse\]d-f). Suppose one is interested in computing the CGT with larger ireps $(q'_1,q'_2\|q'_3)$ in (\[fg:recurse\]d) with $q'_1,q'_3>1$, meaning that $q'_2$ and $q'_3$ are not the defining representation (thicker lines). Then one is free to split off the defining irep, such that $(q_1, 1 \| q'_{1})$ and $(q_3,1\|q'_{3})$ with $q_{1} < q'_{1}$ and $q_{3} < q'_{3}$, in the sense that $q_{1}$ and $q_{3}$ are smaller either in terms of dimension or, for SU(N), in terms of boxes in a Young tableau. Typically, there will be multiple choices for $q_1$ and $q_3$, not all of which may lead to an overall permissible symmetry configuration on the entire triangle considered. Hence one needs to search for permissible triangles of CGTs as in (\[fg:recurse\]e) that have overall smaller ireps in the above sense. Here (\[fg:recurse\]e) resembles (\[fg:recurse\]c), in that the upper line in the triangle is the defining irep. In general, however, the defining irep can reside on any of the sides $a$, $b$, or $c$ of the triangle in (\[fg:recurse\]f). By reverting the arrow on either $q_1$ or $q_2$ (as always, while switching to the corresponding dual representation) permits to have different arrow configuration also on the central triangle. Hence no arrows are shown there. The strategy above to compute standard rank-3 CGTs for specific $q$-labels via a recursive approach is general for non-abelian symmetries from its outline. However, a priori, there is no guarantee that this generates the full OM of the targeted CGT in (\[fg:recurse\]d). While the contraction of the first pair of CGTs in the triangle leads to an enhanced OM, the contraction of the third CGT will typically strongly reduce OM due to the presence of the triangular loop. Overall, therefore multiple triangular arrangements e.g. also with different permissible intermediate smaller multiplets $q_1$ and $q_3$ may have to be computed to exhaust the full OM of the CGT in (\[fg:recurse\]d). For SU(2), the situation is much simpler. Since it is OM free at the level of rank-3 CGTs, any non-zero triangular configuration suffices, to obtain a valid decomposition of the larger CGT in (\[fg:recurse\]d). For general non-abelian symmetries, however, proving completeness of the resulting OM based on the contraction itself is far less obvious due to the presence of the loop. Therefore it remains an open question in this scheme how one can guarantee that the OM space of the resulting CGT in (\[fg:recurse\]f) is fully explored [@Prakash96] via a fixed systematic triangular decomposition scheme. Recursive schemes similar to the one above have been proposed for $3j$ and $6j$ symbols [@Schulten75; @Butler76a; @Searle88; @Luscombe98]. The general strategy is to iteratively compute larger symbols (here CGTs), e.g., via a triangular decomposition including primitive symbols. However, the primitive symbols need to be computed by other means. While closed expressions exist for these in the case of SU(2), this is not the case for general non-abelian symmetries. In any case, explicit generation of all encountered CGTs becomes prohibitive for symmetries with large rank ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}_{\mathrm{\ifx\@empty{}\else{}\fi}}}}$, since typical multiplets grow exponentially with ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}_{\mathrm{\ifx\@empty{}\else{}\fi}}}}$, in practice like $\lesssim 10^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}_{\mathrm{\ifx\@empty{}\else{}\fi}}}}}$ \[see [App. \[app:rsym\]]{}\]. Whether these tensors are generated recursively or by other means, eventually always will hit a hard wall. Now given that the X-symbols introduced in this paper represent fully contracted CGT networks up to OM indices, this also makes them susceptible to recursive build-up schemes. This is an attractive route, since X-symbols are typically much smaller than the CGTs involved. For the purposes of this paper, however, this is left as an outlook. Summary ------- This work introduces X-symbols for the efficient treatment of pair-wise contractions in tensor networks in the presence of non-abelian symmetries. Once computed from CGTs and tabulated, they permit to completely sidestep the explicit usage of CGTs at a latter stage, as they are contracted onto the multiplicity indices of the involved RMTs. X-symbols represent a general framework that is also trivially applicable to abelian symmetries. Much of this paper is a summary of significant extensions that have been implemented and already tested thoroughly in the v3 tensor library \[see [App. \[app:QSpace:v3\]]{}\]. In this sense, the present paper provides a concise, polished, and proven version of the underlying concepts. This work has greatly benefitted from a few intensive discussions on non-abelian symmetries in general while visiting Anthony Kennedy (University of Edinburgh, UK). I also acknowledge general discussions and much appreciated support from the group of Jan von Delft in Munich specifically also including Seung-Sup Lee, Katharina Stadler, Benedikt Bruognolo, Bin-Bin Chen, Jheng-Wei Li, and Arne Alex; furthermore Wei Li (University of Beihang, China), Wang Yilin (Brookhaven National Lab, US), Thomas Quella (University of Melbourne, Australia), László Borda and Gergely Zaránd (Budapest University, Hungary). This work acknowledges financial support by the Heisenberg fellowship (DFG WE4819/2-1), as well as DFG WE4819/1-1 and DOE DE-SC0012704 without temporal overlap. Symmetry rank and typical multiplet dimension\[app:rsym\] ========================================================= The rank ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}_{\mathrm{\ifx\@empty{}\else{}\fi}}}}$ of a symmetry is an intrinsic property of a given simple non-abelian symmetry that needs to be differentiated from the rank $r$ of tensors. The Lie algebra of a simple non-abelian symmetry possesses at most ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}_{\mathrm{\ifx\@empty{}\else{}\fi}}}}$ simultaneously commuting generators which thus defines its rank. This [Cartan subalgebra]{} $S_\alpha^{z}$ with $\alpha=1,..,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}_{\mathrm{\ifx\@empty{}\else{}\fi}}}}$ can be simultaneously diagonalized, and hence gives rise to an ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}_{\mathrm{\ifx\@empty{}\else{}\fi}}}}$-dimensional label, or weight space [@Wb12_SUN]. The Cartan subalgebra is complemented by generalized raising and lowering operators $S_\alpha^{(\dagger)}$ with $\alpha=1,..,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}_{\mathrm{\ifx\@empty{}\else{}\fi}}}}$ which correspond to the simple roots of the Lie algebra. In practice, then the typical multiplet dimension encountered grows exponentially with the rank ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}_{\mathrm{\ifx\@empty{}\else{}\fi}}}}$ as in $\|q\| \sim 10^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}_{\mathrm{\ifx\@empty{}\else{}\fi}}}}}$ [@Wb12_SUN]. The essential reason for this is that multiplets explore an ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}_{\mathrm{\ifx\@empty{}\else{}\fi}}}}$ dimensional volume of label space derived from $S_\alpha^{z}$. This makes large symmetries, such as SU(N) with ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}_{\mathrm{\ifx\@empty{}\else{SU(N)}\fi}}}}=N-1$ for $N\gtrsim 4$ computationally challenging. In contrast, the well-known SU(2) is a comparatively very simple yet elementary non-abelian symmetry, in that it corresponds to a symmetry of rank ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}_{\mathrm{\ifx\@empty{}\else{SU(2)}\fi}}}}=1$. Therefore a single label suffices (i.e., the spin $S$). For the same reason, there is no inner multiplicity (IM) for SU(2), and also no outer multiplicity (OM) for standard Clebsch Gordan coefficient tensors (rank-3 CGTs). v3 \[app:QSpace:v3\] ==================== The concepts for non-abelian symmetries presented in this paper have been implemented over the past few years in the tensor library [@Wb12_SUN]. They were thoroughly tested in a range of papers [@Wb07; @Wb12_SUN; @Wb12_FDM; @Liu15; @Chen18a; @Wb18_SUN] with many more applications via student and other research projects. was introduced in 2006 \[in hindsight as version 1 (v1)\] on the level of arbitrary combinations of abelian symmetries. This is effectively the present state of the ITensor Library [@ITensor]. v1 presented a convenient and fast framework for its first strong application in @Wb07 ([-@Wb07]) [@Wb07] . v2 was also able to handle non-abelian symmetries on a generic level, by introducing an additional tensor layer for generalized Clebsch Gordan coefficient tensors (CGTs). It built a database for irreducible representations (R-store), as well as standard rank-3 CGTs , i.e., with two arrows in and one out. The C-store also stored a listing of the branching rules out of each tensor product decomposition. However, in v2 the OM resolved CGTs were explicitly attached to each tensor in full together with the RMTs. Individual entries (fixed symmetry sectors) contained linear superpositions in outer multiplicity, i.e., CGTs of type $\sum_{\mu'} w_{\mu\mu'} C_{q\mu}$ \[cf. discussion after [Sec. \[eq:tensor:decomp\]]{}\]. This turned out cumbersome since CGTs were re-contracted in every tensor contraction. Specifically for larger symmetries, e.g., for SU($N\gtrsim4$), this quickly shifted the dominant numerical cost from the actual physical calculation w.r.t. the RMTs $\Vert A\Vert_q$ to the treatment of the CGTs $C_q$. Therefore for v3 (developed and thoroughly tested since 2015), not just standard Clebsch-Gordan cofficients of rank-3, but all CGTs of arbitrary rank are computed on demand once and for all, properly orthonormalized \[cf. [Sec. \[sec:CGT:norm\]]{}\], and stored in the C-store. The tensor no longer carries the full CGTs but only a reference. The X-symbols for pairwise contractions are also computed on demand once and for all, and stored in an additional database (X-store). In , databases are generally built on demand, except for the very elementary initialization when a symmetry is used for the very first time. Preemptive calculation of all possible objects, e.g., up to some prespecified multiplet dimension quickly proliferates to hundreds of thousand of entries, otherwise, even though redundancy in storage has been minimized to a large degree by using sorted CGTs, i.e., sorted w.r.t their $q$-labels, etc. In the sense that it is impossible to build a complete database for non-abelian symmetries that permit an infinite number of ireps, it is mandatory eventually in any case, to build entries on demand. While it would not really matter for SU(2) or SU(3), since all objects are (re-)computed quickly there, for larger non-abelian symmetries, the concepts of [on demand]{} and [once and for all]{} become crucially important for numerical performance. For example, note that starting with SU($N\geq 4$), the typical size of individual multiplets in CGTs quickly surpasses the number of multiplets in RMTs used in a calculation. For example, in DMRG simulations one barely exceeds an effective dimension $D^\ast\lesssim 8,000$ within the space of RMTs. However, while typical multiplets for SU(N) already reach dimensions up to $\lesssim 10^{N-1} = 1,000$ for SU(4), the largest generated multiplets there already reach $\lesssim 10^{N} = 10,000$ \[cf. [App. \[app:rsym\]]{}\]. Now building ones database on demand, quickly makes it dependent on the history of a calculation. Even if CGTs are computed with full OM, there can be an arbitrary orthogonal rotation in OM space. In the absence of OM, this reduces to a simple sign convention. However, for example, in SU(3), the standard rank-3 CGT for $(qq\|q)$ with $q=(nn)$ \[using Dynkin labels; \] with $n\geq 0$ has OM $m=n+1$, and hence can already be made arbitrarily large. Given that larger-rank CGTs are computed on demand via contractions, their specific rotation in OM space necessarily will depend on the specific tensors contracted first, and hence on the history of the calculation. There exists no (at least to author) known convention that naturally and fully fixes the basis of an OM decomposition in all circumstances for CGTs of arbitrary rank. Standard rank-3 CGTs can be generated in two ways: (i) via explicit tensor product decomposition (‘standard Clebsch Gordan coefficients’), or (ii) via contractions including tensors with rank $r>3$. (i) is the clearly preferred option, since it generates the full OM at once and in a deterministic and thus well-defined manner. However, this can become prohibitive for large symmetries when requiring e.g. the fusion of two large multiplets both of which can occur on the bonds of a tensor network state, but may be far too large to actually occur as a multiplet at the level of a physical site in the lattice Hamiltonian of interest. In this sense, there is (necessarily) a cutoff in dimension: if a tensor product decomposition is required, e.g., when building a product state space in TNS setting, it needs to be performed anyway. But if one needs to compute a contraction that result in a rank-3 CGT, one may opt to perform a full tensor-product decomposition first, and then project the result of the contraction onto it. Or, alternatively, one may be satisfied just with the result of the contraction itself. If the resulting CGT already exists, the result is projected onto it, thus possibly extending the existing OM space. Either way may result in a different basis in OM space. It is crucially important then, that one strictly ensures consistency across ones calculations. Now given a history dependent database that is accessed and maintained centrally, this implies when running multiple jobs at the same time or when parallelizing within a single job that threads need to be coordinated. That is threads may have to wait, if another thread is currently in the process of updating the same object in the C-store (via contraction or tensor-product decomposition) or the X-store (if a contraction between a new pair of CGTs needs to be performed, or if a new OM component was encountered such that the derived X-symbol needs to be updated). This coordination can be enforced on the level of the database (e.g. locks on affected objects) and also in memory in between different threads (thread locks). In summary, v3 consists of three databases (referred to as ‘RCX store’ as a whole) - R-store for irep representations generated in a calculation; these explicitly include a full basis decomposition in terms of weight labels, a sparse representation of the diagonal Cartan subalgebra (generalized $S_z$ matrizes) as well as of the simple roots of the Lie algebra (the generalized raising and lowering operators) under consideration \[cf. [App. \[app:rsym\]]{}\]. - C-store for storage of all CGTs of arbitrary rank $r\geq 2$. The CGTs are stored in sparse format with typical average sparsity $\gtrsim 10^{-3}$. The sparse format necessarily requires a framework for sparse tensors of arbitrary rank which has been coded from scratch into v2. The C-store also stores the fusion rules out of full tensor product decompositions, as well as all -symbols, which simply represent a special case of CGTs, namely $(q\bar{q}\|0)$. - X-store for the X-symbols that derive from any encountered pairwise CGT contraction that are [not]{} trivially zero due to non-permissible combinations of symmetry labels (e.g. when a CGT contraction were to result in a non-diagonal rank-2 CGTs, or a rank-3 CGTs that was not listed in an earlier full tensor product decomposition). The data in the R- and C-store is computed in better than double precision (roughly quad), since the entire RCX store is built iteratively along a TN calculation starting from the very elementary defining representation (and its dual, for convenience). This guards against accumulated error and ensures that all entries are numerically exact in double precision. The X-symbols are computed from CGTs in the C-store, but can eventually be cast into plain double precision as they are contracted onto RMTs anyway. The C-store for larger symmetries is extremely heterogeneous, as it contains tensors that represent scalars, all the way up to individual CGTs that \[e.g. for rank-4 CGTs in SU(4) quickly\] require 1TB of space or larger. The X-store contains by far most of the entries. Many contractions are known to be trivially zero since the symmetry labels of the resulting CGT are not permissible from a symmetry point of view, and hence can be excluded from the X-store. Still, e.g., by not insisting that OM spaces are complete, the X-store also contains many X-symbols that are actually zero, meaning that the pairwise contractions of two CGTs results in a CGT of finite dimensions, yet with (Frobenius) norm resembling numerical noise. When running multiple jobs, it is convenient to maintain a central global RCX-store that has strictly read-only access (except for times when it is updated manually) which contains the bulk of all symmetry related data. In addition, a differential store that is local to each job, allow each job to compute and store whatever is needed in addition. Since the latter is decoupled from other running jobs, at least at this level interference between different simulations leading to possible inconsistencies is avoided. Once an RCX-store is complete for a given calculation, only meta-data is read from the R- and C-store (such as branching rules in tensor products or irep dimensions). For contractions, only the required X-symbols in the X-store need to be read once, with no need to explicitly load the full CGTs from the C-store. The X-symbols are typically much smaller than the involved CGTs, much like 6j symbols. Since any tensor is stored as a with the data comprised as the tensor product in [Eq. ]{}, in principle, it has access to [all]{} matrix elements in the full state space. This makes tensors versatile [@Wb12_SUN] in that all of the elementary tensor operations are allowed that one is used to when performing calculations [without]{} symmetries , as long as they do not explicitly break a symmetry. For example, it is very difficult (since inconsistent) to represent a finite magnetic field $B S_z$ if the calculation was initialized with SU(2) spin symmetry. A representation of $S_z$ would require to break up CGTs into specific components which when preserving symmetries, however, are considered inseparable units.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The SparseStep algorithm is presented for the estimation of a sparse parameter vector in the linear regression problem. The algorithm works by adding an approximation of the exact counting norm as a constraint on the model parameters and iteratively strengthening this approximation to arrive at a sparse solution. Theoretical analysis of the penalty function shows that the estimator yields unbiased estimates of the parameter vector. An iterative majorization algorithm is derived which has a straightforward implementation reminiscent of ridge regression. In addition, the SparseStep algorithm is compared with similar methods through a rigorous simulation study which shows it often outperforms existing methods in both model fit and prediction accuracy. Keywords:' author: - \| Gerrit J.J. van den Burg\ [email protected] - \| Patrick J.F. Groenen\ [email protected] - \| Andreas Alfons\ [email protected] bibliography: - 'sparsestep.bib' date: 'Econometric Institute, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands\' title: 'SparseStep: Approximating the Counting Norm for Sparse Regularization' --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ In many modeling problems it is desirable to restrict the number of nonzero elements in the parameter vector to reduce the model complexity. Achieving this so-called sparsity in the model parameters for the regression problem is known to be NP-hard [@natarajan1995sparse]. Many alternatives have been presented in the literature which approximate the true sparse solution by applying shrinkage to the parameter vector, such as for instance the lasso estimator [@tibshirani1996regression]. However, this shrinkage can underestimate the true effect of explanatory variables on the model outcome. Here, an algorithm is presented which creates sparse model estimates but does not apply shrinkage to the parameter estimates. This feature is obtained by approximating the exact counting norm and making this approximation increasingly more accurate. Traditional methods for solving the exact sparse linear regression problem include best subset selection, forward and backward stepwise regression, and forward stagewise regression. These approaches may not always be feasible for problems with a large number of predictors and may display a high degree of variance with out-of-sample predictions [@hastie2009elements]. Alternatively, penalized least-squares methods add a regularization term to the regression problem, to curb variability through shrinkage or induce sparsity, or both. Of the many more recent approaches to this problem, the most well-known are perhaps the SCAD penalty [@fan2001variable] and the MC+ penalty [@zhang2010nearly]. In both of these approaches, a penalty is added such that the overall size of the model parameters can be controlled. Figure \[fig:comparison\] shows an illustration of the different penalty functions discussed above. Note that all penalty functions are symmetric around zero, including the SparseStep penalty introduced below. It can be seen that the shapes of the SCAD and MC+ penalties closely resemble each other. The different shapes of the penalty function for the SCAD and MC+ penalty are due to the parameter $a$, which can be optimized over for a given dataset. In contrast, the different shapes of the SparseStep penalty show subsequent approximations of the exact $\ell_0$ penalty, as described below. This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:theory\] the theory behind the SparseStep penalty is introduced and analyzed. Section \[sec:methods\] derives the SparseStep algorithm using the Iterative Majorization technique and describes the implementation of the algorithm. Experiments comparing SparseStep with existing methods are described extensively in the following section. Section \[sec:discussion\] concludes. Theory {#sec:theory} ====== Below the theory of norms and regularized regression is briefly reviewed, after which the SparseStep norm approximation is presented and analyzed. Norms ----- Let the $\ell_p$ norm of a vector ${\boldsymbol{\beta}} \in \mathbb{R}^m$ be defined as $$\\| {\boldsymbol{\beta}} \\|_p \equiv \left( \sum_{j=1}^m \|\beta_j\|^p \right)^{1/p}.$$ For $p = 2$, the well known Euclidean norm is obtained, whereas for $p = 1$ the distance measured is known as the Manhattan distance. When $p = 0$, using the definition $0^0 = 0$, this function seizes to be a proper norm due to the lack of homogeneity and is equal to the number of nonzero elements of ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ [@peetre1972interpolation; @donoho2006compressed]. Therefore, let us denote by $\ell_0$ the pseudonorm given by, $$\\| {\boldsymbol{\beta}} \\|_0 = \sum_{j=1}^m \pi[\beta_j \neq 0],$$ where $\pi(\cdot)$ is an indicator function which is 1 if it’s argument is true and 0 otherwise. For simplicity the $\ell_0$ pseudonorm will be referred to as the counting norm throughout this paper, even though it is not a proper norm in the mathematical sense. The counting norm is shown graphically in Figure \[fig:counting\] for the two dimensional case. It can be seen that this norm is discontinuous and nonconvex. ![Illustration of the exact $\ell_0$ counting norm in two dimensions. Note the strong discontinuities along both axes, as indicated by the color of the points. The variables $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ may vary continuously along the axes, but for convenience the counting norm is computed here on a grid of values. \[fig:counting\]](exact_zero) Regularization -------------- Let $\mathcal{D} = \{ ({\mathbf{x}}_i', y_i)\}_{i=1,\ldots,n}$ denote the data for the regression problem, with explanatory variables ${\mathbf{x}}_i = (x_{i1}, \ldots, x_{im})' \in \mathbb{R}^m$ and outcome $y_i \in \mathbb{R}$. Let ${\mathbf{X}} \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times m}$ denote the data matrix with rows ${\mathbf{x}}_i'$. Assume that the vector of outcomes ${\mathbf{y}} \in \mathbb{R}^n$ is centered, so that the intercept term can be ignored. The least-squares regression problem can then be written as $$\hat{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}} = \operatorname{arg\,min}_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}} \\| {\mathbf{y}} - {\mathbf{X}}{\boldsymbol{\beta}} \\|^2.$$ The $\ell_p$-regularized* least-squares problem can be defined through the loss function $$L({\boldsymbol{\beta}}) = \\| {\mathbf{y}} - {\mathbf{X}}{\boldsymbol{\beta}} \\|^2 + \lambda \sum_{j=1}^m \|\beta_j\|^p,$$ with $\lambda \geq 0$ a regularization parameter. Two well-known special cases of these regularized least-squares problems are ridge regression [@hoerl1970ridge] corresponding to $p=2$ and the lasso estimator [@tibshirani1996regression] corresponding to $p=1$. When $p = 0$ is used the regularization term turns into the counting norm of the $\beta_j$. Note that in this case no shrinkage of the $\beta_j$ occurs because the number of nonzero $\beta_j$ is controlled and not their size. Norm Approximation ------------------ Recently, an approximation to the $\ell_0$ norm was proposed by @de2011deconvolution, where the indicator function of an element $\beta_j$ is approximated as $$\|\beta_j\|^0 = \pi[\beta_j \neq 0 ] \approx \frac{\beta_j^2}{\beta_j^2 + \gamma^2},$$ where $\gamma \geq 0$ is a positive constant[^1]. Note that if $\gamma = 0$ the approximation becomes exact. By decreasing the value of the $\gamma$ parameter the approximation of the counting norm becomes increasingly more accurate. Figures \[fig:approx2l\] and \[fig:approx2s\] show the approximation for both large and small values of $\gamma$, respectively. It can be seen that for decreasing values of $\gamma$ the approximation indeed converges to the exact counting norm shown in Figure \[fig:counting\]. In the following, the approximation will be used to define the SparseStep penalty as $$P_{\lambda}(\beta_j) = \lambda \frac{\beta_j^2}{\beta_j^2 + \gamma^2}.$$ To prove that this penalty results in unbiased estimates of the true $\beta_j$ parameter, the approach of @fan2001variable is followed. For unbiasedness it is required that the derivative of the penalty term is zero for large values of ${\left\|\beta_j\right\|}$. The derivative of the SparseStep penalty is $$P_{\lambda}'(\beta_j) = \lambda \frac{2\gamma^2\beta_j}{( \beta_j^2 + \gamma^2)^2},$$ hence, it must hold that $$\lim_{{\left\|\beta_j\right\|} \rightarrow \infty} P_{\lambda}'({\left\|\beta_j\right\|}) = \lim_{{\left\|\beta_j\right\|} \rightarrow \infty} \lambda \frac{2\gamma^2{\left\|\beta_j\right\|}}{({\left\|\beta_j\right\|}^2 + \gamma^2)^2} = 0,$$ which is indeed the case, proving that the SparseStep penalty results in unbiased estimates. Additionally, @fan2001variable derive sufficient conditions for a penalty function to have the Oracle Property. This property means that under certain regularity conditions a method correctly identifies the sparsity in the predictor variables correctly, as the number of observations goes to infinity. One sufficient condition for this is that the derivative of the penalty function should be positive at the origin. This does not hold exactly for SparseStep, but does hold in an arbitrarily small region around the origin, due to the value of $\gamma$. We therefore conjecture that the Oracle Property also holds for SparseStep, but further research is necessary. The above leads naturally to the formulation of the SparseStep regression problem, with loss function $$L({\boldsymbol{\beta}}) = \\| {\mathbf{y}} - {\mathbf{X}}{\boldsymbol{\beta}} \\|^2 + \lambda \sum_{j=1}^m \frac{\beta_j^2}{\beta_j^2 + \gamma^2}.$$ In the next section, an Iterative Majorization algorithm will be derived for minimizing this loss function. Methodology {#sec:methods} =========== With the theoretical underpinnings of SparseStep established above, it is now possible to derive the optimization algorithm necessary to minimize the SparseStep regression loss function. The approach used here is that of the iterative majorization algorithm. A brief introduction is given first, followed by the derivation of the SparseStep algorithm. Iterative Majorization ---------------------- The Iterative Majorization (IM) algorithm is a general optimization algorithm based on surrogate functions, first described by @ortega1970iterative. It is also known as the Majorization Minimization algorithm and is a generalization of the popular Expectation Maximization algorithm [see e.g. @hunter2004tutorial]. A brief description of the algorithm follows. Let $f : \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathcal{Y}$ with $\mathcal{X} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^d$ and $\mathcal{Y} \subseteq \mathbb{R}$ be the function that needs to be optimized. Construct a majorizing function $g : \mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathcal{Y}$ such that $$\begin{aligned} f(y) &= g(y, y), \\ f(x) &\leq g(x, y) \textrm{ for all } x, y \in \mathcal{X},\end{aligned}$$ where $y$ is the so-called supporting point. Differentiability of $f$ at $y$ implies that $\nabla f(y) = \nabla g(y, y)$. Given a majorizing function $g$ the following procedure results in a stationary point of $f$: 1. Let $y = x_0$, with $x_0$ a starting point 2. Minimize $g(x, y)$ and let $x^+ = \operatorname{arg\,min}g(x, y)$ 3. Stop if a stopping criterion is reached, otherwise let $y = x^+$ and go to step 2. This procedure yields a guaranteed descent algorithm where $f(x^+) \leq f(y)$, with a linear convergence rate [@de1994block]. However, a well-known property of the IM algorithm is that in the first few iterations often large improvements in the loss function can be made [@havel1991evaluation]. This property makes it ideally suited for the SparseStep algorithm described below. Generally, a sufficiently simple functional form is chosen for the majorizing function such that Step 2 in the above procedure can be done swiftly. In the case of the SparseStep regression problem, a quadratic majorizing function is most appropriate. Majorization Derivation ----------------------- The majorizing function of the SparseStep penalty function will be derived here. For ease of notation let $f(x)$ denote the penalty function, with $x \in \mathbb{R}$ and let $g(x, y)$ denote the majorizing function, with $x, y \in \mathbb{R}$. Then, $$\begin{aligned} f(x) &= \frac{x^2}{x^2 + \gamma^2}, \\ g(x, y) &= ax^2 - 2b x + c,\end{aligned}$$ where the coefficients of $g(x, y)$ generally depend on $y$. Taking first derivatives yields $$\begin{aligned} f'(x) &= \frac{2x\gamma^2}{(x^2 + \gamma^2)^2}, \\ g'(x, y) &= 2ax - 2b.\end{aligned}$$ Since the SparseStep penalty is symmetric, it is desirable that $g(x, y)$ is symmetric as well and thus has its minimum at $x = 0$. From this it follows that $g'(0, y) = 0$, which implies $b = 0$. Next, the majorizing function must be tangent to the penalty function at the supporting point $x = y$, thus it is required that $g'(y, y) = f'(y)$, which yields $$\begin{aligned} a &= \frac{\gamma^2}{(y^2 + \gamma^2)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, the majorizing function must have the same function value at the supporting point, thus $g(y, y) = f(y)$, this gives $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\gamma^2}{(y^2 + \gamma^2)^2}\, y^2 + c &= \frac{y^2}{y^2 + \gamma^2} \\ c &= \frac{y^4}{(y^2 + \gamma^2)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $g(x,y)$ becomes $$g(x, y) = \frac{\gamma^2}{(y^2 + \gamma^2)^2}x^2 + \frac{y^4}{(y^2 + \gamma^2)^2} = \frac{\gamma^2 x^2 + y^4}{(y^2 + \gamma^2)^2}.$$ It now remains to be shown that the majorizing function is everywhere above the penalty function, $g(x, y) \geq f(x)$ for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$. This can be done as follows, $$\begin{aligned} g(x, y) &\geq f(x) &\Leftrightarrow \\ \frac{\gamma^2 x^2 + y^4}{(y^2 + \gamma^2)^2} &\geq \frac{x^2}{x^2 + \gamma^2} &\Leftrightarrow\\ (\gamma^2 x^2 + y^4)(x^2 + \gamma^2) &\geq x^2 (y^2 + \gamma^2)^2 &\Leftrightarrow\\ x^4 + y^4 - 2x^2y^2 &\geq 0 &\Leftrightarrow\\ (x^2 - y^2)^2 &\geq 0. & \square\end{aligned}$$ Figure \[fig:major\_illustrations\] shows the majorizing function and the SparseStep penalty function for different values of the supporting point. Note that the majorizing function is indeed symmetric around 0, as desired. ![Illustrations of the majorizing function $g(x,y)$ (interrupted lines) of the SparseStep penalty $f(x)$ (solid line), with $\gamma^2 = 0.1$. The majorizing function is shown for various values of the supporting point: the dotted red line at $y = 0$, the dash dotted blue line at $y = 0.25$, and the dashed green line at $y = 0.5$. The vertical lines mark these supporting points for the latter two values. \[fig:major\_illustrations\]](major) The above derivation ensures that a majorizing function for the SparseStep loss function can be derived. Recall that the SparseStep loss function is given by $$L({\boldsymbol{\beta}}) = \\| {\mathbf{y}} - {\mathbf{X}}{\boldsymbol{\beta}} \\|^2 + \lambda \sum_{j=1}^m \frac{\beta_j^2}{\beta_j^2 + \gamma^2}.$$ Let $\alpha_j$ denote the previous value of $\beta_j$ in the IM algorithm (the supporting point). Then, using the majorizing function derived above it is clear that the following inequality holds $$L({\boldsymbol{\beta}}) \leq \\| {\mathbf{y}} - {\mathbf{X}}{\boldsymbol{\beta}} \\|^2 + \lambda \sum_{j=1}^m \frac{\gamma^2 \beta_j^2 + \alpha_j^4}{(\alpha_j^2 + \gamma^2)^2} = G({\boldsymbol{\beta}}, {\boldsymbol{\alpha}}),$$ where $G({\boldsymbol{\beta}}, {\boldsymbol{\alpha}})$ denotes the majorizing function of $L({\boldsymbol{\beta}})$. Taking the derivative of $G({\boldsymbol{\beta}}, {\boldsymbol{\alpha}})$ with respect to ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ yields an explicit expression for the update of ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ in the IM algorithm. Before taking the derivative of the majorizing function however, let us define $$\begin{aligned} {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_{jj} &= \frac{\gamma^2}{(\alpha_j^2 + \gamma^2)^2} \label{eq:omegadef} \\ \delta_j &= \alpha_j^2/\gamma, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ such that ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$ is an $m \times m$ diagonal matrix with elements ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_{jj}$ and ${\boldsymbol{\delta}} \in \mathbb{R}^m$ a vector with elements $\delta_j$. With these definitions, the regularization term becomes $$\lambda \sum_{j=1}^m \frac{\gamma^2 \beta_j^2 + \alpha_j^4}{(\alpha_j^2 + \gamma^2)^2} = \lambda ({\boldsymbol{\beta}}' {\boldsymbol{\Omega}} {\boldsymbol{\beta}} + {\boldsymbol{\delta}}' {\boldsymbol{\Omega}} {\boldsymbol{\delta}}).$$ By expanding the norm and using this form for the regularization term, it is possible to write $G({\boldsymbol{\beta}}, {\boldsymbol{\alpha}})$ as $$G({\boldsymbol{\beta}}, {\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) = {\mathbf{y}}'{\mathbf{y}} - 2{\mathbf{y}}'{\mathbf{X}}{\boldsymbol{\beta}} + {\boldsymbol{\beta}}'({\mathbf{X}}'{\mathbf{X}} + \lambda {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}){\boldsymbol{\beta}} + \lambda {\boldsymbol{\delta}}'{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}{\boldsymbol{\delta}}.$$ Taking the derivative to ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ and setting this to zero, yields $$-2{\mathbf{X}}'{\mathbf{y}} + 2({\mathbf{X}}'{\mathbf{X}} + \lambda{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}){\boldsymbol{\beta}} = 0$$ Thus, the update of the majorization algorithm is simply $${\boldsymbol{\beta}} = \left( {\mathbf{X}}'{\mathbf{X}} + \lambda{\boldsymbol{\Omega}} \right)^{-1} {\mathbf{X}}'{\mathbf{y}}.$$ Since ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$ is a diagonal matrix this expression is remarkably similar to the solution of the ridge regression problem, in which ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$ is simply the identity matrix. SparseStep Algorithm -------------------- With the derivation of the IM algorithm for minimizing the SparseStep regression loss function, it is now possible to formulate the SparseStep algorithm. To avoid local minima, the SparseStep penalty is introduced slowly by starting with a large value of $\gamma$, so that the penalty is very smooth and behaves like a ridge penalty. Then, the $\gamma$ value is reduced so that the irregularity and nonconvexity is introduced slowly. The value of $\gamma$ is reduced until it is close to zero. By slowly introducing the nonsmoothness in the penalty and taking only a few steps of the IM algorithm for each $\gamma$, the SparseStep algorithm aims to avoid local minima and tries to reach the global minimum of the regression problem with the counting norm penalty. The pseudocode for SparseStep regression is given in Algorithm \[alg:sparsestep\]. The algorithm starts by initializing ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ and $\gamma$ from given values ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0$ and $\gamma_0$ respectively. For each value of $\gamma$ the parameter estimates are updated $t_{max}$ times using the IM algorithm. Subsequently $\gamma$ is reduced by a factor $\gamma_{step}$. This process is continued until $\gamma$ reaches a provided stopping value $\gamma_{stop}$. In the end, sufficiently small elements of ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ are set to absolute zero by comparing to a small constant $\epsilon$. This is done to avoid numerical precision errors and can be a method for enhancing the sparsity inducing properties of SparseStep. The value of $\epsilon$ and that of $\gamma_{stop}$ are related. Note that in an actual implementation the matrices ${\mathbf{X}}'{\mathbf{X}}$ and ${\mathbf{X}}'{\mathbf{y}}$ should be cached for computational efficiency. ${\mathbf{X}}$, ${\mathbf{y}}$, ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0$, $\gamma_0$, $\gamma_{stop}$, $\gamma_{step}$, $t_{max}$, $\epsilon$ ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ ${\boldsymbol{\beta}} \leftarrow {\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0$ $\gamma \leftarrow \gamma_0$ Construct ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$ according to (\[eq:omegadef\]) ${\boldsymbol{\beta}} \leftarrow \left( {\mathbf{X}}'{\mathbf{X}} + \lambda{\boldsymbol{\Omega}} \right)^{-1} {\mathbf{X}}'{\mathbf{y}}$ $\gamma \leftarrow \gamma / \gamma_{step}$ $\beta_j \leftarrow 0$ Experiments {#sec:experiments} =========== To verify the performance of the SparseStep algorithm in correctly identifying the nonzero predictor variables in a regression problem, a simulation study was performed. The aim of this simulation study is to mimic as much as possible a practical setting where a researcher is interested in both the predictive accuracy of a regression model and the correct identification of variables with nonzero coefficients. Moreover, this simulation study allows verification of the performance of the SparseStep algorithm for datasets with varying statistical properties such as the number of variables, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the correlation between the variables, and the degree of sparsity in the true coefficient vector. A second goal of this simulation study is to compare the performance of the SparseStep algorithm with existing regression methods. These competing methods are: ordinary least-squares, lasso [@tibshirani1996regression], ridge regression [@hoerl1970ridge], SCAD [@fan2001variable], and MC+ [@zhang2010nearly]. Thus, the focus here is on comparing SparseStep with other penalized regression methods, including some that induce sparsity through penalization. In order to accurately evaluate the predictive accuracy of these methods and to find the best regularization parameter for each method, separate training and testing datasets will be used. The procedure is then to find for each method the regularization parameter which performs best on the training dataset, as measured using 10-fold cross-validation. Next, each method is trained one more time on the entire training dataset using this optimal regularization parameter and the obtained model is used to predict the test dataset. Predictive accuracy is measured using the mean squared error (MSE) on the test dataset. The accuracy of the estimated parameter vector ${{\boldsymbol{\hat{\beta}}}}$ will be evaluated on two measures: the mean squared error with respect to the true ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ and the sparsity hitrate. The sparsity hitrate is calculated simply as the sum of the correctly identified zero elements of ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ and the correctly identified nonzero elements, divided by the total number of elements of ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$. For the simulation study the following data generating process will be used. Let ${\mathbf{X}} \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times m}$ denote the data matrix drawn from a multivariate normal distribution with mean vector ${\boldsymbol{\mu}} \in \mathbb{R}^m$ and correlation matrix ${\boldsymbol{\Sigma}} \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times m}$, such that the rows ${\mathbf{x}}_i' \sim \mathcal{N}({\boldsymbol{\mu}}, {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}})$. The data matrix ${\mathbf{X}}$ was scaled such that each column had mean 0 and unit variance. In all simulated datasets ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}$ is drawn from an $m$-dimensional standard uniform distribution. For the correlation matrix ${\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}$ three different scenarios are used: uncorrelated, constantly correlated, and noise correlated. In the uncorrelated case the ${\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}$ matrix is simply the identity matrix, in the constantly correlated case all variables have a correlation of .5 with each other, whereas in the noise correlated case a correlation matrix is generated by adding realistic noise to the identity matrix using the method of @hardin2013method[^2]. Next, a parameter vector ${\boldsymbol{\beta}} \in \mathbb{R}^m$ is drawn from a uniform distribution with elements $\beta_j \in [-1, 1]$. The last $z$ elements of ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ are set to zero to simulate sparsity. Finally, to obtain realistic data with a known signal-to-noise ratio, the simulated outcome variable ${\mathbf{y}}$ is calculated as $${\mathbf{y}} = {\mathbf{X}}{\boldsymbol{\beta}} + {\mathbf{e}},$$ where ${\mathbf{e}} \in \mathbb{R}^n$ is a noise term which contains $n$ elements drawn from a univariate normal distribution with mean zero and standard deviation such that the SNR given by ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}'{\mathbf{X}}'{\mathbf{X}}{\boldsymbol{\beta}}/{\mathbf{e}}'{\mathbf{e}}$ is as desired. [Parameter]{} [Values]{} ----------------------- ------------------------------- Variables ($m$) $10, 50, 100, 500$ Sparsity ($\zeta \%$) $0, 25, 50, 75, 95$ SNR $0.1, 1.0, 10.0$ Correlation uncorrelated, constant, noise : Overview of the values for different parameters in the data generating process of the simulation study. Datasets were generated for each possible combination of these values, resulting in 180 datasets. \[tab:simulation\_overview\] Table \[tab:simulation\_overview\] gives an overview of how the different parameters of the data generating process were varied among datasets. Using these parameters a total of 180 datasets were generated. For all datasets the number of instances $n$ was set to 30,000, which was then split into 20,000 instances in the training dataset and 10,000 in the testing dataset. Note that the degree of sparsity in the table is expressed as a percentage of the number of variables $m$. In practice, the number of zeroes in ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ corresponds to $z = \lfloor m \cdot \zeta / 100\rfloor$, where $\zeta$ is a number taken from the second row of the table. The simulation study was set up such that each method was trained on exactly the same cross-validation sample when the same value of $\lambda$ was supplied. The grid of $\lambda$ parameters for the regularized methods came from a logarithmically spaced vector of 101 values between $2^{-15}$ and $2^{15}$. For SparseStep, the input parameters were chosen as $\gamma_0 = 10^6$, $\gamma_{stop} = 10^{-8}$, $\gamma_{step} = 2$, $t_{max} = 2$, $\epsilon = 10^{-7}$, and ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0 = {\mathbf{0}}$ (see Algorithm \[alg:sparsestep\]). Default input parameters where chosen for the other methods where applicable. The R language [@team2015r] was used for the SCAD and MC+ methods, with SCAD implemented through the ncvreg package [@breheny2011coordinate], and MC+ through the SparseNet package [@mazumder2011sparsenet]. The other methods were implemented in the Python language [@rossum1995python] using the scikit-learn package [@pedregosa2011scikit]. For the MC+ penalty the secondary regularization parameter $a$ was optimized for the training dataset using the CV implementation of the SparseNet package. For SCAD $a$ was set to 3.7 as per the default settings of ncvreg and @fan2001variable. To determine statistically significant differences between the performance of each of the methods, recommendations on benchmarking machine learning methods will be used as formulated by @demvsar2006statistical. Specifically, rank tests* will be applied to evaluate whether SparseStep outperforms other methods significantly. For each dataset, fractional ranks are calculated for each performance measure with a smaller rank indicating a better performance. Methods are considered to have equal performance if the difference on a performance metric is smaller than $10^{-4}$. A Friedman rank test can be done on the calculated ranks to test for equal performance of the methods [@friedman1937use; @friedman1940comparison] and Holm’s step down procedure can be used to test for significant differences between SparseStep and other methods [@holm1979simple]. Figure \[fig:res\_ranks\] shows the average ranks of the six evaluated methods on four different metrics. From Figure \[fig:res\_beta\_mse\_mse\], which shows the average ranks on the MSE of ${\boldsymbol{\hat{\beta}}}$, it can be seen that SparseStep is most often the best method for fitting ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$, followed closely by SCAD, MC+, and the Lasso. The sparsity hitrate of ${\boldsymbol{\hat{\beta}}}$ is on average the best for the MC+ penalty, followed by SparseStep and SCAD, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:res\_beta\_mse\_hit\]. For the out-of-sample performance on the test data, shown in \[fig:res\_ytest\_mse\_mse\], a similar order of the methods can be observed as for the MSE on ${\boldsymbol{\hat{\beta}}}$, although the difference between SCAD and MC+ is larger here. SparseStep again outperforms the other methods on this measure. Computation time was also measured for each method on each dataset. The rank plot of the average computation time per dataset is given in Figure \[fig:res\_time\]. It can be seen that SparseStep performs well on average. The average computation time of SparseStep for a single value of $\lambda$ is comparable to computing a single OLS solution. An important caveat with regards to the computation times is that in order to have the same CV splits for each method with a certain $\lambda$, the path algorithms of the Lasso, SCAD, and MC+ penalty could not be used. The computation time of these methods is therefore overestimated. Apart from the ranks averaged over all datasets, it is also interesting to look at how often a method is the best method on a dataset and how often it is the worst method. Looking at the MSE of ${\boldsymbol{\hat{\beta}}}$, Ridge is most often the best method, followed closely by the penalized methods. As expected OLS is most often the worst method in this regard. Next, SparseStep most often obtains the highest sparsity hitrate of ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$, on 30 out of 180 datasets. MC+ is the best method on this metric on 26 datasets and SCAD on 11 datasets. Finally, when considering the MSE on the outcome of the test dataset all the penalized methods are the best method with similar frequency. An exception to this is OLS, which is the best method on only 7 datasets and the worst method on 52 of them. MC+ is the worst method on 32 datasets, whereas SparseStep is the worst method the smallest number of times, on only 6 datasets. Clearly, OLS and Ridge only perform well on datasets without sparsity in ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$. For the other methods no clear relationship between the dataset characteristics and the performance of the method could be found. As suggested by @demvsar2006statistical an $F$-test can be done on the average ranks to evaluate if significant differences exist between the different methods. This is the case for the four measures discussed above, all with p-value $< 0.0001$. Furthermore, Holm’s procedure can be performed to uncover significant differences between the methods and a reference method, in this case SparseStep. From this it is found that on the performance metrics other than computation time, SparseStep significantly outperforms OLS and Ridge, but that the difference between SparseStep and the other penalized methods is not significant at the 5% level. On the computation time metric SparseStep significantly outperforms SCAD and MC+ at the 5% level, but the caveat mentioned above should be taken into account here. The lack of a significant difference between SparseStep and SCAD and MC+ on the other metrics can be due to either a lack of any theoretical difference, or an insufficient number of datasets in the simulation study. Discussion {#sec:discussion} ========== This paper introduces the SparseStep algorithm which induces sparsity in the regression problem by iteratively improving an approximation of the $\ell_0$ norm. An iterative majorization algorithm has been derived which is straightforward to implement. The practical relevance of SparseStep is evaluated through a thorough simulation study on 180 datasets with varying characteristics. Results of the simulation study indicate that SparseStep often outperforms existing methods, both for identifying the parameter vector ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ as for out-of-sample prediction of the outcome variable. Future research will focus on furthering the understanding of the theoretical properties of the SparseStep algorithm, such as the criteria for convergence to a global optimum. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ The computational tests of this research were performed on the Dutch National LISA cluster, and supported by the Dutch National Science Foundation (NWO). The authors thank SURFsara ([www.surfsara.nl](www.surfsara.nl)) for the support in using the LISA cluster. [^1]: For consistency with the remainder of the paper our definition of $\gamma$ deviates from that of @de2011deconvolution. In contrast to their definition of the approximation, the square of $\gamma$ is used here. [^2]: This corresponds to Algorithm 4 in the paper of Hardin et al., using the default parameters of $\varepsilon = 0.01$ and $M = 2$ (in their notation).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'A metric algebra is a metric variant of the notion of $\Sigma$-algebra, first introduced in universal algebra to deal with algebras equipped with metric structures such as normed vector spaces. In this paper, we showed metric versions of the variety theorem, which characterizes strict varieties (classes of metric algebras defined by metric equations) and continuous varieties (classes defined by a continuous family of basic quantitative inferences) by means of closure properties. To this aim, we introduce the notion of congruential pseudometric on a metric algebra, which corresponds to congruence in classical universal algebra, and we investigate its structure.' author: - \| Wataru Hino\ The University of Tokyo, Japan\ [[email protected]]([email protected]) bibliography: - 'ref.bib' title: Continuous Varieties of Metric and Quantitative Algebras --- Introduction ============ Metric and Quantitative Algebra ------------------------------- A quantitative algebra is introduced by Mardare et al.as a quantitative variant of the notion of $\Sigma$-algebra, in the sense of classical universal algebra in [@Mardare2016]. They use an atomic formula of the form $s =_{\e} t$, where $\e$ is a non-negative real number, instead of an equation $s = t$, and give a complete deductive system with respect to quantitative algebras. They investigate classes defined by basic quantitative inferences, which are formulas of the form $\bigland_{i = 1}^{n} x_i =_{\e_i} y_i \to s =_{\e} t$ where $x_i$ and $y_i$ are restricted to variables. They show that various well-known metric constructions, such as the Hausdorff metric, the Kantorovich metric and the Wasserstein metric, naturally arise as free quantitative algebras with suitable axioms consisting of basic quantitative inferences. The theory of quantitative algebra is applied to the axiomatization of the behavioral distance [@Bacci2016]. In fact, the idea of using indexed binary relations to axiomatize metric structures is already in the literature of universal algebra [@Weaver1995; @Khudyakov2003] under the name of metric algebra. This notion is slightly wider than that of quantitative algebra in the sense that operations in metric algebras are not required to be non-expansive. Weaver [@Weaver1995] and Khudyakov [@Khudyakov2003] prove continuous versions of the characterization theorem for quasivarieties, i.e., classes of algebras defined by implications, and the decomposition theorem corresponding to the one in the classical theory. However a metric version of the variety theorem has been missing for long. We give a very straightforward version in [@Hino2016], and Mardare et al. [@Mardare2017] give the characterization theorem for $\kappa$-variety, where $\kappa$ is a cardinal, which generalizes our result in [@Hino2016]. Contributions ------------- In this paper, we will investigate the universal algebraic treatment of metric and quantitative algebra. More specifically, - We give a clean formulation of the theory of metric and quantitative algebra based on congruential pseudometric (Definition \[def:cong\]). We prove some basic results on congruential pseudometric, including the metric variant of the isomorphism theorems. Especially the characterization theorem of direct products via congruential pseudometrics seems non-trivial since we need to assume that the given metric space is complete. - We prove the variety theorem for classes of metric (or quantitative) algebras defined by metric equations. This is proved in our previous work [@Hino2016]. Here we give a more concise proof by congruential pseudometrics. - We prove the variety theorem for continuous varieties, which are classes of metric (or quantitative) algebras defined by basic quantitative inferences and satisfy the continuity condition. As we mentioned, a basic quantitative inference is an implicational formula whose assumptions are metric equations between variables. One of the main challenges when considering implicationally defined classes is the size problem; it is often easy to show that a given class is defined by implications if we allow infinitely many assumptions, and difficulties arise when we want to have finitary axioms. We use ultraproduct to deal with the size problem, following the approach in [@Weaver1995], but we make the relation between ultraproducts and the size problem more explicit: we first show the weak version of the compactness theorem for metric algebras, and use it for the restriction of the size of assumptions. A variety theorem for $\kappa$-variety[^1] is already shown in [@Mardare2017], but it lacks the continuity condition. The continuity condition is important, especially when we work with complete metric spaces. Indeed, as pointed out in [@Mardare2016], a class defined by basic quantitative inferences is closed under completion if its axioms satisfy the continuity condition (the situation is the same for quasivarieties [@Weaver1995]). Moreover the continuity condition also implies the closure property under ultralimits, which can be seen as a robustness condition in some sense. This point is discussed in Section \[sec:ultralimit-metsp\]. Preliminaries {#ch:preliminaries} ============= In this section, we review some notions that we will need in the following sections. Classical Universal Algebra {#sec:classical-theory} --------------------------- Let $\Sigma$ be an algebraic signature, i.e., a set with an arity map $\abs{\blank} \colon \Sigma \to \bbN$. We define $\Sigma_n$ by $\Sigma_n = \set{\sigma \in \Sigma}{\abs{\sigma} = n}$ for each $n \in \bbN$. - A $\Sigma$-algebra is a tuple $A = (A, (\sigma^A)_{\sigma \in \Sigma})$ where $A$ is a set endowed with an operation $\sigma^A \colon A^n \to A$ for each $\sigma \in \Sigma_n$. We will just write $\sigma$ for $\sigma^A$ if $A$ is clear from the context. - A map $f \colon A \to B$ between $\Sigma$-algebras is a $\Sigma$-homomorphism if it preserves all $\Sigma$-operations, i.e., $f(\sigma^A(a_1, \ldots, a_n)) = \sigma^B(f(a_1), \ldots, f(a_n))$ for each $\sigma \in \Sigma_n$ and $a_1, \ldots, a_n \in A$. - A subalgebra of a $\Sigma$-algebra $A$ is a subset of $A$ closed under $\Sigma$-operations, regarded as a $\Sigma$-algebra by restricting operations. A subalgebra is identified with (the isomorphic class of) a pair $(B, i)$, where $B$ is a $\Sigma$-algebra and $i \colon B \mono A$ is an injective homomorphism. - The product of $\Sigma$-algebras $(A_i)_{i \in I}$ is the direct product of the underlying sets endowed with the pointwise $\Sigma$-operations. - A quotient (also called a homomorphic image) of a $\Sigma$-algebra $A$ is a pair $(B, \pi)$ where $B$ is a $\Sigma$-algebra and $\pi \colon A \epi B$ is a surjective homomorphism. - Given a set $X$, the set $\Term_{\Sigma} X$ of $\Sigma$-terms over $X$ is inductively defined as follows: each $x \in X$ is a $\Sigma$-term (called a variable), and if $\sigma \in \Sigma_n$ and $t_1, \ldots, t_n$ are $\Sigma$-terms, then $\sigma(t_1, \ldots, t_n)$ is a $\Sigma$-term. The set $\Term_{\Sigma} X$ is endowed with a natural $\Sigma$-algebra structure, and this algebra is called the free $\Sigma$-algebra over $X$. It satisfies the following universality: for each $\Sigma$-algebra $A$, a map $v \colon X \to A$ uniquely extends to a $\Sigma$-homomorphism $v^{\sharp} \colon \Term_{\Sigma} X \to A$. We also denote $v^{\sharp}(t)$ by $\sem{t}_v$. - Given a set $X$, a $\Sigma$-equation over $X$ is a formula $s = t$ where $s, t \in \Term_{\Sigma} X$. We say that a $\Sigma$-algebra $A$ satisfies a $\Sigma$-equation $s = t$ over $X$ (denoted by $A \models s = t$) if $\sem{s}_v = \sem{t}_v$ holds for any map $v \colon X \to A$. For a set of $\Sigma$-equations, we say $A \models E$ if $A$ satisfies all equations in $E$. - A class $\cat{K}$ of $\Sigma$-algebras is a variety if there is a set $E$ of equations such that $\cat{K} = \set{A \colon \text{a $\Sigma$-algebra}}{A \models E}$ holds. If the signature $\Sigma$ is obvious from the context, we omit the prefix $\Sigma$ and just say homomorphism, equation, etc. The following theorem is fundamental in universal algebra, and is proved by Birkhoff. It states that the property of being a variety is equivalent to a certain closure property; see e.g. [@Burris1981]. Our main goal is to prove the metric version of this theorem. A class $\cat{K}$ of $\Sigma$-algebras is a variety if and only if $\cat{K}$ is closed under subalgebras, products and quotients. Metric Space and Pseudometric {#sec:metric-sp} ----------------------------- Now we review the notions regarding metric spaces. - An extended real is an element of $\overline{\bbR} = \bbR \cup \{\pm \infty\}$. - Given a set $X$, an (extended) pseudometric on $X$ is a function $d \colon X \times X \to [0, \infty]$ that satisfies $d(x, x) = 0$, $d(x, y) = d(y, x)$ and $d(x, y) + d(y, z) \ge d(x, z)$. A pseudometric $d$ is a metric if it also satisfies $d(x, y) = 0 \Rightarrow x = y$. A pseudometric space (resp. metric space) is a tuple $(X, d)$ where $X$ is a set and $d$ is a pseudometric (resp. metric) on $X$. - A map $f \colon X \to Y$ between metric spaces is non-expansive if it satisfies $d(f(x), f(y)) \le d(x, y)$ for each $x, y \in X$. - For a family $(X_i, d_i)_{i \in I}$ of metric spaces, its product is defined by $\left( \prod_{i} X_i, d \right)$ where $d((x_i)_i, (y_i)_i) = \sup_{i \in I} d_i(x_i, y_i)$, and $d$ is called the supremum metric. Note that we admit infinite distances, called extended, because the category of extended metric spaces is categorically more amenable than that of ordinary metric spaces; it has coproducts and arbitrary products. Moreover a set can be regarded as a discrete metric space, where every pair of two distinct points has an infinite distance. In this paper, we denote $d(x, y) \le \e$ by $x =_{\e} y$. To consider a metric structure as a family of binary relations works well with various metric notions; e.g. $f \colon X \to Y$ is non-expansive if and only if $x =_\e y$ implies $f(x) =_\e f(y)$ for each $x, y \in X$ and $\e \ge 0$. The supremum metric of the product space $\prod_{i \in I} X_i$ is also compatible with this relational view of metric spaces; it is characterized by $(x_i)_i =_\e (y_i)_i \iff x_i =_{\e} y_i$ for all $i \in I$. We adopt the supremum metric rather than other metrics (e.g. the 2-product metric) for the product of metric spaces. One reason is the compatibility with the relational view above. Another reason is that it corresponds to the product in the category of extended metric spaces and non-expansive maps. Recall that the supremum metric does not always give rise to the product topology; the product of uncountably many metrizable spaces is not in general metrizable. Given a pseudometric space, we can always turn it into a metric space by identifying points whose distance is zero. \[thm:metric-id\] Given a pseudometric $d$ on $X$, the binary relation $\sim_d$ on $X$ defined by $x \sim_d y \Leftrightarrow d(x, y) = 0$ is an equivalence relation. Moreover $\overline{d}([x], [y]) = d(x, y)$ defines a metric $\overline{d}$ on $\overline{X} = X \quot {\sim_d}$ and yields to a metric space $(\overline{X}, \overline{d})$. \[def:metric-id\] The equivalence relation $\sim_d$ defined in Proposition \[thm:metric-id\] is called the metric identification of $d$, and $(\overline{X}, \overline{d})$ is called a metric space induced by the pseudometric $d$. We denote it by $X \quot d$. Technically, whenever we encounter a pseudometric space, we can regard it as a metric space by the above construction. However it does not mean that pseudometric is a totally redundant notion. Our slogan is: pseudometrics is to metric spaces what equivalence relations is to sets. Later we discuss pseudometrics that are compatible with given algebraic structures, which correspond to congruences in classical universal algebra. We utilize this notion intensively in the proof of the variety theorem. Filter and Limit {#sec:filter-limit} ---------------- Limits with respect to filters play an important role in the construction of ultralimits of metric spaces. Most of the results are straightforward generalizations of those for the usual limits. Let $I$ be a nonempty set. A filter on $I$ is a subset $\calF$ of $\pow(I)$ that satisfies the following conditions: 1. $I \in \calF$,$\emptyset \not\in \calF$. 2. If $G \in \calF$ and $G \subset H$, then $H \in \calF$. 3. If $G \in \calF$ and $H \in \calF$, then $G \cap H \in \calF$. A filter $\calF$ is an ultrafilter if, for any $G \subset I$, either $G \in \calF$ or $I \setminus G \in \calF$ holds. Let $I$ be a nonempty set. - For $a \in I$, a set $\calF_{a}$ defined by $\calF_{a} = \set{G \subset I}{a \in G}$ is an ultrafilter on $I$. It is called the principal ultrafilter at $a$. - Assume $I$ is infinite. The set $\calF_{\omega}$ of cofinite (i.e. its complement is finite) subsets of $I$ is a filter on $I$. It is called the cofinite filter on $I$. A filter is free if it contains the cofinite filter. 1. For a filter $\calF$ on $I$ and $J \in \calF$, the family $\calF \|_{J} := \calF \cap \pow(J)$ is a filter on $J$. If $\calF$ is an ultrafilter, then $\calF \|_{J}$ is an ultrafilter. 2. Let $\calU$ be an ultrafilter on $I$ and $A, B \subset I$. If $A \cup B \in \calU$ holds, then either $A \in \calU$ or $B \in \calU$ holds. Let $\calF$ be a filter on $I$. For an $I$-indexed family $(a_i)_{i \in I}$ of extended reals, we define $\liminf_{i \to \calF} a_i$ and $\limsup_{i \to \calF} a_i$ by $$\begin{aligned} \liminf_{i \to \calF} a_i &= \adjustlimits \sup_{J \in \calF} \inf_{i \in J} a_i \\ \limsup_{i \to \calF} a_i &= \adjustlimits \inf_{J \in \calF} \sup_{i \in J} a_i \quad. \end{aligned}$$ When $\liminf_{i \to \calF} a_i = \limsup_{i \to \calF} a_i = \alpha \in [-\infty, \infty]$, we write $\lim_{i \to \calF} a_i = \alpha$. - For a set $I$ and $k \in I$, we have $\lim_{i \to \calF_k} a_i = a_k$. - For the cofinite filter $\calF_\omega$ on $\bbN$, we have $\liminf_{n \to \calF_\omega} a_n = \liminf_{n \to \infty} a_n$ and $\limsup_{n \to \calF_\omega} a_n = \limsup_{n \to \infty} a_n$. Thus the limit with respect to a filter is the generalization of the usual limit. The following results on filters and limits are all elementary. \[lem:filter-le\] Let $\calF$ and $\calG$ be a filter on $I$ where $\calF \subset \calG$. For a family $(a_i)_{i \in I}$ of extended reals, $\limsup_{i \to \calF} a_i \ge \limsup_{i \to \calG} a_i$ and $\liminf_{i \to \calF} a_i \le \liminf_{i \to \calG} a_i$. Obvious from the definition of limit infimum and supremum. \[lem:sup-plus\] Let $\calF$ be a filter on $I$ and $(x_i)_{i \in I}, (y_i)_{i \in I}$ be families of reals. Then we have: $$\limsup_{i \to \calF} (x_i + y_i) \le \limsup_{i \to \calF} x_i + \limsup_{i \to \calF} y_i \quad .$$ For $\e \gt 0$, there exist $J, J' \in \calF$ such that $$\sup_{i \in J} x_i + \sup_{i \in J'} y_i \le \limsup_{i \to \calF} x_i + \limsup_{i \to \calF} y_i + \e \quad.$$ Since $\sup_{i \in J} x_i + \sup_{i \in J'} y_i \ge \sup_{i \in J \cap J'} (x_i + y_i) \ge \limsup_{i \to \calF} (x_i + y_i)$, we have $$\limsup_{i \to \calF} (x_i + y_i) \le \limsup_{i \to \calF} x_i + \limsup_{i \to \calF} y_i + \e \quad .$$ Then letting $\e \to 0$ completes the proof. \[lem:usual-limit\] Let $\calF$ be a filter on $I$, and $(a_i)_{i \in I}$ be a family of extended reals. Then $\lim_{i \in \calF} a_i = \alpha$ if and only if $\set{i \in I}{\abs{a_i - \alpha} \le \e} \in \calF$ for any $\e \gt 0$. \[cont-limit\] Let $\calF$ be a filter on $I$, $f \colon \bbR^n \to \bbR$ be a continuous function and $(x^0_i)_{i \in I}, \ldots, (x^n_i)_{i \in I}$ be families of real numbers. If $\lim_{i \to \calF} x^k_i = \alpha^k \in \bbR$ for each $k$, then $\lim_{i \to \calF} f(x^0_i, \ldots, x^n_i) = f(\alpha^0, \ldots, \alpha^n)$. Fix $\e \gt 0$. Since $f$ is continuous, there exists $\delta \gt 0$ such that for any $\vec{x} \in \bbR^n$ with $\abs{\vec{x} - \vec{\alpha}} \le \delta$, we have $\abs{f(\vec{x}) - f(\vec{\alpha})} \le \e$. Let $J = \set{i \in I}{\abs{\vec{x_i} - \vec{\alpha}} \le \delta}$ and $J' = \set{i \in I}{\abs{f(\vec{x_i}) - f(\vec{\alpha})} \le \e}$. By Lemma \[lem:usual-limit\] we have $J \in \calF$, and since $J \subset J'$ holds, we also have $J' \in \cal{F}$. Again by Lemma \[lem:usual-limit\], we conclude $\lim_{i \to \calF} f(\vec{x_i}) = f(\vec{\alpha})$, which completes the proof. \[lem:limit-exists\] Let $\calF$ be a free filter on $\bbN$, and $(a_n)_{n=0}^{\infty}$ be a sequence of real numbers. If $\lim_{n \to \infty} a_n = \alpha$, then $$\liminf_{n \to \calF} a_n = \limsup_{n \to \calF} a_n = \alpha \quad .$$ Since $\calF$ contains the cofinite filter, by Lemma \[lem:filter-le\], $$\alpha = \liminf_{n \to \infty} a_n \le \liminf_{n \to \calF} a_n \le \limsup_{n \to \calF} a_n \le \limsup_{n \to \infty} a_n = \alpha \quad .$$ Given an ultrafilter $\calU$ on $I$ and a family of real numbers $(a_i)_{i \in I}$, then $\lim_{i \to \calU} a_i$ exists, i.e., $\liminf_{i \to \calU} a_i$ and $\limsup_{i \to \calU} a_i$ coincide. First we show that $\liminf_{i \to \calU} a_i \le \limsup_{i \to \calU} a_i$ holds. Let $J, J' \in \calU$. By the nonemptiness of $J \cap J'$, we have $\inf_{i \in J} a_i \le \inf_{i \in J \cap J'} a_i \le \sup_{i \in J \cap J'} a_i \le \sup_{i \in J'} a_i$. Since this inequality holds for any $J$ and $J'$, we have $\sup_{J \in \calU} \inf_{i \in J} a_i \le \sup_{J' \in \calU} \inf_{i \in J'} a_i$. Now we show the equality. (1) Consider $\limsup_{i \in \calU} a_i - \liminf_{i \in \calU} a_i \lt \infty$, i.e, $\sup_{i \in J_0} a_i - \inf_{i \in J_0} a_i \lt \infty$ for some $J_0 \in \calU$. Let $(E_k)_{k=1}^{m}$ be a division of the interval $[\inf_{i \in J_0} a_i, \sup_{i \in J_0} a_i]$ to intervals whose lengths are smaller than $\e$. We define $(J_i)_{k=1}^{m}$ by $J_i = \set{i \in J_0}{a_i \in E_i}$. Since $\bigcup_{k=1}^{m} J_i = J_0 \in \calU$ and $\calU$ is an ultrafilter, there exists $k'$ such that $J_{k'} \in \calU$, and by the construction of $J_{k'}$, $\sup_{i \in J_{k'}} a_i - \inf_{i \in J_{k'}} a_i \le \e$ holds. Thus we conclude $\limsup_{i \in \calU} a_i - \liminf_{i \in \calU} a_i \le \e$. (2) Consider $\limsup_{i \to \calU} a_i = \infty$. For $M \in \bbR$, we have the division $I = J_0 \cup J_1$ for $J_0 = \set{i \in I}{a_i \lt M}$ and $J_1 = \set{i \in I}{a_i \ge M}$. Since $\sup_{i \in J_0} a_i \le M \lt \infty$, we have $J_0 \not\in \calU$ and then $J_1 \in \calU$. Therefore we have $M \le \inf_{i \in J_1} a_i \le \liminf_{i \to \calU} a_i$ and this inequality holds for any $M \in \bbR$. (3) $\liminf_{i \to \calU} a_i = - \infty$ is dual. Ultralimit of Metric Spaces {#sec:ultralimit-metsp} --------------------------- Ultralimit of metric spaces is introduced in [@Kapovich1995]. It is a metric variant of ultraproduct of first order structures, and in some sense it is considered as the limit (in the topological sense) of metric spaces. Let $\calF$ be a filter on $I$. For a family $(X_i, d_i)_{i \in I}$ of metric spaces, the function $\theta \colon {\prod_{i} X_i} \times {\prod_{i} X_i} \to [0, \infty]$ defined by $$\theta((x_i)_i, (y_i)_i) = \limsup_{i \to \calF} d_i(x_i, y_i)$$ is a pseudometric. Let $x = (x_i)_i$, $y = (y_i)_i$ and $z = (z_i)_i$ be sequences of points where $x_i, y_i, z_i \in X_i$. First, by taking $J = I$, we have $\theta(x, x) \le \sup_{i \in I} d_i(x_i, x_i) = 0$. Next $\theta(x, y) = \theta(y, x)$ obviously follows from the symmetricity of the definition. Finally, for the triangle inequality: $$\begin{aligned} \theta(x, y) + \theta(y, z) &= \limsup_{i \to \calF} d_i(x_i, y_i) + \limsup_{i \to \calF} d_i(y_i, z_i) \\ &\le \limsup_{i \to \calF} (d_i(x_i, y_i) + d_i(y_i, z_i)) \quad \tag{(Lemma~\ref{lem:sup-plus})}\\ &\le \limsup_{i \to \calF} d_i(x_i, z_i) = \theta(x, z) \quad . \end{aligned}$$ \[def:ulralimit-metsp\] Let $\calF$ be a filter on $I$. For a family $(X_i, d_i)_{i \in I}$ of metric spaces, the reduced limit* of $(X_i, d_i)_{i \in I}$ by $\calF$ is a metric space $\prod_i^{\calF} (X_i, d_i) = X \quot \theta$ where $X = \prod_{i \in I} X_i$ and $\theta((x_i)_i, (y_i)_i) = \limsup_{i \to \calF} d_i(x_i, y_i)$. It is called ultralimit [@Kapovich1995] when $\calF$ is an ultrafilter. The pointwise limit of metrics can be viewed as an example of ultralimit. Let $\calF$ be a free filter on $\bbN$. Let $X$ be a set, and $d_\omega$ and $(d_n)_{n \in \omega}$ be metrics on $X$. If $d_\omega(x, y) = \lim_{n \to \infty} d_n(x, y)$, then $(X, d_\omega)$ is isometric to a subspace of $\prod_n^{\calF} (X, d_n)$ by $f \colon X \to \prod_n^{\calF} (X, d_n);\, x \mapsto [x]_{n}$. For $x, y \in X$, we have $$\begin{aligned} d([x]_n, [y]_n) &= \liminf_{n \to \calF} d_n(x, y) \tag{(by definition)} \\ &= \lim_{n \to \infty} d_n(x, y) \tag{(Lemma~\ref{lem:limit-exists})} \\ &= d_{\omega}(x, y) \quad . \tag{(by definition)} \end{aligned}$$ Therefore $f$ is an embedding. At first sight, ultralimit appears to be just a technical generalization of classical ultraproduct. However it can be understood from a more topological (or metric) point of view for compact spaces. First we review the Hausdorff distance. Let $(X, d)$ be a metric space. For $x \in X$ and $A, B \subset X$, we define $d(x, A)$ and $d_H^X(A, B)$ as follows. $$\begin{aligned} d(x, A) &:= \inf_{a \in A} d(x, a) \\ d_H^X(A, B) &:= \max \biggl( \sup_{x \in A} d(x, B),\, \sup_{y \in B} d(y, A) \biggr) \end{aligned}$$ This construction defines a metric on the set of closed subsets of $X$, which is called the Hausdorff metric. The Hausdorff metric gives a way to measure a distance between subsets* of a fixed metric space. Using this metric, we can define a distance between metric spaces by embedding. For compact metric spaces $X$ and $Y$, the Gromov-Hausdorff distance $d_{GH}(X, Y)$ is defined to be the infimum of $d_H^Z(f(X), g(Y))$ where $Z$ is a metric space and $f \colon X \to Z$ and $g \colon Y \to Z$ are embeddings. This defines a metric on the set of (isometric classes of) compact metric spaces, which is called the Gromov-Hausdorff metric. The ultralimit of compact metric spaces is indeed a generalization of the limit in the Gromov-Hausdorff metric. \[ultralimit-ghlimit\] Let $(X_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ and $X$ be compact metric spaces and $\calF$ be a free ultrafilter on $\bbN$. If $(X_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ converges to $X$ in the Gromov-Hausdorff metric, then $X$ is isometric to $\prod_{n}^\calF X_n$. The converse of Proposition \[ultralimit-ghlimit\] does not hold. Take two distinct metric spaces $X$ and $Y$, and consider the sequence $(X, Y, X, Y, \ldots)$. The ultralimit always exists but this sequence does not have a limit with respect to the Gromov-Hausdorff metric. The ultralimit construction preserves some metric and topological properties of metric spaces; see [@VanDenDries1984; @Kapovich1995] for more details and examples. Let $\calF$ be a filter on $I$ and $(X_i)_{i \in I}$ be a family of metric spaces. If each $X_i$ is compact, then $\prod_{i}^{\calF} X_i$ is also compact. We know that $\prod_{i} X_i$ is compact by Tychonoff’s theorem. The canonical surjection $\pi \colon \prod_{i} X_i \to \prod_{i}^{\calF} X_i$ is non-expansive, then it is also continuous. Therefore its image $\prod_{i}^{\calF} X_i$ is also compact. \[thm:uprod-comp-comp\] Let $\calU$ be an ultrafilter on $I$ and $(X_i)_{i \in I}$ be a family of metric spaces. If each $X_i$ is complete, then $\prod_{i}^{\calU} X_i$ is also complete. Let $(x^n)_{n=0}^{\infty}$ be a sequence in $\prod_{i}^\calU X_i$ where $x^n = [x^n_i]_{i}$, and assume $d(x^n, x^{n+1}) \lt 2^{-n}$ holds for each $n \in \bbN$. We show $(x^n)_{n=0}^{\infty}$ converges. Let $A_n \subset I$ be the set defined by: $$\begin{aligned} A_n &= \set{i \in I}{\text{$d(x^{k}_i, x^{k+1}_i) \lt 2^{-k}$ for all $0 \le k \lt n$}} \quad. \end{aligned}$$ Given $i \in I$, define $y_i \in X_i$ as follows: $y_i = x^n_i$ if $i \in A_n \setminus A_{n+1}$ for some $n$, and otherwise $y_i = \lim_{n \to \infty} x^n_i$. We use the completeness of $X_i$ here. Then $d(x^n, y) \le 2^{-n+1}$ holds for each $n$, which concludes $\lim_{n \to \infty} x^n = y$. In fact, the ultraproduct of a countable family of metric spaces is automatically complete, even if each metric space is not complete. \[thm:cble-uprod-comp\] Let $\calU$ be a free ultrafilter on $\bbN$ and $(X_i)_{i \in I}$ be a family of (not necessarily complete) metric spaces. Then $\prod_{i}^\calU X_i$ is complete. Define $A_n$ as in Proposition \[thm:uprod-comp-comp\] and $B_n = A_n \setminus \{ 0, \ldots, n\}$. We know $B_n \in \calU$ since $\calU$ is free, and $\bigcap_{n=0}^{\infty} B_n = \emptyset$ holds by construction. We define $y_i = x^n_i$ where $n$ satisfies $i \in A_n \setminus A_{n+1}$, and then we have $\lim_{n \to \infty} x^n = y$ as Proposition \[thm:uprod-comp-comp\]. In the following corollary, you can find an immediate application of Proposition \[thm:cble-uprod-comp\]. We can prove the existence of the completion of a metric space. \[compl-via-ultraprod-metsp\] Given a metric space $X$, its completion exists. Let $\calU$ be some free ultrafilter on $\bbN$. Consider the ultrapower $\prod_{n}^{\calU} X$ and a canonical map $\iota \colon X \to \prod_{n}^{\calU} X$. Since $\iota$ is isometric and $\prod_{n}^{\calU} X$ is complete, the closure of $\iota(X)$ is the completion of $X$. Note that we use the existence of real nubmers in Theorem \[thm:cble-uprod-comp\], so Corollary \[compl-via-ultraprod-metsp\] cannot entirely replace the usual construction of completions by Cauchy sequences. Metric and Quantitative Algebra {#ch:malg-qalg} =============================== In this section, we introduce the notion of metric algebra and quantitative algebra. We also introduce some elementary constructions of metric algebras such as subalgebra, product and quotient. These constructions are used in the metric version of the variety theorem. Metric and Quantitative Algebra {#metric-and-quantitative-algebra-1} ------------------------------- By combining metric structures and $\Sigma$-algebraic structures, we acquire the definitions of metric algebra. They go as follows. - A metric algebra is a tuple $A = (A, d, (\sigma^A)_{\sigma \in \Sigma})$ where $(A, d)$ is a metric space and $(A, (\sigma^A)_{\sigma \in \Sigma})$ is a $\Sigma$-algebra. We denote the class of metric algebras by $\mathcal{M}$. - A map $f \colon A \to B$ between metric algebras is called a homomorphism if $f$ is $\Sigma$-homomorphic and non-expansive. - A subalgebra of a metric algebra $A$ is a subalgebra (as $\Sigma$-algebra) equipped with the induced metric. An embedding is an isometric homomorphism. - The product of metric algebras is the product (as $\Sigma$-algebras) equipped with the supremum metric. - A quotient of a metric algebra $A$ is a pair $(B, \pi)$ where $B$ is a metric algebra and $\pi \colon A \epi B$ is a surjective homomorphism. The definition of metric algebra says nothing about the relationship between its metric structure and its algebraic structure. One natural choice is to require their operations to be non-expansive, which leads us to quantitative algebra. A metric algebra $A$ is a quantitative algebra if each $\sigma^{A} \colon A^n \to A$ is non-expansive for each $\sigma \in \Sigma_n$, where $A^n$ is equipped with the supremum metric. We denote the class of quantitative algebras by $\mathcal{Q}$. The non-expansiveness requirement for operations is categorically natural since it says that a quantitative algebra is an algebra in the category of metric spaces and non-expansive maps in the sense of Lawvere theory. However this formulation does not allow normed vector spaces, since the scalar multiplications are not non-expansive. More extremely, even $(\bbR, +)$ is not quantitative since $d(0+0, 1+1) \gt \max(d(0, 1), d(0, 1))$. Thus basically we try to build our theory for general metric algebras. Instead of respectively discussing the variety theorems for metric algebras and quantitative algebras, we show the variety theorem relative to a given class $\cat{K}$. In that case, $\cat{K}$ is well-behaved when it is a prevariety. For example, $\cat{Q}$ and $\cat{M}$ are prevarieties. A class of metric algebras is called a prevariety if it is closed under subalgebras and products. In [@Mardare2017], Mardare et al. introduce the notion of $\kappa$-reflexive homomorphism for a cardinal $\kappa \le \aleph_1$, and give the characterization theorem of $\kappa$-varieties by $\kappa$-reflexive quotients. For a set $B$ and a cardinal $\kappa$, we write $A \subset_{\kappa} B$ when $A$ is a subset whose cardinality is smaller than $\kappa$. For example, $A \subset_{\aleph_0} B$ is a finite subset and $A \subset_{\aleph_1} B$ is an at most countable subset. \[def:k-refl-homom\] A surjective homomorphism $p \colon A \to B$ between metric algebras is $\kappa$-reflexive if, for any subset $B' \subset_\kappa B$, there exists a subset $A' \subset_\kappa A$ such that $p$ restricts to a bijective isometry $p\|_{A'} \colon A' \to B'$. We also use a variant of $\kappa$-reflexive homomorphism in our variety theorem, but our notion is unbounded; we do not impose any size condition. \[def:refl-homom\] A surjective homomorphism $p \colon A \to B$ between metric algebras is reflexive if there exists a subset $A' \subset A$ such that $p \|_{A'} \colon A' \to B$ is a bijective isometry. Equivalently $p$ is reflexive if and only if there exists an embedding $s \colon B \to A$ as metric space such that $p \circ s = \id_B$. Note that $s$ is not required to be homomorphic. In the rest of this paper, when we say “a class $\cat{K}$ of metric algebras”, we implicitly assume that $\cat{K}$ is closed under isomorphisms; it is a natural assumption since we are interested in properties of metric algebras, and they must be preserved by isomorphisms between metric algebras. Congruential Pseudometric {#sec:cong-quot} ------------------------- The notion of quotient seems to be external and difficult to deal with. For example, it is not trivial to see that the class of quotients of a metric algebra (up to isomorphism) turns out to be a small set. In the case of classical universal algebra, there is a bijective correspondence between quotient algebras and congruences, which enables us to treat quotients internally and concretely. To extend this correspondence to the metric case, we are led to the notion of congruential pseudometric instead of the usual congruence in classical universal algebra. The idea of using pseudometrics as the metric version of congruences also appears in [@Mardare2017]. \[def:cong\] A congruential pseudometric of a metric algebra $A$ is a pseudometric $\theta$ on $A$ such that $\theta(x, y) \le d^A(x, y)$ holds for each $x, y \in A$ and the equivalence relation $\theta(x, y) = 0$ is a congruence as $\Sigma$-algebra. We think that the set of congruential pseudometrics is ordered by the reversed pointwise order: for $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$, we say $\theta_1 \cle \theta_2$ when $\theta_1(a, b) \ge \theta_2(a, b)$ holds for any $a, b \in A$. Given a congruential pseudometric $\theta$, the metric space $A \quot \theta$ is viewed as a metric algebra by the algebra structure defined by $\sigma([a_1], \ldots, [a_n]) = [\sigma(a_1, \ldots, a_n)]$ and equipped with a canonical homomorphic projection $\pi \colon A \to A \quot \theta$. We adopt the reversed pointwise order for the consistency with the classical case. In the classical case, the set of congruences are ordered by inclusion, and for two congruences $\theta_1 \subset \theta_2$ on $A$, we have a canonical surjective homomorphism $\pi \colon A \quot \theta_1 \onto A \quot \theta_2$. In the metric case, for the congruential pseudometrics $\theta_1 \cle \theta_2$, their metric identifications satisfy $\sim_{\theta_1} \subset \sim_{\theta_2}$, and we have a surjective homomorphism $\pi \colon A \quot \theta_1 \onto A \quot \theta_2$ between metric algebras. As in classical universal algebra, we can prove the first isomorphism theorem and a bijective correspondence between quotients and congruences. The other isomorphism theorems are presented in Section \[ch:congruence\]. Given a homomorphism $f \colon A \to B$ between metric algebras, - The image of $f$ is a subalgebra of $B$ defined by $\im(f) = \set{f(a)}{a \in A}$. - The kernel of $f$ is a congruential pseudometric on $A$ that is defined by $\ker(f)(a, b) = d(f(a), f(b))$. \[first-isom-thm\] Let $f \colon A \to B$ be a homomorphism between metric algebras, and $\theta$ be a congruence on $A$. If $\theta \cle \ker(f)$, there exists a unique homomorphism $\bar{f} \colon A \quot \theta \to B$ such that $\bar{f}([a]) = f(a)$ for all $a \in A$. Moreover if $\theta = \ker(f)$, then $\bar{f}$ is an isometry and the induced map $\bar{f} \colon A \quot \ker(f) \to \im(f)$ is an isomorphism. First we show $\bar{f}([a]) = f(a)$ is well-defined. Assume $[a] = [b]$, i.e., $\theta(a, b) = 0$. Since $\theta \cle \ker(f)$, we have $d(f(a), f(b)) \le \theta(a, b) = 0$ hence $f(a) = f(b)$. Next we show $\bar{f}$ is non-expansive; for $a, b \in A$, we have $d(\bar{f}([a]), \bar{f}([b])) = d(f(a), f(b)) \le \theta(a, b) = d([a], [b])$. In the case $\theta = \ker(f)$, we also have $d(f(a), f(b)) = \theta(a, b)$ and then $d(\bar{f}([a]), \bar{f}([b])) = d([a], [b])$. For a metric algebra $A$, quotients of $A$ bijectively correspond with congruences on $A$ by $\theta \mapsto (A \quot \theta, \pi)$ and $(B, p) \mapsto \ker(p)$. For a metric algebra $A$ and a congruence $\theta$ on $A$, there is a lattice isomorphism between $\Con (A \quot \theta)$ and $(\Con A)_{\ge \theta} = \set{\rho \in \Con A}{\rho \ge \theta}$. Given $\rho \in (\Con A)_{\ge \theta}$, we define a pseudometric $\bar{\rho}$ on $A \quot \theta$ by $\bar{\rho}([a], [b]) = \rho(a, b)$. It is well-defined: if $\theta(a, a') = \theta(b, b') = 0$, then we have $\rho(a, a') = \rho(b, b') = 0$ by $\rho \le \theta$. Therefore $\rho(a, b) = \rho(a', b')$ by the triangle inequality. Conversely, given $\rho' \in \Con (A \quot \theta)$, we have a congruence on $A$ by pulling back $\rho'$ along the canonical projection $[\blank] \colon A \to A \quot \theta$. It is easy to see that they are inverse and order-preserving. Ultraproduct of Metric Algebras {#sec:ultraprod} ------------------------------- As in classical first order logic, we want to define the reduced product and the ultraproduct of a family of metric algebras. However there is a difficulty; the pseudometric defined in Definition \[def:ulralimit-metsp\] is not necessarily a congruential pseudometric, i.e., the relation $\theta(x, y) = 0$ is not preserved by operations. For this reason, we think of ultraproduct as a partial operation, following [@Weaver1995]. \[def:reduced-prod-malg\] Let $\calF$ be a filter on a set $I$. For a family $(A_i)_{i \in I}$ of metric algebras, the reduced product of $(A_i)_{i \in I}$ by $\calF$ exists when the pseudometric $\theta(x, y) = \limsup_{i \to \calF} d^{A_i}(x, y)$ on $\prod_{i} A_i$ is congruential. When it exists, it is defined by $\prod_{i}^{\calF} A_i = (\prod_{i} A_i) \quot \theta$. We denote the equivalence class of $(x_i)_i$ by $[x_i]_i$. If $\calF$ is an ultrafilter, it is called an ultraproduct. Moreover when $A_i = A$ for each $i \in I$, it is called an ultrapower of $A$. We say that a class $\cat{K}$ of metric algebras is closed under reduced products if, for any nonempty set $I$, any filter $\calF$ on $I$, and any family $(A_i)_{i \in I}$ of metric algebras in $\cat{K}$, the reduced product of $(A_i)_{i \in I}$ by $\calF$ exists and belongs to $\cat{K}$. We define the closedness under ultraproducts in the same way. Note that we require the existence. We have no general method to judge whether the ultraproduct exists or not, but there is a convenient sufficient condition. In Definition \[def:reduced-prod-malg\], the pseudometric $\theta$ is congruential if each $\Sigma$-operation is uniformly equicontinuous: for any $\sigma \in \Sigma_n$ and $\e \gt 0$, there is $\delta \gt 0$ such that for any $i \in I$ and $\vec{a}, \vec{b} \in A_i^n$ with $d(\vec{a}, \vec{b}) \le \delta$, we have $d(\sigma(\vec{a}), \sigma(\vec{b})) \le \e$ (Here we define $d(\vec{a}, \vec{b}) = \max_{k} d(a_k, b_k)$). In particular, when $A_i = A$ for all $i \in I$ and each $\sigma^{A}$ is uniformly continuous, then the ultrapower of $A$ by $\calF$ exists. The reduced product of $(A_i)_{i \in I}$ exists in the following cases. - When $(A_i)_{i \in I}$ is a family of quantitative algebras. - When $(A_i)_{i \in I}$ is a family of normed vector spaces. As in the case of metric spaces in Corollary \[compl-via-ultraprod-metsp\], we can construct the completion of a metric algebra via ultraproduct. \[compl-via-ultraprod-malg\] If a class $\cat{K}$ of metric algebras is closed under ultraproducts and subalgebras, then $\cat{K}$ is also closed under completions. The same construction as Corollary \[compl-via-ultraprod-metsp\] works. Note that the ultrapower of $A$ exists since we assume so. We can think, in some sense, that ultraproduct defines a “topology” on the class of metric algebras[^2], as the Gromov-Hausdorff metric defines a metric on the set of compact metric spaces. \[def:continuity\] A class $\cat{K}$ of metric algebras is called continuous if it is closed under taking ultraproducts. \[ultraprod-topology\] If $\{ \calC_\lambda \}_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$, $\calC_1$ and $\calC_2$ are continuous classes of metric algebras, then $\bigcap_{\lambda \in \Lambda} \calC_\lambda$ and $\calC_1 \cup \calC_2$ are also continuous. The continuity of $\bigcap_{\lambda \in \Lambda} \calC_\lambda$ is obvious. Let $(A_i)_{i \in I}$ be a family of metric algebras where $A_i \in \calC_1 \cup \calC_2$, and $\calU$ be an ultrafilter on $I$. Let us define $J_1$ and $J_2$ by $J_k = \set{i \in I}{A_i \in \calC_k}$. Since $J_1 \cup J_2 = I$ and $\calU$ is an ultrafilter, either $J_1 \in \calU$ or $J_2 \in \calU$ holds; we can assume $J_1 \in \calU$ without loss of generality. Then $\prod_i^{\calU} A_i \isom \prod_i^{\calU \|_{J_1}} A_i \in \calC_1 \subset \calC_1 \cup \calC_2$. In the light of Proposition \[ultraprod-topology\], it might be more natural to adopt the adjective closed rather than continuous. However the use of closed seems confusing since we also use it for the closedness under algebraic operations, therefore we prefer the word continuous. As we will see in Section \[ch:logical-metric\], this terminology is consistent with continuous quasivariety defined in [@Khudyakov2003]. Closure Operator {#sec:closure-op} ---------------- It is sometimes convenient to view a construction of metric algebras as an operator on classes of metric algebras. See [@Gorbunov1998] for the classical case, and [@Mardare2017] for the quantitative case. We define the class operators $\bbH$, $\bbH_r$, $\bbS$, $\bbP$ and $\bbP_U$ as follows. $$\begin{aligned} \bbH(\cat{K}) &= \set{A \in \cat{M}}{\text{$A$ is a quotient of some $B \in \cat{K}$}} \\ \bbH_r(\cat{K}) &= \set{A \in \cat{M}}{\text{$A$ is a reflexive quotient of some $B \in \cat{K}$}} \\ \bbS(\cat{K}) &= \set{A \in \cat{M}}{\text{$A$ is a subalgebra of some $B \in \cat{K}$}} \\ \bbP(\cat{K}) &= \set{A \in \cat{M}}{\text{$A$ is the product of some $(B_i)_{i} \in \cat{K}$}} \\ \bbP_U(\cat{K}) &= \set{A \in \cat{M}}{\text{$A$ is an ultraproduct of some $(B_i)_{i} \in \cat{K}$}} \end{aligned}$$ For class operators $\bbA$ and $\bbB$, we denote their composition by $\bbB \bbA (\cat{K}) = \bbB (\bbA (\cat{K}))$, and write $\bbA \subset \bbB$ when $\bbA(\cat{K}) \subset \bbB(\cat{K})$ holds for any class $\cat{K}$. \[classop-comp\] - $\bbS \bbH \subset \bbH \bbS$ and $\bbS \bbH_r \subset \bbH_r \bbS$. - $\bbP \bbH \subset \bbH \bbP$ and $\bbP \bbH_r \subset \bbH_r \bbP$. - $\bbP_U \bbH \subset \bbH \bbP_U$ and $\bbP_U \bbH_r \subset \bbH_r \bbP_U$. The proof is almost analogous to the classical case [@Gorbunov1998]; we only give a proof for $\bbS \bbH_r \subset \bbH_r \bbS$. Let $\cat{K}$ be a class of metric algebras. Assume $A \in \cat{K}$ and $B' \in \bbS \bbH_r (\cat{K})$, that is, there exists a reflexive homomorphism $p \colon A \epi B$ and $B' \subset B$ is a subalgebra. Let $s \colon B \mono A$ be a metric embedding such that $p \circ s = \id_B$ and let us define $A' = \set{a \in A}{p(a) \in B'}$. Then $A'$ is a subalgebra of $A$ and $s$ restricts to a map $s \|_{B'} \colon B' \to A'$. Therefore $B'$ is a reflexive quotient of $A'$, thus $B' \in \bbH_r \bbS (\cat{K})$. Congruence Lattice on Metric Algebras {#ch:congruence} ===================================== Congruence not only gives a concrete description of quotient but is a fundamental tool in universal algebra. We can characterize various constructions of $\Sigma$-algebra by congruence, and use the congruence theory in the proof of the variety theorem. As we saw in the previous section, the notion of congruence is generalized to congruential pseudometric in the theory of metric algebra. In this section, we give the metric counterpart of the congruence theory in classical universal algebra. Isomorphism Theorem {#sec:isothm} ------------------- We showed the metric version of the first isomorphism theorem in Proposition \[first-isom-thm\]. In this section we prove the rest of the isomorphism theorems. Let $A$ be a metric algebra and $\theta$ be a congruential pseudometric on $A$. - For a subalgebra $B$ of $A$, the restriction of $\theta$ to $B$ is defined by the usual restriction of pseudometric, which we denote by $\theta_B$. - For a subset $S \subset A$, we define $S^\theta = \set{a \in A}{\exists s \in S, \, d(s, a) = 0}$. In the situation above, if $S$ is a subalgebra of $A$, so is $S^{\theta}$. Let $\sigma \in \Sigma$ be an $n$-ary operation in $\Sigma$. Suppose $a_1, \ldots, a_n \in S^{\theta}$. By the definition of $S^{\theta}$, there exists $s_1, \ldots, s_n \in S$ such that $s_i \sim_{\theta} a_i$ for $i = 1, \ldots, n$. Since the relation $\sim_{\theta}$ is preserved by $\sigma^A$, we also have $\sigma(s_1, \ldots, s_n) \sim_{\theta} \sigma(a_1, \ldots, a_n)$. Since $S$ is a subalgebra, we have $\sigma(s_1, \ldots, s_n) \in S$ and then we conclude $\sigma(a_1, \ldots, a_n) \in S^{\theta}$. 1. Given a metric algebra $A$, a subalgebra $B$ of $A$ and a congruence $\theta$ on $A$, we have a canonical isomorphism $B^\theta \quot \theta_{B^\theta} \isom B \quot \theta_B$. 2. Given a metric algebra $A$ and congruences $\rho$, $\theta$ on $A$ with $\rho \cle \theta$, we have a canonical isomorphism $A \quot \rho \isom (A \quot \theta) \quot (\rho \quot \theta)$. \(1) Let $f \colon B \to B^\theta$ be an inclusion map. Since $\theta_B$ is a restriction of $\theta_{B^\theta}$, we have $\theta_B(x, y) = \theta_{B^\theta}(x, y)$ for each $x, y \in B$. Then $f$ induces an embedding $\bar{f} \colon B \quot \theta_B \to B^\theta \quot \theta_{B^\theta}$. It is surjective; for $x \in B^\theta$, there exists $y \in B$ such that $\theta_{B^\theta}(x, y) = \theta(x, y) = 0$ by the definition of $B^\theta$, therefore $\bar{f}([y]) = [x]$. \(2) Let $\pi \colon A \to A \quot \theta$ be the natural projection. It is easy to see that $\pi$ induces an isomorphism $\bar{\pi} \colon A \quot \rho \isom (A \quot \theta) \quot (\rho \quot \theta)$ as (1). Congruence Lattice {#sec:cong-lat} ------------------ In classical universal algebra, it is sometimes convenient to consider the poset of congruences rather than a congruence (see e.g. [@Burris1981]). In this section, we show that the poset of congruential pseudometrics is a complete lattice as in the classical case. Thus we can take arbitrary join and meet of congruential pseudometrics. Let $\cat{K}$ be a class of metric algebras. A congruence $\theta$ on $A$ is $\cat{K}$-congruential if $A \quot \theta$ belongs to $\cat{K}$. We denote by $\Con(A)$ the set of congruences on $A$, and by $\Con_{\cat{K}}(A)$ the set of $\cat{K}$-congruential pseudometrics on $A$. \[def:subdir-prod\] Let $(A_i)_{i \in I}$ be a family of metric algebras. A subdirect product of $(A_i)_{i \in I}$ is a subalgebra $A$ of the product $\prod_{i \in I} A_i$ where each projection map $\pi_i \colon A \to A_i$ is surjective. A homomorphism $f \colon A \to \prod_{i \in I} A_i$ between metric algebras is a subdirect embedding if $f$ is an embedding and $f(A)$ is a subdirect product of $(A_i)_{i \in I}$, that is, each component $f_i \colon A \to A_i$ is surjective. Let $A = (A, d)$ be a metric algebra, $(\theta_i)_{i \in I}$ be a family of congruences on $A$ and $f \colon A \to \prod_{i \in I} A \quot \theta_i$ be the product of their projections. Then its kernel is presented by $\ker(f)(a, b) = \sup_{i \in I} \theta_i (a, b)$ for $a, b \in A$. Moreover, the induced map $\bar{f} \colon A \quot \ker(f) \to \prod_{i \in I} A \quot \theta_i$ is a subdirect embedding. Since $\prod_{i \in I} A \quot \theta_i$ is endowed with the supremum metric, then we have $\ker(f)(a, b) := d(f(a), f(b)) = \sup_{i \in I} \theta_i(a, b)$. The rest of the theorem follows from Proposition \[first-isom-thm\]. \[cor:cong-complat\] If $(\theta_i)_{i \in I}$ is a family of congruences on $A$, then $\theta(a, b) = \sup_{i \in I} \theta_i (a, b)$ is also a congruence on $A$. If $\cat{K}$ is closed under subdirect products and each $\theta_i$ is $\cat{K}$-congruential, then $\theta$ is also $\cat{K}$-congruential. Therefore $\Con(A)$ is a complete lattice, and if $\cat{K}$ is closed under subdirect products, $\Con_{\cat{K}}(A)$ is also a complete lattice. We denote the meet and join of $(\theta_i)_{i \in I}$ in $\Con(A)$ by $\bigcurlywedge_{i \in I} \theta_i$ and $\bigcjoin_{i \in I} \theta_i$ respectively. Recall that we adopt the reversed pointwise order for congruences, so Corollary \[cor:cong-complat\] means that the meet of congruences in $\Con(A)$ and $\Con_{\cat{K}}(A)$ is their pointwise supremum. In general, it is difficult to give a concrete description of the join of congruences, but it can be done for some cases. For example, the assumption of the following theorem is satisfied if $A \quot \theta_i$ is a quantitative algebra, or if $A \quot \theta_i$ is a normed vector space. \[thm:cong-join\] Let $(\theta_i)_{i \in I}$ be congruences on $A$, and assume the following condition: for each $\sigma \in \Sigma_n$, there exists a positive real number $K_{\sigma}$ such that for any $i \in I$ and $\vec{a}, \vec{b} \in A^n$ we have $\theta_i(\sigma(\vec{a}), \sigma(\vec{b})) \le K_{\sigma} \theta_i(\vec{a}, \vec{b})$. Then we have: $$\bigl( \bigcjoin_{i \in I} \theta_i \bigr) (a, b) = \inf_{\substack{n \ge 0, \, c_1, \ldots, c_n \in A \\ i_0, i_1, \ldots, i_n \in I}} \bigl( \theta_{i_0}(a, c_1) + \theta_{i_1}(c_1, c_2) + \cdots + \theta_{i_n}(c_n, b) \bigr) \quad .$$ Moreover $(\bigcjoin_{i \in I} \theta_i)(\sigma(\vec{a}), \sigma(\vec{b})) \le K_{\sigma} (\bigcjoin_{i \in I} \theta_i)(\vec{a}, \vec{b})$ holds for $\vec{a}, \vec{b} \in A^n$. Let $\theta = \bigcjoin_{i \in I} \theta_i$ and $\rho(a, b)$ be the right hand side. ($\le$) Since $\theta_i \cle \theta$ for all $i \in I$, we have: $$\begin{aligned} \theta_{i_0}(a, c_1) + \theta_{i_1}(c_1, c_2) &+ \cdots + \theta_{i_n}(c_n, b) \\ &\ge \theta(a, c_1) + \theta(c_1, c_2) + \cdots + \theta(c_n, b) \\ &\ge \theta(a, b) \quad. \end{aligned}$$ Taking the infimum, we have $\theta(a, b) \le \rho(a, b)$ ($\ge$) Since $\rho(a, b) \le \theta_i(a, b)$ for each $i \in I$ and $a, b \in A$, it is sufficient to show that $\rho$ is congruential. It is easy to see that $\rho$ is a pseudometric, so we only have to show that each $\sigma \in \Sigma$ preserves the metric identification $\rho(x, y) = 0$. We only prove the case $\abs{\sigma} = 1$ for the simplicity; the other cases are very similar. Suppose $\rho(a, b) = 0$, that is, for $\e \gt 0$, there exists $c_1, \ldots, c_n \in A$ and $i_0, \ldots, i_n \in I$ such that $\theta_{i_0}(a, c_1) + \cdots + \theta_{i_n}(c_n, b) \le \e$. Since $\theta_i(\sigma(x), \sigma(y)) \le K_{\sigma} \theta_i(x, y)$, we also have $\rho(\sigma(a), \sigma(b)) \le \theta_{i_0}(f(a), f(c_1)) + \cdots + \theta_{i_n}(f(c_n), f(b)) \le K_{\sigma} \e$. Therefore $\rho(\sigma(a), \sigma(b)) = 0$ by letting $\e \to 0$, which completes the proof. If $\theta_i$ is $\cat{Q}$-congruential for $i \in I$, then $\bigcjoin_{i} \theta_i$ is $\cat{Q}$-congruential. Permutable Congruences {#sec:percong} ---------------------- In the classical case, products are characterized by permutable congruences; this generalizes the characterization theorem of product of groups via normal subgroups, and that of product of commutative rings by ideals (see [@Burris1981]). In this section, we prove the metric version of this characterization theorem; in our formulation, completeness is crucial to prove the theorem. Let $A$ be a metric algebra. For congruences $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ on $A$, a function $\theta_1 \circ \theta_2 \colon A \times A \to \bbRp$ is defined by $$(\theta_1 \circ \theta_2)(a, b) = \inf_{c \in A} (\theta_1(a, c) + \theta_2(c, b)) \quad.$$ The congruences $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ are permutable if $\theta_1 \circ \theta_2 = \theta_2 \circ \theta_1$ holds. \[lem:cong-prod\] Let $A$ be a metric algebra and $\theta_1$, $\theta_2$ be congruences on $A$. Then the following propositions hold: 1. $\theta_i \cle \theta_1 \circ \theta_2$ for each $i = 1, 2$. 2. $(\theta_1 \circ \theta_2) (a, a) = 0$ for each $a \in A$. 3. $\theta_1 \circ \theta_2 \cle \theta_1 \curlyvee \theta_2$. \(1) For $a, b \in A$, we have $\theta_1 \circ \theta_2 (a, b) \le \theta_1 (a, b) + \theta_2 (b, b) = \theta_1 (a, b)$. The case $i = 2$ is exactly the same. \(2) It directly follows from (1) and $\theta_1(a, a) = 0$. \(3) Let $\theta = \theta_1 \curlyvee \theta_2$. For any $a, b, c \in A$, we have $\theta_1(a, c) + \theta_2(c, b) \ge \theta(a, c) + \theta(c, b) \ge \theta(a, b)$. Taking the infimum over $c$, we have $(\theta_1 \circ \theta_2) (a, b) \ge \theta(a, b)$. For congruences $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$, the followings are equivalent: 1. $\theta_1 \circ \theta_2 = \theta_2 \circ \theta_1$, i.e., they are permutable. 2. $\theta_1 \circ \theta_2 = \theta_1 \curlyvee \theta_2$. 3. $\theta_2 \circ \theta_1 \cle \theta_1 \circ \theta_2$. $(1 \Rightarrow 2)$ By (1) and (3) of Lemma \[lem:cong-prod\], we only have to show $\theta_1 \circ \theta_2$ is a congruence. By (2) of Lemma \[lem:cong-prod\], we have $(\theta_1 \circ \theta_2)(a, a) = 0$. For $a, b \in A$, we have $(\theta_1 \circ \theta_2)(a, b) = (\theta_2 \circ \theta_1)(b, a)$, and by the permutability, it is equal to $(\theta_1 \circ \theta_2)(b, a)$. It remains to prove the triangle inequality. For $a, b, c \in A$, $$(\theta_1 \circ \theta_2)(a, b) + (\theta_1 \circ \theta_2)(b, c) = \inf_{d, e \in A} ( \theta_1(a, d) + \theta_2(d, b) + \theta_1(b, e) + \theta_2(e, c) )$$ by definition. Let us fix $\e \gt 0$. Since $\theta_1 \circ \theta_2 = \theta_2 \circ \theta_1$, there exists some $g \in A$ such that $\theta_1(d, g) + \theta_2(g, e) \le \theta_2(d, b) + \theta_1(b, e) + \e$. Then $$\begin{aligned} \theta_1(a, d) + \theta_2(d, b) &+ \theta_1(b, e) + \theta_2(e, c) + \e \\ &\ge \theta_1(a, d) + \theta_1(d, g) + \theta_2(g, e) + \theta_2(e, c) \\ &\ge \theta_1(a, g) + \theta_2(g, c) \\ &\ge (\theta_1 \circ \theta_2) (a, c) \quad . \end{aligned}$$ Letting $\e \to 0$, we have $\theta_1(a, d) + \theta_2(d, b) + \theta_1(b, e) + \theta_2(e, c) \ge (\theta_1 \circ \theta_2) (a, c)$. By taking the infimum over $d$ and $e$, the proof is complete. $(2 \Rightarrow 3)$ By (3) of Lemma \[lem:cong-prod\], we have $\theta_2 \circ \theta_1 \cle \theta_2 \cjoin \theta_1 = \theta_1 \cjoin \theta_2 = \theta_1 \circ \theta_2$. $(3 \Rightarrow 1)$ It suffices to show $\theta_2 \circ \theta_1 \cge \theta_1 \circ \theta_2$. For $a, b \in A$, we have $(\theta_2 \circ \theta_1) (a, b) = (\theta_1 \circ \theta_2)(b, a) \le (\theta_2 \circ \theta_1) (b, a)s = (\theta_1 \circ \theta_2)(a, b)$, which concludes the proof. \[lem:quot-perm\] Let $A$ be a metric algebra and $\theta, \theta_1, \theta_2$ be congruences on $A$ satisfying $\theta \cle \theta_i$ for $i = 1, 2$. Then $\theta \cle \theta_1 \circ \theta_2$ and $(\theta_1 \circ \theta_2) \quot \theta = (\theta_1 \quot \theta) \circ (\theta_2 \quot \theta)$. In particular, if $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ are permutable, $\theta_1 \quot \theta$ and $\theta_2 \quot \theta$ are also permutable. For any $a, b \in A$, $$\begin{aligned} (\theta_1 \circ \theta_2) (a, b) &= \inf_{c \in A} (\theta_1(a, c) + \theta_2(c, b)) \\ &\le \inf_{c \in A} (\theta(a, c) + \theta(c, b)) \\ &\le \theta(a, b) \quad . \end{aligned}$$ Therefore $\theta_1 \circ \theta_2 \cge \theta$ holds. The equation $(\theta_1 \circ \theta_2) \quot \theta = (\theta_1 \quot \theta) \circ (\theta_2 \quot \theta)$ easily follows from the definition of the quotient of congruences. \[thm:prod-cong\] Let $A = (A, d)$ be a complete metric algebra and $\theta_1$, $\theta_2$ be congruences on $A$. The canonical homomorphism $f \colon A \to A \quot \theta_1 \times A \quot \theta_2$ is isomorphic if the following conditions hold: 1. $\theta_1 \cmeet \theta_2 = d$. 2. $\theta_1 \cjoin \theta_2 = 0$. 3. $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ are permutable. For $a, b \in A$, we have $d(f(a), f(b)) = \max(\theta_1(a, b), \theta_2(a, b)) = d(a, b)$, so $f$ is isometric. We show that $f$ is surjective. Suppose $a_1, a_2 \in A$. Since $\theta_1 \circ \theta_2 = \theta_1 \cjoin \theta_2 = 0$, there exists a sequence $(c^n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ in $A$ such that $\theta_1(a_1, c^n) + \theta_2(c^n, a_2) \le 2^{-n}$ for each $n \in \omega$. Since $\theta_i(c^n, c^m) \le \theta_i(c^n, a_i) + \theta_i(a_i, c^m) \le 2^{-n+1}$ for $i = 1, 2$ and $n \lt m$, we also have $d(c^n, c^m) \le 2^{-n+1}$ by $\theta_1 \cmeet \theta_2 = d$. Therefore $(c^n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is a Cauchy sequence in $(A, d)$ and has a convergent point $c = \lim_{n \to \infty} c^n$. Since $\theta_i(a_i, c) \le \theta_i(a_i, c^n) + \theta_i(c^n, c) \le 2^{-n} + d(c^n, c) \to 0$ (as $n \to \infty$), we conclude $\theta_1(a_1, c) = \theta_2(a_2, c) = 0$, that is, $f(c) = ([a_1], [a_2])$. By inductively applying Theorem \[thm:prod-cong\], we acquire a slightly generalized version of the theorem for the arbitrary finite cases. Let $A = (A, d)$ be a complete metric algebra and $(\theta_i)_{i=1}^{n}$ be a family of congruences on $A$. The canonical homomorphism $f \colon A \to \prod_{i=1}^n A \quot \theta_i$ is isomorphic if the following conditions hold: 1. $\bigcurlywedge_{i=1}^n \theta_i = d$. 2. $(\bigcurlywedge_{i=1}^{k-1} \theta_i) \cjoin \theta_k = 0$ for each $k = 2, \ldots, n$. 3. $\theta_i$ and $\theta_j$ are permutable for each $i \neq j$. The proof is by induction on $n$. The case $n = 1$ is obviously valid. Let us suppose that the proposition holds for $n$; then we prove it for $n+1$. Assume $(\theta_i)_{i=1}^{n+1}$ is a family of congruences satisfying the conditions. Let $\rho_1 = \bigcurlywedge_{i=1}^n \theta_i$ and $\rho_2 = \theta_{n+1}$. Since $\rho_1 \cmeet \rho_2 = d$, $\rho_1 \cjoin \rho_2 = 0$ and $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ are permutable, then $A$ is canonically isomorphic to $A \quot \rho_1 \times A \quot \rho_2$. The family $(\theta_i \quot \rho_1)_{i=1}^{n}$ of congruences on $A \quot \rho_1$ satisfies the assumption of the proposition, therefore $A \quot \rho_1$ is isomorphic to $\prod_{i=1}^{n} A \quot \theta_i$ by the induction hypothesis. The completeness of $A$ is essential. Let $\Sigma = \emptyset$. Consider $X = [0, 1]^2 \setminus \{(0, 0)\}$ with the supremum metric and congruences $\theta_i((x_1, x_2),(y_1, y_2)) = \abs{x_i - y_i}$ for $i = 1, 2$. These congruences satisfy $\theta_1 \circ \theta_2 = \theta_2 \circ \theta_1 = 0$; let $x = (x_1, x_2)$ and $y = (y_1, y_2)$ in $X$. For $\e \ge 0$, take $z = (x_1 + \e, y_2 + \e) \in X$ and then we have $\theta_1 \circ \theta_2 (x, y) \le \theta_1(x, z) + \theta_2(z, y) = 2 \e$. Letting $\e \to 0$, we get $\theta_1 \circ \theta_2 (x, y) = 0$. Similarly we have $\theta_2 \circ \theta_1 = 0$. However $X \quot \theta_i \isom [0, 1]$ and $X$ is not isometric to $[0, 1]^2$. Syntax and Logic {#ch:logical-metric} ================ So far we have explained the model theoretic aspect of metric algebras. In this section, we give the syntax to describe properties of metric algebras, and prove some basic theorems such as a weak form of the compactness theorem. Syntax for Metric Algebra {#sec:metric-equation} ------------------------- We use indexed equations $s =_\e t$ for atomic formulas in the theory of metric algebras, differently from usual equations $s = t$ in the classical case. Let $X$ be a variable set. - A metric equation (also called an atomic inequality [@Weaver1995]) over $X$ is a formula of the form $s =_{\e} t$ where $s, t \in \Term_{\Sigma} X$ and $\e \ge 0$. A metric implication over $X$ is a formula of the form $\bigwedge_{i=1}^n s_i =_{\e_i} t_i \to s =_{\e} t$ where $s_i =_{\e_i} t_i$ and $s =_{\e} t$ are metric equations over $X$. We will identify a metric equation with a metric implication where $n = 0$. A basic quantitative inference over $X$ is a metric implication where $s_i$ and $t_i$ are restricted to variables. A $\kappa$-basic quantitative inference is its generalization that allows infinitely many assumptions smaller than $\kappa$. - Given a metric algebra $A$, a metric equation $s =_{\e} t$ over $X$, and a map $v \colon X \to A$, we say $A$ satisfies $s =_{\e} t$ under $v$, denoted by $A, v \models s =_{\e} t$, if we have $d(\sem{s}_v, \sem{t}_v) \le \e$. We simply say $A$ satisfies $s =_{\e} t$, denoted by $A \models s =_{\e} t$, when $A, v \models s =_{\e} t$ holds for any $v \colon X \to A$. These notions are similarly defined for metric implications. - Let $\cat{K}$ be a class of metric algebras and $\Phi \cup \{ \phi \}$ be a set of metric implications. We write $\cat{K} \models \phi$ if $B \models \phi$ holds for any $B \in \cat{K}$. We also define $A \models \Phi$ and $\cat{K} \models \Phi$ similarly. - Let $\Delta \cup \{s =_\e t\}$ be a set of metric equations over $X$. We write $\Delta \models_{\cat{K}} s =_\e t$ if, for $A \in \cat{K}$ and a map $v \colon X \to A$ with $A, v \models \Delta$, we have $A, v \models s =_\e t$. - Given a class $\cat{V}$ of metric algebras and a set $\Phi$ of metric implications, we define the class $\cat{V}(\Phi)$ by $\cat{V}(\Phi) = \set{A \in \cat{V}}{A \models \Phi}$, called the class defined in $\cat{V}$ by $\Phi$. When $\cat{V} = \cat{M}$, we simply call it the class defined by $\Phi$ Given a pseudometric $\theta$ on a set $X$, we identify $\theta$ with a set $E_\theta$ of metric equations over $X$ defined by $E_\theta = \set{x =_\e y}{x, y \in X,\, \theta(x, y) \le \e}$. This view is consistent with the reversed pointwise order on $\Con A$: we have $\theta_1 \cle \theta_2$ if and only if $\theta_1 \subset \theta_2$ holds. Presentation and Free Algebra ----------------------------- As in classical universal algebra, a metric algebra can be presented by generators and relations in a given class $\cat{K}$. As the special case, we give the construction of $\cat{K}$-free algebras. \[presentation-malg\] A presentation of a metric algebra is a pair $(X, \Delta)$ where $X$ is a set and $\Delta$ is a set of metric equations over $X$. Let $\cat{K}$ be a class of metric algebras. Given a presentation $(X, \Delta)$, the metric algebra defined by $(X, \Delta)$ in $\cat{K}$ is a metric algebra $\Free_{\cat{K}} (X, \Delta) = \Term_{\Sigma} X \quot \theta_\Delta$ where $\theta_\Delta$ is the smallest $\bbS(\cat{K})$-congruential pseudometric that contains $\Delta$. It is equipped with a map $\eta \colon X \to \Free_{\cat{K}} (X, \Delta)$ defined by $\eta(x) = [x]$, which is called its unit. We write $\Free_{\cat{K}} X$ when $\Delta = \emptyset$, which is called the $\cat{K}$-free algebra over $X$, and write $\Free_{\cat{K}} (X, d)$ for a metric space $(X, d)$ when $\Delta = \set{x =_\e y}{d(x, y) \le \e}$, which is called the $\cat{K}$-free algebra over $(X, d)$. \[lem:presentation\] Let $s =_\e t$ be a metric equation. In Definition \[presentation-malg\]: 1. $\Free_{\cat{K}} (X, \Delta), \eta \models \Delta$ holds. 2. For any $A \in \cat{K}$ and a map $f \colon X \to A$ where $A, f \models \Delta$ holds, there exists a unique homomorphism $h \colon \Free_{\cat{K}} (X, \Delta) \to A$ such that $h \circ \eta = f$. 3. $\Free_{\cat{K}} (X, \Delta), \eta \models s =_\e t$ if and only if $\Delta \models_{\cat{K}} s =_{\e} t$. 4. If $\cat{K}$ is a prevariety, then $\Free_{\cat{K}} (X, \Delta)$ belongs to $\cat{K}$. \(1) It is obvious from $\Free_{\cat{K}} (X, \Delta) = \Term_{\Sigma} X \quot \theta_\Delta$ and $\Delta \subset \theta_\Delta$. \(2) Let us consider $f^{\sharp} \colon \Term_{\Sigma} X \to A$. Since $\Delta \subset \ker(f^{\sharp})$ holds by assumption and $\ker(f^{\sharp})$ is $\bbS(\cat{K})$-congruential, we have $\theta_\Delta \cle \ker(f^{\sharp})$. By Proposition \[first-isom-thm\], there exists a unique homomorphism $h \colon \Free_{\cat{K}} (X, \Delta) \to A$ such that $h \circ \eta = f$. \(3) (if) Assume $\Delta \models_{\cat{K}} s =_{\e} t$. Since $\Free_{\cat{K}} (X, \Delta) \models_{\eta} \Delta$ holds by (1), then we conclude $\Free_{\cat{K}} (X, \Delta) \models_{\eta} s =_{\e} t$. (only if) Let $A \in \cat{K}$ and $v \colon X \to A$ be a map with $A, v \models \Delta$. By (2), we have a homomorphism $h \colon \Free_{\cat{K}} (X, \Delta) \to A$ such that $h \circ \eta = v$. Therefore $d(\sem{s}_v, \sem{t}_v) \le d(h(\sem{s}_\eta), h(\sem{t}_\eta)) \le d(\sem{s}_\eta, \sem{t}_\eta) \le \e$. \(4) Directly follows from Corollary \[cor:cong-complat\]. Weak Compactness Theorem {#sec:weak-compactness} ------------------------ We do not have the full version of the compactness theorem. There are two restrictions: we restrict ourselves to metric equations, and a finite subset of the assumptions is chosen only for each perturbation of the conclusion by $\e \gt 0$. \[thm:weak-compactness\] Let $\cat{K}$ be a continuous class of metric algebras and $\Delta \cup \{ s =_\e t \}$ be a set of metric equations over $X$. If $\Delta \models_{\cat{K}} s =_\e t$, then for any $\e' \gt \e$ there exists a finite subset $\Delta_0 \subset \Delta$ such that $\Delta_0 \models_{\cat{K}} s =_{\e'} t$. We prove the theorem by contradiction. Suppose that there exists $\delta \gt 0$ such that, for any finite subset $\Gamma \subset \Delta$, we have $A_{\Gamma} \in \cat{K}$ and a map $v_{\Gamma} \colon X \to A_{\Gamma}$ where $A_{\Gamma}, v_{\Gamma} \models \Gamma$ and $A_{\Gamma}, v_{\Gamma} \not\models s =_{\e'} t$ hold. Let $I$ be the set of finite subsets of $\Delta$. We define $J_{\Gamma} = \set{\Gamma' \in I}{\Gamma \subset \Gamma'}$ for each $\Gamma \in I$ and $\calB = \set{J_{\Gamma}}{\Gamma \in I}$. Since $\calB$ satisfies the finite intersection property, there exists an ultrafilter $\calU$ containing $\calB$. Let $A = \prod_{\Gamma}^{\calU} A_{\Gamma}$ be the ultraproduct of metric algebras, and $v \colon X \to A$ be a map defined by $v(x) = [v_i(x)]_i$. Then $A, v \models \Delta$ and $d(\sem{s}_v, \sem{t}_v) \ge \e' \gt \e$, hence $A, v \not\models s =_{\e} t$, which contradicts $A \in \cat{K}$ and the assumption. Let $\cat{K}$ be a continuous class of metric algebras, $(X, \Delta)$ be a presentation and $\eta \colon X \to \Free_{\cat{K}} (X, \Delta)$ be the unit. Then $d(\sem{s}_\eta, \sem{t}_\eta) \le \e$ holds if and only if for any $\e' \gt \e$ there is a finite subset $\Delta_0 \subset \Delta$ such that $\Delta_0 \models_{\cat{K}} s =_{\e'} t$. By Lemma \[lem:presentation\] (3) and Theorem \[thm:weak-compactness\]. Using this weak version of the compact theorem, we can show that continuous quasivarieties in [@Khudyakov2003] (simply called quasivarieties in [@Weaver1995]) are expectedly quasivarieties that are continuous in our terminology. Given a class $\cat{K}$ of metric algebras and a metric implication $\phi \equiv \bigland_{i=1}^{n} s_i =_{\e_i} t_i \to s =_{\e} t$, we say $\cat{K}$ satisfies $\phi$ equicontinuously if, for any $\e' \gt \e$, there exists $\delta \gt 0$ such that $\cat{K} \models \bigland_{i=1}^{n} s_i =_{\e_i + \delta} t_i \to s =_{\e'} t$. \[cor:cont-class-equicont\] Let $\cat{K}$ be a continuous class and $\phi \equiv \bigland_{i=1}^{n} s_i =_{\e_i} t_i \to s =_{\e} t$ be a metric implication. If $\cat{K}$ satisfies $\phi$, then $\cat{K}$ satisfies $\phi$ equicontinuously. Let $\Delta = \set{s_i =_{\e_i + \delta} t_i}{\delta \gt 0, \, i = 1, \ldots, n}$. We have $\Delta \models_{\cat{K}} s =_{\e} t$ by assumption. Given $\e' \gt 0$, by Theorem \[thm:weak-compactness\], there exists a finite subset $\Delta_0 \subset \Delta$ such that $\Delta_0 \models_{\cat{K}} s_0 =_{\e'} t_0$. Since $\Delta_0$ is finite, we can take the minimum $\delta \gt 0$ that arises in $\Delta_0$. And then we have $\cat{K} \models \bigland_{i} s_i =_{\e_i + \delta} t_i \to s =_{\e'} t$. A continuous family of metric implications is a set $\Phi$ of metric implications that satisfies the following conditions: - For each $\sigma \in \Sigma$, the formula $\vec{x} =_0 \vec{y} \to \sigma(\vec{x}) =_0 \sigma(\vec{y})$ belongs to $\Phi$. - If $\bigwedge_{i=1}^n s_i =_{\e_i} t_i \to s =_{\e} t$ belongs to $\Phi$ and $\e' \gt \e$, then there exists $\delta \ge 0$ such that $\bigwedge_{i=1}^n s_i =_{\e_i + \delta} t_i \to s =_{\e'} t$ also belongs to $\Phi$. \[lem:cont-cont\] Let $\Phi$ be a continuous family of metric implications. Then $\cat{V}(\Phi)$ is closed under reduced products. Let $\calF$ be a filter on $I$ and $(A_i, d_i)_{i \in I}$ be a family of metric algebras with $A_i \models \Phi$. Let $\phi \equiv \bigland_{k=1}^{n} s_k =_{\e_k} t_k \to s =_{\e} t$ be a metric implication over $X$ that belongs to $\Phi$, and we show $A \models \phi$ where $A = \prod_{i}^{\calF} A_i$. Let $(v_i \colon X \to A_i)_i$ be a family of maps, and $v \colon X \to A$ be a map defined by $v(x) = [v_i(x)]_i$. Assume $A, v \models s_k =_{\e_k} t_k$ for each $k = 1, \ldots, n$, and let us fix $\e' \gt \e$. Since $\Phi$ is a continuous family of metric implications, there exists $\delta \gt 0$ such that $\phi' \equiv \bigland_{k=1}^{n} s_k =_{\e_k + \delta} t_k \to s =_{\e'} t$ belongs to $\Phi$. By the definition of reduced product, there exists $J \in \calF$ such that, for each $k = 1, \ldots, n$, we have $\sup_{i \in J} d_i(\sem{s_k}_{v_i}, \sem{t_k}_{v_i}) \le \e_k + \delta$. Since $A_i, v_i \models \phi'$, we also have $\limsup_{i \to \calF} d_i(\sem{s}_{v_i}, \sem{t}_{v_i}) \le \sup_{i \in J} d_i(\sem{s}_{v_i}, \sem{t}_{v_i}) \le \e'$. Letting $\e' \to \e$, we conclude $A, v \models s =_\e t$. \[equiv-conti-quasi\] Let $\cat{K}$ be a quasivariety. The followings are equivalent: 1. $\cat{K}$ is a continuous quasivariety. 2. The set $\Phi_{\cat{K}}$ of metric implications that holds in $\cat{K}$ is continuous. 3. $\cat{K}$ is defined by a continuous family of metric implications. $(1 \Rightarrow 2)$ It follows from Proposition \[cor:cont-class-equicont\]. $(2 \Rightarrow 3)$ $\cat{K}$ is defined by $\Phi_{\cat{K}}$. $(3 \Rightarrow 1)$ Directly follows from Lemma \[lem:cont-cont\]. Generalized Metric Inequality {#sec:met-ineq} ----------------------------- In Subsection \[sec:weak-compactness\], we saw the ultraproduct construction preserves properties described by a continuous family of metric implications. We will see that some richer properties are preserved by ultraproducts. A (generalized) metric inequality over a set $X$ is a tuple $(f; \vec{s}, \vec{t})$ of a continuous function $f \colon (\bbRp)^n \to \bbRp$ and terms $\vec{s} = (s_1, \ldots, s_n)$, $\vec{t} = (t_1, \ldots, t_n)$ over $X$, denoted by $f(d(s_1, t_1), \ldots, d(s_n, t_n)) \ge 0$. Given a metric algebra $A$ and a map $v \colon X \to A$, the metric inequality $f(d(s_1, t_1), \ldots, d(s_n, t_n)) \ge 0$ holds under $v$, if the following condition holds. $$f(d(\sem{s_1}_v, \sem{t_1}_v), \ldots, d(\sem{s_n}_v, \sem{t_n}_v)) \ge 0 \quad.$$ Other expressions such as $f(d(s_1, t_1), d(s_2, t_2)) \le g(d(s'_1, t'_1), d(s'_2, t'_2))$ and $f(d(s_1, t_1), d(s_2, t_2)) = 0$ are defined and interpreted naturally. \[th:ultraprod-met-ineq\] Let $\phi \equiv f(d(s_1, t_1), \ldots, d(s_n, t_n)) \ge 0$ be a metric inequality, $\calU$ be an ultrafilter on $I$, and $(A_i)$ be a family of metric algebras. If $A_i$ satisfies $\phi$ for any $i \in I$, the ultraproduct $\prod_{i}^{\calU} A_i$ also satisfies $\phi$. Let $(v_i \colon X \to A_i)_{i \in I}$ be a family of maps, and $v \colon X \to \prod_{i}^{\calU} A_i$ be a map defined by $v(x) = [v(x)]_i$. Let us define $x_k^i = d(\sem{s_k}_{v_i}, \sem{t_k}_{v_i})$ and $\gamma_k = d(\sem{s_k}_v, \sem{t_k}_v)$, and assume $A_i, v \models \phi$ for each $i \in I$. By Proposition \[cont-limit\] and $\gamma_k = \lim_{i \to \calU} x_k^i$, we have $f(\gamma_1, \ldots, \gamma_n) = \lim_{i \to \calU} f(x_1^i, \ldots, x_n^i) \ge 0$. An immediate application is on the class of inner product spaces. An inner product space is equipped with the norm determined by its inner product. A classical result of functional analysis states that a norm that satisfies a certain equation comes from an inner product. Then we can apply Theorem \[th:ultraprod-met-ineq\] and prove that the class of inner product spaces is closed under ultraproducts. See [@Heinrich1980; @Li2005] for more examples from functional analysis and operator algebra. For the signature of normed vector space, $$\norm{x + y}^2 + \norm{x - y}^2 = 2 (\norm{x}^2 + \norm{y}^2)$$ is a metric inequality, where $\norm{z}$ is a shorthand for $d(z, 0)$. This metric inequality characterizes the class of inner product spaces [@JordanN1935]. Ultraproducts of inner product spaces are inner product spaces. Moreover ultraproducts of Hilbert spaces are Hilbert spaces. By Theorem \[th:ultraprod-met-ineq\] and Proposition \[thm:uprod-comp-comp\]. Variety Theorem {#chp:variety} =============== Now we prove the variety theorems of metric algebras. Basic Closure Properties ------------------------ We know the following closure properties of classes defined by a certain formula. \[basic-closure\] Let $\phi$ be a metric implication. 1. The class $\cat{M}(\phi)$ is closed under subalgebras, products. 2. If $\phi$ is a quantitative basic inference, then $\cat{M}(\phi)$ is closed under $\omega$-reflexive quotients, and then closed under reflexive quotients. 3. If $\phi$ is a metric equation, then $\cat{M}(\phi)$ is closed under quotients. Our goal is to prove the converse of this result: if a class of metric algebras is closed under some constructions, it is defined by a certain class of formulas. Strict Variety Theorem ---------------------- First we give a very simple version of metric variety theorems. As we will see, this formulation is very naive, which excludes normed vector spaces as example. \[def:strict-variety\] A class of metric algebras is called a strict variety (also called a 1-variety in [@Mardare2017]) if it is defined by a set of metric equations. The proof of the strict variety theorem is almost analogous to the classical case in [@Burris1981]; we use congruential pseudometrics instead of congruences. \[hsp-theorem\] A class $\cat{K}$ of metric algebras is a strict variety if and only if $\cat{K}$ is closed under products, subalgebras and quotients. (only if) Directly follows from Proposition \[basic-closure\]. (if) Let $E$ be the set of metric equations that hold in $\cat{K}$. Since $\cat{K} \subset \cat{M}(E)$ is trivial, we only have to show $\cat{M}(E) \subset \cat{K}$. Let $A$ be a metric algebra that satisfies $E$, and $X$ be its underlying set. Let $f \colon \Term_{\Sigma} X \to A$ be the homomorphic extension of the identity map and $\pi \colon \Term_{\Sigma} X \to \Free_{\cat{K}} X$ be the canonical projection. By Lemma \[lem:presentation\] we have $\Free_{\cat{K}} X \in \cat{K}$. Since $f$ and $\pi$ are surjective, by Proposition \[first-isom-thm\], it suffices to show that $d(f(s), f(t)) \le d(\pi(s), \pi(t))$ for any $s, t \in \Term_\Sigma X$. Assume $d(\pi(s), \pi(t)) \le \e$, that is, $\Free_{\cat{K}} X, \pi \models s =_\e t$. By Lemma \[lem:presentation\] (3), we have $\cat{K} \models s =_\e t$. Since $A$ satisfies all metric equations that hold in $\cat{K}$, we have $A \models s =_\e t$ and especially $d(f(s), f(t)) \le \e$, which concludes the proof. Applying Theorem \[hsp-theorem\], we can prove that the class of normed vector spaces is not a variety of metric algebras for the signature of vector space. \[eg:nvs-not-0variety\] For the signature $\Sigma = \{{+}, 0, (\lambda {\cdot}) \}_{\lambda \in \bbR}$, the class $\cat{N}$ of normed vector spaces is a quasivariety of metric algebras [@Weaver1995; @Khudyakov2003], but it is not a strict variety. Indeed consider $\bbR \in \cat{N}$ and let $R'$ be a metric algebra that has the same algebraic structure as $\bbR$ but whose metric is defined by $d(x, y) = \abs{\tanh(y) - \tanh(x)}$. The identity map $f \colon \bbR \to R'$ is a quotient while $R' \not\in \cat{N}$. Therefore $\cat{N}$ is not closed under quotient, hence not a strict variety. The class of normed vector space is a prototypical example of classes of metric algebras, but Example \[eg:nvs-not-0variety\] showed that it cannot be expressed by metric equations. To deal with such classes, we need to use more expressive formulas. We can extend the strict variety theorem to the quantitative case. For a generality, we give the notion of variety relative to $\cat{V}$ (see [@Gorbunov1998] for the classical case) and deal with the quantitative case as its particular case. \[def:strict-variety-rel\] A class of metric algebras is a strict variety relative to $\cat{V}$ if it is defined in $\cat{V}$ by a set of metric equations. \[hsp-theorem-rel\] Let $\cat{V}$ be a prevariety. A class $\cat{K} \subset \cat{V}$ of metric algebras is a strict variety relative to $\cat{V}$ if and only if $\cat{K}$ is closed under products, subalgebras and $\cat{V}$-quotients. By Proposition \[classop-comp\], $\bbH(\cat{K})$ is closed under quotients, subalgebras and products. Then by Theorem \[hsp-theorem\], there exists a set $E$ of metric equations such that $\cat{M}(E) = \bbH(\cat{K})$. Thus by assumption $\cat{M}(E) \cap \cat{V} = \bbH(\cat{K}) \cap \cat{V} = \cat{K}$, which concludes the proof. \[strict-qvar\] A class $\cat{K}$ of quantitative algebras is a strict variety relative to $\cat{Q}$ if and only if $\cat{K}$ is closed under products, subalgebras and $\cat{Q}$-quotients. Continuous Variety Theorem {#sec:cont-variety} -------------------------- We give a characterization of classes defined by basic quantitative inferences. Mardare et al. give a solution for this characterization problem in [@Mardare2017]. For a cardinal $\kappa \le \aleph_1$, a class of metric algebras is defined by a set of $\kappa$-basic quantitative inferences if and only if it is closed under subalgebras, products and $\kappa$-reflexive quotients. Differently from their result, our goal is to prove the continuous version. In this case, the size condition is included in the continuity assumption. A class $\cat{K}$ of metric algebras is defined by a continuous family of basic quantitative inferences if and only if it is closed under subalgebras, products, reflexive quotients and ultraproducts. (only if) Directly follows from Proposition \[basic-closure\] and Lemma \[lem:cont-cont\]. (if) Let $E$ be the set of basic quantitative inferences that hold in $\cat{K}$. We show $\cat{M}(E) \subset \cat{K}$. Let $A$ be a metric algebra that satisfies $E$, and $(A, d)$ be its underlying metric space. Let $f \colon \Term_{\Sigma} A \to A$ be the homomorphic extension of the identity map and $\pi \colon \Term_{\Sigma} A \to \Free_{\cat{K}} (A, d)$ be the canonical projection. It suffices to show that (1) $d(f(s), f(t)) \le d(\pi(s), \pi(t))$ for any $s, t \in \Term_\Sigma A$, and (2) $d(f(a), f(b)) = d(\pi(a), \pi(b))$ for any $a, b \in A \subset \Term_\Sigma A$. \(1) Assume $d(\pi(s), \pi(t)) \le \e$, that is, $\Free_{\cat{K}} (A, d), \pi \models s =_\e t$. By Lemma \[lem:presentation\] (3), we have $\Delta \models_\cat{K} s =_\e t$, where $\Delta = \set{a =_{\delta} b}{a, b \in A,\, d(a, b) \le \delta}$. Given $\e' \gt \e$, by Theorem \[thm:weak-compactness\] there exists a finite subset $\Delta_0 \subset \Delta$ such that $\Delta_0 \models_\cat{K} s =_{\e'} t$. Since $A$ satisfies all quantitative basic inferences that holds in $\cat{K}$, we have $A \models \bigwedge \Delta_0 \to s =_{\e'} t$. Since $A, f \models \Delta_0$ by the definition of $\Delta_0 \subset \Delta$, we have $A, f \models s =_{\e'} t$, that is, $d(f(s), f(t)) \le \e'$. Letting $\e' \to \e$, we conclude $d(f(s), f(t)) \le \e$. \(2) We only have to show that $d(f(a), f(b)) \ge d(\pi(a), \pi(b))$. Let us assume $d(f(a), f(b)) \le \e$. Since $f$ is an identity on $A$, we have $d(a, b) \le \e$. This means $a =_{\e} b \in \Delta$ and then $d(\pi(a), \pi(b)) \le \e$. Therefore the class $\cat{K}$ is defined by $E$, hence a quasivariety. By Proposition \[equiv-conti-quasi\], the family $E$ is moreover continuous, which concludes the proof. A class $\cat{K}$ of quantitative algebras is defined by a continuous family of basic quantitative inferences in $\cat{Q}$ if and only if $\cat{K}$ is closed under products, subalgebras, ultraproducts and reflexive $\cat{Q}$-quotients. Exactly the same as Corollary \[strict-qvar\]. Conclusions and Future Work {#ch:conclusions} =========================== We developed a general theory of metric and quantitative algebra from the viewpoint of universal algebra. We investigated the lattices of congruential pseudometrics on a metric algebra, and proved the metric variants of the variety theorem by using their structure. Our work is different from [@Mardare2017] because we aim at continuous classes of metric and quantitative algebras, following the work by Weaver [@Weaver1995] and Khudyakov [@Khudyakov2003]. This design choice seems to be natural since the continuity of classes of metric algebras can be understood as a sort of closedness in the topological sense, hence a sort of robustness. Moreover our result is mainly on general metric algebras rather than quantitative algebras, which enables our theory to include examples from functional analysis and operator algebra. We did not pursue the connection to the category theoretic treatments of universal algebra: Lawvere theory, monad and orthogonality. The theory of quantitative algebra can be viewed as a special case of enriched Lawvere theory. More specifically, it is the discrete Lawvere theory [@HylandP2006] enriched by the category of metric spaces. Here the adjective discrete means that we only consider operations whose arities are natural numbers, while in enriched Lawvere theory an operation whose arity is a finite metric space is allowed. It would be possible to give a syntax and prove the variety theorem for that situation. The use of monads and Eilenberg-Moore categories is another way to deal with equational theories in category theory. Mardare et al. showed that a class of quantitative algebras defined by basic quantitative inferences induce a monad on the category of metric spaces. The next problem is whether the class of quantitative algebras is monadic. It would also be interesting to check whether our work is an instance of the categorical variety theorem formulated by Adámek et al. in [@JoyOfCats]. Our theory seems to implicitly use the orthogonal factorization system on the category of metric algebras that consists of embeddings and quotients. But there is another factorization system: closed embeddings and dense maps. The natural question is what kind of variety theorems is acquired if we use this factorization system instead of embeddings and quotients. The metric structures on free algebras are also yet to be investigated. For example, we could investigate whether the free algebra on a metric space is complete, or compact for a given axiom of metric algebras. [^1]: a class defined by $\kappa$-basic quantitative inferences. [^2]: If we appropriately restrict the size, this construction gives rise to a topological space.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We suggest that nonminimally coupled scalar fields can lead to modifications of the microphysics in the interiors of relativistic stars. As a concrete example, we consider the generation of a non-zero photon mass in such high-density environments. This is achieved by means of a light gravitational scalar, and the scalarization phase transition in scalar-tensor theories of gravitation. Two distinct models are presented, and phenomenological implications are briefly discussed.' author: - Andrew Coates - 'Michael W. Horbatsch' - 'Thomas P. Sotiriou' title: Gravitational Higgs Mechanism in Neutron Star Interiors --- Scalar-tensor theories [@Faraoni:2004pi; @Fujii:2003pa; @Damour:1992we; @Chiba:1997ms] can be thought of as theories of gravity with an additional scalar field $\Phi$ that couples non minimally to the metric $\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$ but does not couple to the matter fields, $\Psi^A$. The latter couple minimally to $\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$ only. In this representation, known as the Jordan frame, the action reads $$\begin{aligned} S[\tilde{g}_{\mu \nu} , \Phi] &=& \frac{1}{16\pi}\int \mathrm{d}^{4}x \sqrt{-\tilde{g}} \left( \Phi \tilde{R} - \frac{\omega(\Phi)}{\Phi}\tilde{g}^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu}\Phi \partial_{\nu}\Phi \right) \nonumber \\ &&+ S_{\rm m}[\Psi^{A}, \tilde{g}_{\mu \nu}]\,,\end{aligned}$$ and the weak equivalence principle (WEP) is manifest. Here $\Phi$ has the interpretation of a varying inverse gravitational constant, $S_{\rm m}$ denotes the matter action, and $\tilde{R}$ is the Ricci scalar of $\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$. One can also reformulate this action in terms of another metric and a redefined scalar field, in the so called Einstein frame. The scalar field and the metric in this frame are related to their Jordan frame counterparts by, $$\Phi = [G_{\star}A^{2}(\phi)]^{-1}, \qquad \tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}=A^2(\phi)g_{\mu\nu}\,,$$ where $G_{\star}$ is a bare gravitational constant. The form of $A^2(\phi)$ is determined by the choice of $\omega(\Phi)$ and the requirement that the kinetic term for $\phi$ be canonical. That is, the Einstein frame action reads $$\begin{aligned} S=&\frac{1}{16\pi G_}\int\mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{-g}\left[R-2g^{\mu\nu}\left(\partial_\mu\phi\right)\left(\partial_\nu\phi\right)\right]\nonumber\\ &+S_{\rm m}[\Psi^A,A^2(\phi)g_{\mu\nu}],\end{aligned}$$ where $R$ is the Ricci scalar of $g_{\mu\nu}$. In the absence of matter the theory clearly reduces to general relativity (GR) with a minimally coupled scalar field. In this representation the deviation from GR is encoded in the nonmiminal coupling between the matter and $\phi$. After some manipulations the field equation for the scalar field can be put into the form [@Faraoni:2004pi; @Fujii:2003pa; @Damour:1992we; @Chiba:1997ms; @Damour:1993hw]$$\label{seq} \Box \phi+4\pi G_T \frac{d}{d\phi} \log A(\phi)=0\,,$$ where $T$ is the trace of the Einstein frame stress-energy tensor $$T_{\mu \nu} = - \frac{2}{\sqrt{-g}} \frac{\delta S_{\rm m}}{\delta g^{\mu\nu}}\,.$$ Theories in which $dA(\phi_0)/d\phi=0$ for some constant $\phi_0$, admit GR solutions with a trivial scalar configuration, as the scalar’s equation is trivially satisfied and $g_{\mu\nu}$ effectively satisfies Einstein’s equation with a rescaled gravitational coupling. Note that such theories have $\omega(\Phi_0)\to \infty$ in the Jordan frame, where $\Phi_0\equiv \Phi(\phi_0)$ (see Ref. [@Sotiriou:2015lxa] for a more detailed discussion). Certain theories in this class exhibit a remarkable property dubbed spontaneous scalarization [@Damour:1993hw; @Damour:1996ke; @Chiba:1997ms]. It is convenient to expand the logarithmic derivative of the conformal factor around $\phi=\phi_0$ as $$\label{expansion} \log A(\phi)=A_0+\beta_0(\phi-\phi_0)^2/2+\cdots.$$ In and around stars of relatively low densities, such as the Sun, the scalar remains at the trivial configuration, $\phi=\phi_0$, and the metric is that of GR. As a result the theory is indistinguishable from GR in the weak field limit. However, for $\beta_0\lesssim-4$, compact stars above a threshold central density undergo a phase transition and develop a large scalar charge, even in the absence of an external scalar environment [@Damour:1993hw]. This behaviour is of particular interest as it underscores the importance of constraining deviation from GR in the strong field regime. At the perturbative level spontaneous scalarization can be seen as a tachyonic instability [@Damour:1993hw]. The coupling between the scalar and $T$ in eq. (\[seq\]) generates a negative mass for scalar perturbations around $\phi=\phi_0$. The end point of this instability is the scalarized solution, which exhibits no such instability. This perturbative manifestation allows one to determine with good certainty whether spontaneous scalarization occurs without performing a more complete nonperturbative analysis. Spontaneous scalarization changes the structure of compact stars [@Damour:1993hw; @Damour:1996ke; @Chiba:1997ms] and, as a result, it has recently been severely constrained by binary pulsar observations [@Damour:1998jk; @Freire:2012mg]. However, it does so without actually affecting the microphysics in the star. This is manifest in the Jordan frame picture, where the scalar field $\Phi$ does not couple directly to matter. Hence, when it develops a nontrivial profile it does act as a source for the gravitational field and it changes the binding energy of the star, but it does not change the properties of the matter fields. In particular, matter can still be described effectively as a fluid with a certain equation of state (EOS) and this EOS can be determined without any reference to $\Phi$. In this paper we wish to consider the more intriguing possibility that the existence of a scalar field can actually change the behaviour of matter inside a neutron star. This can be achieved without violating WEP constraints if the scalar is coupled to matter in a way such that: (i) this coupling vanishes to the desired order in perturbation theory around unscalarized solutions; (ii) it comes to life once scalarization has occurred. This coupling could then substantially modify the masses and/or coupling constants of standard model fields in scalarized environments, such as neutron star interiors. For concreteness and as a proof of principle, we will consider the case of the electromagnetic field and we will present two concrete models for photon mass generation and amplification. In both models, the mechanism underlying the variation of fundamental constants is the scalarization phase transition in scalar-tensor theories of gravity [@Damour:1993hw].[^1] Since the toy models considered in this work deal with photon mass generation and amplification, the starting point will be the action of the electromagnetic field, $$S_{\rm EM}[A_{\mu},\tilde{g}_{\mu \nu}] = S_{\rm EM}[A_{\mu},g_{\mu \nu}] = - \frac{1}{4} \int d^{4} x \sqrt{-g} F_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu} \,,$$ where $F_{\mu \nu} = \partial_{\mu} A_{\nu} - \partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}$ is the usual field strength tensor. This action is invariant under the $U(1)$ gauge symmetry $A_{\mu} \to A_{\mu} + \partial_{\mu}\lambda$. Following the motivation outlined so far, the simplest model to consider would appear to be one where we introduce an additional Proca-like coupling between the scalar field and the photon. For instance, consider the case where the unscalarized solution corresponds to $\phi=\phi_0=0$ and one adds to the matter action the term, $$\label{massterm} \frac{1}{2}\left(m\phi\right)^{2}A_\mu A^\mu.$$ Note that setting $\phi_0=0$ amounts to a global shift of the scalar, so it can be done without loss of generality. The term in eq. clearly generates a mass for electromagnetic perturbations in a scalarized setting and having an even power of $\phi$ guarantees that the mass of the photon will not be negative. At the same time, it does not introduce any modification at linear order (always counting at the level of the field equations) in the unscalarized case as, $$\frac{1}{2}\left(m\phi\right)^{2}A_\mu A^\mu\propto (\delta\phi)^2 \delta A^\mu \delta A_\mu,$$ around $\phi=0=A^\mu$. However, this model, despite being potentially interesting, is actually not perturbative around $\phi=0$. This is unappealing because it casts doubt on whether the scalarized and the unscalarized phases are continuously connected. To understand this issue better we should first review the case of the standard Proca field, with Lagrangian, $$\mathcal{L}=-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}m^2A_\mu A^\mu.$$ When one considers the polarizations of the vector field one sees that the logitudinal mode disappears in the limit $m\to 0$ and thus one expects a discontinuity. To reinstate the $U(1)$ gauge symmetry and investigate this limit more carefully one can introduce the Stueckelberg field $\psi$ [@Ruegg:2003ps]. If under a $U(1)$ transformation $$\begin{aligned} A_\mu \to A_\mu +\partial_\mu \lambda, \qquad \psi \to \psi - m \lambda,\end{aligned}$$ then the Lagrangian, $$\mathcal{L}_S=-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}\left(m A_\mu +\partial_\mu \psi\right)^2,$$ is gauge invariant. Now when one takes $m\to 0$ the “longitudinal mode", i.e. $\psi$, decouples from the theory and thus no true discontinuity exists. Indeed the original issue can be interpreted as the choice $\psi=0$ being a bad gauge for addressing this question. To generalize this to the case of interest there appear to be two possibilities for introducing a Stueckelberg field. The first option is to keep the original gauge transformation, in which case the mass-like term becomes, $$\label{m1} \frac{\phi^2}{2}\left(m A_\mu +\partial_\mu \psi\right)^2.$$ Despite $m\to 0$ still being a proper decoupling limit, if one attempts to perturb around $\phi=0$ the kinetic term for $\psi$ does not appear until cubic order in perturbation theory. This discontinuity in the degrees of freedom between different orders of perturbation theory seems to challenge the validity of such a treatment. The second option would be to include $\phi$ in the gauge transformation, that is, to attempt to follow the Stueckelberg perscription but treating $m\phi$ rather than $m$ as the “mass parameter". This means replacing the transformation $\psi\to \psi - m\lambda$ by, $$\psi \to \psi -m\phi\lambda.$$ In this case there are additional counter-terms and the mass-like term is, $$\label{phidepgauge} \left(\partial_\mu \psi - \psi\partial_\mu\log\phi+m\phi A_\mu\right)^2.$$ Due to the term containing $\log\phi$ perturbative treatment around $\phi=0$ is compromised, even though $\phi=0$ is still a perfectly acceptable asymptotic value for $1/r^n$, exponential and Yukawa decays. It is worth pointing out that this prescription for introducing the Stueckelberg field is actually related to the previous via the field redefinition $\chi=\psi/\phi$ that transforms eq. into eq. with $\psi$ replaced by $\chi$. A straightforward (though perhaps not unique) way to circumvent the discontinuity issue in this model is the following. Instead of generating a mass, one can start with a mass that is tuned to be undetectably small in unscalarized backgrounds and simply enhance it around scalarized backgrounds. Consider the Einstein frame Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned} \label{enhancedmasslag} \frac{\mathcal{L}_S}{\sqrt{-g}} = &\frac{1}{4\pi G_}\left( \frac{R}{4} -\frac{1}{2}\left(\partial_\mu\phi\right)^2\right) -\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}\nonumber\\ &-\frac{A^{2}(\phi)}{2}(1+f(\phi))\left(m A_\mu +\partial_\mu \psi\right)^2\end{aligned}$$ where $f(0)=0$ and $f$ is positive for all other arguments. In the Jordan frame for the (rest of the) matter, for invertible $A$, the Lagrangian takes the form, $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\mathcal{L}_S}{\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}} =& \frac{1}{16\pi}\left(\Phi \tilde{R} -\frac{\omega(\Phi)}{\Phi}\left(\partial_\mu \Phi\right)^2\right) -\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}\nonumber\\ &-\frac{1}{2}(1+h(\Phi))\left(m A_\mu +\partial_\mu \psi\right)^2.\end{aligned}$$ where, $\Phi = G_^{-1}A^{-2}(\phi)$, $h(\Phi)=f\left(\phi(\Phi)\right)$. In other words, as one may expect, the Jordan frame photon mass (squared) is $m^2(1+f(\phi))$. Working perturbatively around $\phi=0$ (the unscalarized solution) it is clear that the mass of the photon will be determined by the value of $m$ and so it can be tuned to a desired value that would avoid any know constraint. On the other hand, when $\phi$ has a nontrivial configuration the effective mass of the photon is clearly modified. Enhancing it to the desired value is just a matter of making a suitable choice of $f$. What remains is to argue that the presence of the mass term will not prevent scalarization from occurring. In order to study this process in its full glory and determine the stellar structure, it is necessary to numerically integrate the equations of motion derived from the Lagrangian in eq. . However, with some approximations, it is possible to obtain an analytical understanding of the scalarization process. In particular, one can look for the standard sign for spontaneous scalarization at the perturbative level, which is the onset of a tachyonic instability for $\phi$ once the star reaches a threshold compactness. Indeed, so long as $f$ is chosen to vanish at least to quadratic order in perturbation theory, the original perturbative calculation of Ref. [@Damour:1993hw] applies here. For concreteness and without significant loss of generality, we shall take $A^2(\phi)=\exp(\beta \phi^2)$. Recall that if one expands a more general choice for $A^2(\phi)$ as in eq. , it is the value of $\beta_0$ that controls how effective scalarization is. Consider the scalar’s field equation, eq. , sourced by a constant (in the Jordan frame) matter density, $\rho$, within some radius, $R$, and take the metric to be that of flat space in order to decouple the tensor field equations from the scalar equation. In terms of the dimensionless compactness parameter, $s=G_M/R$ ($\sim 0.2$ for neutron stars) and defining $u=r/R$ the scalar’s equation of motion becomes, $$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\phi}{\mathrm{d}u^2}+\frac{2}{u}\frac{\mathrm{d}\phi}{\mathrm{d}u}=3s\beta e^{2\beta\phi^2}\phi H(1-u).$$ where $H(x)$ is the Heaviside step function. Solving this equation in a small-amplitude expansion for $\phi$ to sub-leading order, and matching $\phi$ and $\phi'$ at the stellar boundary one finds, for $\beta<0$, a non-trivial scalar profile $\phi(u)=A\, \mathrm{sinc}(\tau u)+\mathcal{O}(A^3)$ with $\tau=\sqrt{3s\|\beta\|}$ and amplitude $A\sim (s-s_)^{1/2}$, whenever the compactness, $s$, exceeds the scalarization threshold $s_=\pi^2/(12\|\beta\|)$. The mass term will not contribute to $\phi$’s equation due to our assumption that $f$ vanishes to quadratic order in perturbations. Hence it cannot quench this instability. As a second example, we now turn to another model, which will allow for an actual generation of a mass and can be straightforwardly generalized to other gauge fields. Since scalarization appears, perturbatively, as a tachyonic instability of the $\phi=0$ configuration around compact objects, it is quite tempting to consider a Higgs mechanism where the coupling to matter (or non-minimal coupling in the Jordan frame) replaces the Higgs potential in its role. Consider a scalar-tensor theory with a complex charged scalar field $\phi$, and action $$\begin{aligned} S &=& \frac{1}{4\pi G_{\star}} \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \left\{ \frac{R}{4} - \frac{1}{2} g^{\mu \nu} \overline{D_{\mu} \phi} D_{\nu} \phi \right\} \\ && - \frac{1}{4} \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} F_{\mu \nu}F^{\mu \nu} + S_{\rm m}[A^{2}(\bar{\phi}\phi)g_{\mu \nu} ;\, A_{\mu} ;\, \Psi^{A} ] \,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here $D_{\mu} \phi = \partial_{\mu} \phi - ieA_{\mu}\phi$ is the gauge covariant derivative of the scalar, where the constant $e$ determines the coupling between the gravitational scalar and the photon. The conformal factor is taken to depend only on the modulus of the scalar, and is taken to be $A(\bar{\phi}\phi) = \exp (\tfrac{1}{2} \beta \bar{\phi}\phi)$, where $\beta$ is a constant. With these choices, the action is invariant under the $U(1)$ gauge transformation $$\phi \to \phi e^{ie\lambda} \,, \qquad A_{\mu} \to A_{\mu} + \partial_{\mu}\lambda \,.$$ If this symmetry is spontaneously broken, and the scalar $\phi$ develops a non-zero vacuum expectation value, then the photon attains a mass of $$m_{\gamma}^{2}(\bar{\phi}\phi) = \frac{e^2}{4\pi G_{\star}} \bar{\phi}\phi \,.$$ Since this model allows for mass generation, let us study it in a bit more detail. The field equations are $$\begin{aligned} &&( \Box - e^2A_{\mu}A^{\mu} - 2ieA^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} \nonumber\\ \label{mod2_fieldeq_scalar} &&\qquad\qquad-ie\nabla_{\mu}A^{\mu} ) \phi=- 4 \pi G_{\star}T \beta \phi \,,\\ \label{Maxwell} &&\nabla^{\mu}F_{\mu \nu} = J_{\nu} + J_{\nu}^{(\phi)} + m_{\gamma}^{2}(\bar{\phi}\phi) A_{\nu} \,,\\ &&G_{\mu \nu} = 8 \pi G_{\star} \left( T_{\mu \nu} + T_{\mu \nu}^{(\phi)} + T_{\mu\nu}^{(A)} + T_{\mu\nu}^{(\phi A)} \right) \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} J_{\mu} &=& -\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}} \frac{\delta S_{\rm m}}{\delta A^{\mu}}\,,\\ T_{\mu \nu}^{(\phi)}&=& \frac{1}{4 \pi G_{\star}} \left( \partial_{( \mu}\bar{\phi} \partial_{\nu )}\phi - \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu \nu} g^{\lambda \sigma} \partial_{\lambda} \bar{\phi} \partial_{\sigma} \phi \right) \,,\\ J_{\mu}^{(\phi)} &=& \frac{ie}{8\pi G_{\star}} \left( \bar{\phi} \partial_{\mu} \phi - \phi \partial_{\mu}\bar{\phi} \right) \,,\\ T_{\mu \nu}^{(A)} &=& F_{\mu \lambda}F_{\nu}^{\hphantom{\nu}\lambda} - \frac{1}{4} g_{\mu \nu} F_{\lambda \sigma} F^{\lambda \sigma} \nonumber \\ && +m_{\gamma}^{2}(\bar{\phi}\phi) \left( A_{\mu}A_{\nu} - \frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu}g^{\lambda \sigma} A_{\lambda}A_{\sigma} \right) \,,\\ T_{\mu \nu}^{(\phi A)} &=& 2 \left( J_{(\mu}^{(\phi)}A_{\nu )} - \frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu}g^{\lambda \sigma} J_{\lambda}^{(\phi)}A_{\sigma} \right) \,.\end{aligned}$$ In a static spherically-symmetric space-time, the line element has the form $$g_{\mu \nu}dx^{\mu} dx^{\nu} = -f(r)dt^2 + h(r) dr^2 + k(r)d\Omega^2 \,,$$ and the electromagnetic potential has the form $$A^{\mu} = \left( A^{t}(r) \, , \, A^{r}(r) \, , \, 0 \, , \, 0 \right) \,,$$ and $\phi$ is purely radial. In this geometry, the field equations - reduce to $$\begin{aligned} \label{ss1} &&\phi'' + {\cal A} \phi' -{\cal B} h \phi = -4 \pi G_{\star} \beta T h \phi \,,\\ \label{ss2} &&\left( \frac{f'}{f}A^{t} + (A^{t})'\right) ' + \left( \frac{f'}{2f} - \frac{h'}{2h} + \frac{k'}{k} \right) \left( \frac{f'}{f}A^{t} + (A^{t})'\right) = \nonumber \\&&\qquad\qquad\qquad =- h J^{t} + m_{\gamma}^{2}(\bar{\phi}\phi) h A^{t} \,,\\ \label{ss3} &&J^{r} = m_{\gamma}^{2}(\bar{\phi}\phi)A^{r} + \frac{J_{r}^{(\phi)}}{h} \,, \qquad J^{\theta} = J^{\phi} = 0 \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} &&{\cal A}\equiv \frac{f'}{2f} - \frac{h'}{2h} + \frac{k'}{k} - 2iehA^{r}\,,\\ && {\cal B}\equiv ie (A^{r})' + ie \left( \frac{h'}{2h} + \frac{f'}{2f} + \frac{k'}{k}\right) A^{r} \nonumber\\ &&\qquad\qquad + e^2 h (A^{r})^2 - e^2 f (A^{t})^2 \,.\end{aligned}$$ If the matter described by $S_{\rm m}$ is electrically neutral, then the external current $J^{\mu}$ vanishes, and it follows from the above equations that $$\Im \left( \frac{\phi'}{\phi} \right) = e h A^{r} \,.$$ In other words, the phase of $\phi$ is directly related to the radial component of the electromagnetic potential, and thus $A^{\mu}$ has only one dynamical degree of freedom. This is the concrete manifestation of gauge invariance in spherical symmetry. Given that the scalar current source $J_{\mu}^{(\phi)}$ appears on the right-hand side of eq. , one might be tempted to conclude that scalarized stars necessarily have an electric charge. This would be highly problematic from a phenomenological point of view. However, it follows from the eqs. - that, in the static and spherically-symmetric case, the only non-trivial component of this current can be absorbed by a gauge transformation. Hence, it is in principle possible to have scalarized stars with vanishing electric charge, but still a non-zero photon mass in their interior, allowing for interesting phenomenology. We will now demonstrate that the electric charge of scalarized stars is actually forced to vanish at the perturbative level. We will resort to the same approximations and definitions as in the previous model. We will additionally define $W=\sqrt{4\pi G_}A^t$ and $\epsilon=e^2R^2/(4\pi G_)$. The field equations then boil down to $$\begin{aligned} &\frac{d^2\|\phi\|}{du^2} + \frac{2}{u} \frac{d\|\phi\|}{du} + \epsilon W^2 \|\phi\| = 3s\beta e^{2\beta\|\phi\|^2} \|\phi\|H(1-u) \,,\\ &\frac{d^2W}{du^2} + \frac{2}{u} \frac{dW}{du} = \epsilon \|\phi\|^2 W \,.\end{aligned}$$ Solving these equations perturbatively in $\epsilon$ to leading order, and, again, in a small-amplitude expansion for $\|\phi\|$ to sub-leading order, and matching at the stellar boundary, one finds that $W$ is forced to vanish everywhere in order to avoid a singularity at the stellar centre. As the equations for $\|\phi\|$ are identical to those of $\phi$ in the previous model (other than the contribution which is forced to vanish) the scalarized profile and the threshold are unaffected. Hence, this calculation also demonstrates that scalarization will proceed in the same fashion as in the known models explored by Damour and Esposito-Farèse. To summarise, we have presented two models in which the mass of the photon has a different value in the interior and the vicinity of a compact star than that measured by experiments performed in a weak gravity regime. In both models a scalar field $\phi$ undergoes spontaneous scalarization, [i.e.]{} its configuration is trivial in and around matter configurations of low compactness, whereas it becomes non-trivial once a certain threshold in compactness is crossed. The first model has a Proca-like mass term with a $\phi$ dependent effective mass, and hence scalarization can change the value of this mass from undetectably low to significantly high to give rise to new phenomenology. The second model can be thought of as a gravitational Higgs mechanism with the Higgs potential replaced by the scalar-gravity coupling. In this model the massless photon acquires a nonzero mass in the interior of a sufficiently compact star. We have focused on the electromagnetic field for concreteness but it should be clear that our goal was to give a proof of principle. One can straightforwardly construct similar models that would change the masses or couplings of other standard model fields in and around compact stars, [i.e.]{} in high curvature regimes. This can have profound implications for our understanding of the microphysics and internal structure of neutron stars, as currently realistic equations of state are based on the assumption that fundamental physics remains unchanged in the star’s interior. Moreover, models such as the ones we propose here could exhibit characteristic phenomenology that current or future observations could observe. This would reveal the existence of otherwise very elusive scalar fields. This issue certainly deserves closer investigation. It has recently been shown that scalarization might also occur around black holes that are surrounded by matter [@Cardoso:2013fwa; @Cardoso:2013opa], as the presence of the latter makes the known no-hair theorems [@Chase; @Bekenstein:1971hc; @Hawking:1972qk; @Sotiriou:2011dz; @Bekenstein:1996pn; @Sotiriou:2015pka; @Herdeiro:2015waa] inapplicable. If significant scalarization can occur in some astrophysical black hole systems, then it would be particularly interesting to study such systems within the context of our models. Before closing, it is worth commenting on our choices of coupling between the scalar and the electromagnetic field. Our models are such that the coupling terms vanish at low orders in perturbation theory around the unscalarized solution and hence they are entirely absent from the equation of motion of the scalar field. This is the simplest way to be certain that scalarization is entirely unaffected and proceeds precisely as in the known models at perturbative level. However, a contribution to the scalar’s equation coming from the coupling terms could well be present, so long as it does not quench the tachyonic instability that acts as a perturbative manifestation of spontaneous scalarization. Models with such behaviour are very likely to exist. We close with a note of caution. Our arguments relied heavily on a perturbative treatment. A nonperturbative study of compact stars in our models would not only provide stronger evidence for our claims, but it would also determine the structure of compact stars and allow one to quantify the deviations from general relativity. We will consider this issue in a separate publication. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC grant agreement n. 306425 “Challenging General Relativity”. [99]{} V. Faraoni, [[Cosmology in scalar tensor gravity]{}]{}, Springer, 2004. Y. Fujii and K. Maeda, [[The scalar-tensor theory of gravitation]{}]{}. Cambridge University Press, 2007. T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farese, [[Class. Quant. Grav.]{} [9]{} (1992) 2093–2176](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/9/9/015). T. Chiba, T. Harada, and K.-i. Nakao, [[Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.]{} [128]{} (1997) 335–372](http://dx.doi.org/10.1143/PTPS.128.335). T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farese, [[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [70]{} (1993) 2220–2223](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.2220). T. P. Sotiriou, [[Lect. Notes Phys.]{} [892]{} (2015) 3](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10070-8_1), [[arXiv:1404.2955 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.2955). T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farese, [[Phys. Rev.]{} [D54]{} (1996) 1474–1491](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.54.1474), [[arXiv:gr-qc/9602056 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9602056). T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farese, [[Phys. Rev.]{} [D58]{} (1998) 042001](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.58.042001), [[arXiv:gr-qc/9803031 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9803031). P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, G. Esposito-Farese, J. P. W. Verbiest, M. Bailes, B. A. Jacoby, M. Kramer, I. H. Stairs, J. Antoniadis, and G. H. Janssen, [[Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.]{} [423]{} (2012) 3328](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21253.x), [[arXiv:1205.1450 \[astro-ph.GA\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.1450). J.-P. Uzan, [[Rev. Mod. Phys.]{} [75]{} (2003) 403](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.75.403), [[arXiv:hep-ph/0205340 \[hep-ph\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0205340). J. D. Barrow, [Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A]{} [363]{} (2005) 2139, [[astro-ph/0511440]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511440). J. C. Berengut and V. V. Flambaum, [[J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.]{} [264]{} (2010) ](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/264/1/012010), [[arXiv:1009.3693 \[physics.atom-ph\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1009.3693). T. Damour, [[Space Sci. Rev.]{} [148]{} (2009) 191](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11214-009-9533-6), [[arXiv:0906.3174 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:0906.3174). E. Garc[í]{}a-Berro, J. Isern, and Y. A. Kubyshin, [[Astron. Astrophys. Rev.]{} [14]{} (2007) 113–170](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00159-006-0004-8), [[astro-ph/0409424]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409424). S. G. Karshenboim, [[Can. J. Phys.]{} [83]{} (2005) 767](http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/p05-047), [[physics/0506173]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506173). K. A. Olive, [80]{} (2009) 754. A. S. Goldhaber and M. M. Nieto, [[Rev. Mod. Phys.]{} [82]{} (2010) 939–979](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.939), [[arXiv:0809.1003 \[hep-ph\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.1003). J.-P. Uzan, [[Living Reviews in Relativity]{} [14]{} no. 2, (2011) ](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/lrr-2011-2). <http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2011-2>. H. Ruegg and M. Ruiz-Altaba, [[Int. J. Mod. Phys.]{} [A19]{} (2004) 3265–3348](http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X04019755), [[arXiv:hep-th/0304245 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0304245). V. Cardoso, I. P. Carucci, P. Pani, and T. P. Sotiriou, [[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [111]{} (2013) 111101](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.111101), [[arXiv:1308.6587 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.6587). V. Cardoso, I. P. Carucci, P. Pani, and T. P. Sotiriou, [[ Phys. Rev.]{} [D88]{} (2013) 044056](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.044056), [[arXiv:1305.6936 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.6936). J. E. Chase [Commun.Math.Phys.]{} [19]{} (1970) 276–288. J. D. Bekenstein, [[Phys. Rev.]{} [ D5]{} (1972) 1239–1246](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.5.1239). S. W. Hawking, [[Commun. Math. Phys.]{} [25]{} (1972) 167–171](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01877518). T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, [[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [108]{} (2012) 081103](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.081103), [[arXiv:1109.6324 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6324). J. D. Bekenstein, “[Black hole hair: 25 - years after]{},” in [[Physics. Proceedings, 2nd International A.D. Sakharov Conference, Moscow, Russia, May 20-24, 1996]{}]{}. 1996. [[ arXiv:gr-qc/9605059 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9605059). T. P. Sotiriou, [[Class. Quant. Grav.]{} [32]{} no. 21, (2015) 214002](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/32/21/214002), [[arXiv:1505.00248 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.00248). C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, [[ Int. J. Mod. Phys.]{} [D24*]{} no. 09, (2015) 1542014](http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218271815420146), [[arXiv:1504.08209 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.08209). [^1]: The possibility that these masses and couplings are not constant, but rather vary throughout space-time has been extensively explored in a different context. For reviews, see Refs. [@Uzan:2002vq; @19611; @19629; @19686; @18935; @19813; @19917; @Goldhaber:2008xy; @lrr-2011-2].	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'In the literature, there are numerous studies of one-dimensional discrete-time quantum walks (DTQWs) using a moving shift operator. However, there is no exact solution for the limiting probability distributions of DTQWs on cycles using a general coin or swapping shift operator. In this paper, we derive exact solutions for the limiting probability distribution of quantum walks using a general coin and swapping shift operator on cycles for the first time. Based on the exact solutions, we show how to generate symmetric quantum walks and determine the condition under which a symmetric quantum walks appears. Our results suggest that choosing various coin and initial state parameters can achieve a symmetric quantum walk. By defining a quantity to measure the variation of symmetry, deviation and mixing time of symmetric quantum walks are also investigated.' author: - 'Xin-Ping Xu$^{1}$' - 'Yusuke Ide$^{2}$' title: Exact solutions and symmetry analysis for the limiting probability distribution of quantum walks --- Introduction ============ Quantum walks (QWs) are analogues of classical random walks, designed primarily with the aim of finding quantum algorithms that are faster than classical algorithms for the same problem [@add1; @add2; @rn6; @rn7]. The continuous interest in quantum walk (QW) can be attributed to its broad applications to many distinct fields, such as polymer physics, solid state physics, biological physics, and quantum computation [@rn6; @rn7; @rn1; @rn2; @rn3; @rn4; @rn5]. In the literature [@rn1; @rn2; @rn3], there are two types of quantum walks: continuous-time and discrete-time quantum walks. The main difference of the two types of quantum walks is that discrete-time quantum walks (DTQWs) require an extra coin Hilbert space in which the coin operator acts, while continuous-time quantum walks (CTQWs) do not need this extra Hilbert space. Aside from this, these two QWs are similar to their classical counterparts. Discrete-time quantum walks evolve by the application of a unitary evolution operator at discrete time intervals, and continuous-time quantum walks evolve under a (usually time-independent) Hamiltonian in Schrödinger picture. Due to the different dimensional Hilbert space, CTQWs cannot be regarded as the limit of DTQWs as the time step goes to zero and there is no simple relation connecting the two QW models [@rn8; @childs; @rn9]. However, in Ref. [@childs], the author proposes a precise correspondence between CTQWs and DTQWs on arbitrary graphs, showing that CTQWs can be obtained as an appropriate limit of DTQWs. The correspondence also leads to a new technique for simulating Hamiltonian dynamics, giving efficient simulations even in cases where the Hamiltonian is not sparse [@childs]. In this paper, we focus on the DTQWs. There are numerous studies on DTQWs on the line or cycle. However, all the studies for 1D DTQWs employ a moving shift operator $\hat{S}^m$, [i.e.]{}, $\hat{S}^m\|j,L\rangle=\|j-1,L\rangle$, $\hat{S}^m\|j,R\rangle=\|j+1,R\rangle$, the moving shift operator acting on a state only moves the position of the particle and does not change the direction of the coin. In the meanwhile, DTQWs using the swapping shift operator, which changes both the position and direction of the coin’s quantum state, [i.e.]{}, $\hat{S}^s\|j,L\rangle=\|j-1,R\rangle$, $\hat{S}^s\|j,R\rangle=\|j+1,L\rangle$, have not received much attention in the literature. In Ref. [@cycles], the authors obtained the limiting probability distributions of DTQWs using a Hadamard coin and moving shift operator on the cycle. There is no exact solutions for the limiting probability distribution of DTQWs on cycles using a general coin or swapping shift operator. In this paper, we will study DTQWs on cycles using a general coin and swapping shift operator, and obtain exact solutions for the limiting probability distributions for the first time. In addition, based on the exact solutions, we analyze the symmetry behavior of the probability distributions. The symmetry analysis may be important for the controlling of QWs in experimental implementation. Before our findings, a well known feature is that the unbiased initial coin state $(\|L\rangle\pm i \|R\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ leads to a symmetric probability distribution for the 1D quantum walks. This universal symmetry does not dependent on the coin parameters and holds for a wide range of quantum walks. The essential nature of such symmetry can be revealed by combining probabilities from two mirror image orthogonal components of the amplitudes. However, in addition to this universal symmetry, there are other initial coin states could result in a symmetric quantum walk. Here, we will determine a universal condition under which a symmetric quantum walk appears. Our results suggest that, in addition to the unbiased initial coin state $(\|L\rangle\pm i \|R\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, other initial coin states can also realize a symmetric quantum walk. The Model ========= In this section, we will define the model of discrete-time quantum walks on the cycles, and determine the eigenvalues and eigenstates of the evolution operator. Discrete-time quantum walks on the cycles (DTQWs): Initial state, Coins and Shift operator ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To address the problem, let’s consider a 1D DTQW on the cycles. For a one-dimensional cycle composed of $N$ nodes, which are labeled as $\{x:x=1,2,...,N\}$, each node $1\leqslant x \leqslant N$ is connected its two nearest neighbors. The cycle is the simplest one-dimensional graph with periodic boundary condition. The Hilbert space ${\cal H}$ for DTQWs on cycles has $2N$ base vectors, which are denoted as $\|1,L\rangle, \|2,L\rangle, \cdots, \|N,L\rangle, \|1,R\rangle, \|2,R\rangle, \cdots, \|N,R\rangle$. Suppose the particle was initially ($t = 0$) localized at node $x_0$ and the initial coin states distributed in the coin subspace and superposed state $\|C_0\rangle= p_0\|L\rangle+e^{i\phi}q_0\|R\rangle$ ($0<p_0,q_0<1$, $p_0^2+q_0^2=1, \phi\in [-\pi, \pi]$), [i.e.]{}, the initial state in the whole Hilbert space is, $$\label{eq01} \|\psi(0)\rangle= \|x_0\rangle \otimes \|C_0\rangle = \|x_0\rangle \otimes (p_0\|L\rangle+e^{i\phi}q_0\|R\rangle ) , 0<p_0,q_0<1, p_0^2+q_0^2=1, \phi\in [-\pi, \pi]$$ where $\phi$ is the relative phase between the $\|L\rangle$ and $\|R\rangle$ amplitude. For the coin operator, without loss of generality, we use the simple coin operator with one free parameter, $$\label{eq02} \hat{C}=\begin{pmatrix} a &\ \ \ b \\ b &\ \ -a \end{pmatrix}, \ 0<a,b<1, \ a^2+b^2=1.$$ The initial state and coin operator in Eqs. (\[eq01\]) and (\[eq02\]) are widely used in the theoretical models and experimental implementations of quantum walks [@rn1; @rn2; @rn3]. For the controlling of evolution, we use the swapping shift operator $\hat{S}$, which changes both the position and direction of the particle’s quantum state, [i.e.]{}, $$\label{eq03} \begin{aligned} \hat{S}\|x,L\rangle=& \|x-1,R\rangle \\ \hat{S}\|x,R\rangle=&\|x+1,L\rangle \end{aligned}$$ The evolution of QW is governed by the evolution operator $\hat{U}=\hat{S}(\hat{C}\otimes \hat{I}_p) $ ($\hat{I}_p$ is the identity operator). The quantum state after $t$ steps is given by, $$\label{eq1} \|\psi(t)\rangle= \hat{U}^t \|\psi(0)\rangle$$ The probability of finding the particle at node $x$ after $t$ steps is, $$\label{eq2} \begin{aligned} P(x,t)&=\|\langle x,L\|\psi(t)\rangle\|^2+\|\langle x,R\|\psi(t)\rangle\|^2 \\ &= \|\langle x,L\|\hat{U}^t\|\psi(0)\rangle\|^2+ \|\langle x,R\|\hat{U}^t\|\psi(0)\rangle\|^2. \end{aligned}$$ Suppose the eigenvalue equation of $\hat{U}$ is $\hat{U}\|\Psi_{j,J}\rangle=u_{j,J}\|\Psi_{j,J}\rangle$ ($j\in[1,N], J\in \{+,-\}$), where $u_{j,J}$ and $\|\Psi_{j,J}\rangle$ are the eigenvalues and orthonormalized eigenstates of the evolution operator $\hat{U}$. In the eigenstate space, the evolution operator is diagonalized as $\hat{U}^t= \sum_{j,J}u_{j,J}^t\|\Psi_{j,J}\rangle\langle\Psi_{j,J}\|$. Thus Eq. (\[eq2\]) can be written as, $$\label{eq3} \begin{aligned} P(x,t)&=\|\sum_{j,J} u_{j,J}^t \langle x,L\|\Psi_{j,J}\rangle \langle \Psi_{j,J}\|\psi(0)\rangle\|^2 \\ &+ \|\sum_{j,J} u_{j,J}^t \langle x,R\|\Psi_{j,J}\rangle \langle \Psi_{j,J}\|\psi(0)\rangle\|^2 \\ &=\sum_{j,J}\sum_{j',J'}u_{j,J}^tu_{j',J'}^{t} \langle \Psi_{j,J}\|\psi(0)\rangle \langle\psi(0)\|\Psi_{j',J'}\rangle \\ &(\langle x,L\|\Psi_{j,J}\rangle \langle \Psi_{j',J'}\|x,L\rangle + \langle x,R\|\Psi_{j,J}\rangle \langle \Psi_{j',J'}\|x,R\rangle) \end{aligned}$$ Noting that $\hat{U}$ is a unitary operator, [i.e.]{}, $\hat{U}\hat{U}^{\dag}=\hat{I}$, which leads to $\|u\|=1$ and $\lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^T (u_{j,J}u_{j',J'}^)^t =\delta(u_{j,J}-u_{j',J'})$, the long time averages of $P(x,t)$ can be written as, $$\label{eq4} \begin{aligned} \pi(x)&=\lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^TP(x,t) \\ &=\sum_{j,J}\sum_{j',J'}\delta(u_{j,J}-u_{j',J'}) \langle \Psi_{j,J}\|\psi(0)\rangle \langle\psi(0)\|\Psi_{j',J'}\rangle \\ &\ \ ( \langle x,L\|\Psi_{j,J}\rangle \langle\Psi_{j',J'}\|x,L\rangle+ \langle x,R\|\Psi_{j,J}\rangle \langle\Psi_{j',J'}\|x,R\rangle ) \end{aligned}$$ where $\delta(u_{j,J}-u_{j',J'})$ takes value 1 if $u_{j,J}=u_{j',J'}$ and equals to 0 otherwise. In the above equation, we can see that the limit distribution $\pi(x)$ depends on the eigenvalues and eigenstates of the evolution operator $\hat{U}$. The limiting probability $\pi(x)$ in Eq. (\[eq4\]) is also called stationary probability, which reflecting the equilibrium of the system evolution. In order to calculate the analytical expressions for $P(x,t)$ and $\pi(x)$, all the eigenvalues $u_{j,J}$ and eigenstates $\|\Psi_{j,J}\rangle$ of the evolution operator $\hat{U}$ are required. Eigenvalues and eigenstates of the evolution operator $\hat{U}$ --------------------------------------------------------------- In the Appendix, we use the technique of Chebyshev polynomials to calculate the $2N$ eigenvalues of evolution operator $\hat{U}$ as follows (See Eq. (\[a15\]) in the Appendix), $$\label{eq5} \begin{aligned} u_{j,\pm}&=b\cos\theta_j \pm i\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j}, \theta_j=\frac{2j\pi}{N}, j\in [1,N]. \end{aligned}$$ We also determine the $2N$ orthonormalized and normalized eigenstates of $\hat{U}$, which can be expanded in the Bloch states as (See Eqs. (\[a17\])-(\[a19\]) in the Appendix), $$\label{eq6} \small \begin{aligned} \|\Psi&_{j,\pm}\rangle=\sum_{k=1}^N \frac{ae^{ik\theta_j}}{\sqrt{N[a^2+(\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j} \pm b\sin\theta_j)^2}]} \\ & \Big [\|k,L\rangle \mp \frac{i}{a} e^{i\theta_j}\big(\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j} \pm b\sin\theta_j \big) \|k,R\rangle \Big] \end{aligned}$$ For the convenient of calculation, we write Eq. (\[eq6\]) into the following simple form, $$\label{eq60} \begin{aligned} \|\Psi_{j,\pm}\rangle = & \sum_{k=1}^N Z_{j,\pm}e^{ik\theta_j} \Big (\|k,L\rangle + M_{j,\pm}e^{i\theta_j\mp \frac{i\pi}{2}} \|k,R\rangle \Big), \\ \text{where}\ Z_{j,\pm}=& \frac{a}{\sqrt{N[a^2+(\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j} \pm b\sin\theta_j)^2}]} \\ \text{and}\ M_{j,\pm}=& \frac{1}{a} \big(\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j} \pm b\sin\theta_j \big). \end{aligned}$$ After some algebra calculation, we find several useful identities between $Z_{j,\pm}$ and $M_{j,\pm}$, $$\begin{aligned} Z_{j,\pm}^2=\frac{\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j} \mp b\sin\theta_j}{2N\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j}}, \label{eq61} \\ Z_{j,\pm}^2M_{j,\pm}^2=\frac{\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j} \pm b\sin\theta_j}{2N\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j}} , \label{eq62}\\ Z_{j,+}Z_{j,-}=Z_{j,\pm}^2M_{j,\pm} = \frac{a}{2N\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j}} , \label{eq63} \\ Z_{j,\pm}^2(1+M_{j,\pm}^2)=\frac{1}{N}, \label{eq64} \\ M_{j,+}M_{j,-}=1, \label{eq65} \\ Z_{j,+}M_{j,+}=Z_{j,-};\ \ Z_{j,-}M_{j,-}=Z_{j,+} \label{eq66}\end{aligned}$$ Results ======= In this section, we will use the eigenstates and identities in Eqs. (\[eq60\])-(\[eq66\]) to analyze the limiting probability distributions. Limiting probability distributions ---------------------------------- According to Eq. (\[eq4\]), the long-time averaged distribution depends on the eigenstates $\|\Psi_{j,\pm}\rangle$ and degeneracy of eigenvalues. Eq. (\[eq5\]) suggests that most of the eigenvalues are double-fold degenerate. Concretely, if the cycle size N is an even number, there are two nondegenerate eigenvalues ($j=N/2, N$), the other eigenvalues have degeneracy 2 ($j'=N-j$, $u_{j,\pm}=u_{N-j,\pm}$). If the cycle size N is an odd number, there is one nondegenerate eigenvalue ($j=N$), and the other eigenvalues have degeneracy 2 ($j'=N-j$, $u_{j,\pm}=u_{N-j,\pm}$). The limiting probability distribution in Eq. (\[eq4\]) can be divided into two parts: contribution from nondegenerate eigenvalues ($j=j', \ J=J'$) and contribution from degenerate eigenvalues ($j'=N-j,\ J=J'$). In Eq. (\[eq4\]), the summation over $J$ involves the contributions from eigenstates with different $J=\{+,-\}$ sign. For the sake of simplicity, the summation over $J$ is always indicated/included by the subscript $\pm$ and the notation of $\sum_J$ is omitted in the following. Consequently, according to Eq. (\[eq4\]), the contributions from nondegenerate eigenvalues ($j=j', \ J=J'$) can be easily written as, $$\label{eq7} \small S_1= \sum_{j,\pm} \|\langle \psi(0) \|\Psi_{j,\pm}\rangle\|^2 \big ( \|\langle x,L\|\Psi_{j,\pm}\rangle\|^2+\|\langle x,R\|\Psi_{j,\pm}\rangle\|^2 \big)$$ Likewise, the contributions from degenerate eigenvalues ($j'=N-j$) can be recasted as, $$\label{eq8} \small \begin{aligned} &S_2= \sum_{j=1,\pm}^{N-1} \langle \Psi_{j,\pm}\|\psi(0)\rangle \langle\psi(0)\|\Psi_{N-j,\pm}\rangle \\ & \big(\langle x,L\|\Psi_{j,\pm}\rangle \langle \Psi_{N-j,\pm}\|x,L\rangle + \langle x,R\|\Psi_{j,\pm}\rangle \langle \Psi_{N-j,\pm}\|x,R\rangle \big) \end{aligned}$$ If the cycle size N is an even number, the contributions of $j=\frac{N}{2}$ in Eqs. (\[eq7\]) and (\[eq8\]) are the same. When adding $S_1$ and $S_2$, the contributions of $j=\frac{N}{2}$ are calculated twice. In this case, we need to deduct the contribution of $j=\frac{N}{2}$, which is given by, $$\label{eq9} \small S_3= \sum_{\pm} \|\langle\psi(0)\|\Psi_{\frac{N}{2},\pm}\rangle\|^2 \Big( \|\langle x,L\|\Psi_{\frac{N}{2},\pm}\rangle\|^2+ \|\langle x,R\|\Psi_{\frac{N}{2},\pm}\rangle\|^2 \Big)$$ Thus the limiting probability in Eq. (\[eq4\]) can be written as, $$\label{eq10} \pi(x)= S_1 + S_2 -\delta_{mod(N,2),0} S_3,$$ where $\delta_{mod(N,2),0}$ equals to 1 for even-numbered N and 0 otherwise. Now we use the initial state in Eq. (\[eq01\]) and eigenstates in Eq. (\[eq60\]) to calculate $S_1$, $S_2$ and $S_3$. Substituting $\|\psi(0)\rangle$ and $\|\Psi_{j,\pm}\rangle$ in Eq. (\[eq60\]) into the Eq. (\[eq7\]), we find that $\|\langle x,L\|\Psi_{j,\pm}\rangle\|^2+\|\langle x,R\|\Psi_{j,\pm}\rangle\|^2= Z_{j,\pm}^2(1+M_{j,\pm}^2)=\frac{1}{N}$ (Identity (\[eq64\]) has been applied). $\|\langle \psi(0) \|\Psi_{j,\pm}\rangle\|^2$ is simplified as, $$\label{eq11} \begin{aligned} \|\langle \psi(0) \|\Psi_{j,\pm}\rangle\|^2 =& \|p_0Z_{j,\pm} + q_0M_{j,\pm}Z_{j,\pm}e^{i\theta_j-i\phi \mp\frac{i\pi}{2}}\|^2 \\ =& p_0^2Z_{j,\pm}^2 + q_0^2Z_{j,\pm}^2M_{j,\pm}^2 + 2p_0q_0 Z_{j,\pm}^2M_{j,\pm}\cos(\theta_j-\phi \mp\frac{\pi}{2}) \\ =&p_0^2\cdot\frac{\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j} \mp b\sin\theta_j}{2N\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j}}+ q_0^2\cdot \frac{\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j} \pm b\sin\theta_j}{2N\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j}} \\ & \pm 2p_0q_0 Z_{j,\pm}^2M_{j,\pm}\sin(\theta_j-\phi) \\ =&\frac{1}{2N}\pm \frac{b(q_0^2-p_0^2)\sin\theta_j}{2N\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j}} \pm \frac{ap_0q_0\sin(\theta_j-\phi)}{N\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j}} \end{aligned}$$ where identities (\[eq61\]), (\[eq62\]) and (\[eq63\]) have been used in the above calculation. Since the second and third terms in the above equation are odd function of $\theta_j$, the summation over $j$ for the last two terms equals to zero respectively. Only the first term in Eq. (\[eq11\]) gives essential contribution to Eq. (\[eq7\]), which leads to $S_1=1/N$. Setting $j=N/2$, $\theta_j=\pi$, the second and third terms in Eq. (\[eq11\]) equal to zero, which leads to $S_3=1/N^2$ in Eq. (\[eq9\]). Next we calculate $S_2$ in Eq. (\[eq8\]). The two product terms in Eq. (\[eq8\]) are related to the final position $x$ and starting position $x_0$. Noting that $\langle x,L\|\Psi_{j,\pm}\rangle= Z_{j,\pm}e^{ix\theta_j}$, $\langle x,R\|\Psi_{j,\pm}\rangle= Z_{j,\pm}M_{j,\pm}e^{ix\theta_j}e^{i\theta_j\mp\frac{i\pi}{2}}$, $\langle \Psi_{N-j,\pm}\|x,L\rangle = Z_{j,\mp}e^{ix\theta_j}$ and $\langle \Psi_{N-j,\pm}\|x,R\rangle= Z_{j,\mp}M_{j,\mp}e^{ix\theta_j}e^{i\theta_j\pm\frac{i\pi}{2}}$, we obtain $$\label{eq12} \begin{aligned} &\langle x,L\|\Psi_{j,\pm}\rangle \langle \Psi_{N-j,\pm}\|x,L\rangle + \langle x,R\|\Psi_{j,\pm}\rangle \langle \Psi_{N-j,\pm}\|x,R\rangle \\ &=Z_{j,\pm}Z_{j,\mp}e^{2ix\theta_j} + Z_{j,\pm}Z_{j,\mp}M_{j,\pm}M_{j,\mp}e^{2ix\theta_j+2i\theta_j} \\ &=Z_{j,\pm}Z_{j,\mp}e^{2ix\theta_j} (1+ M_{j,\pm}M_{j,\mp}e^{2i\theta_j} ) \\ &=\frac{ae^{2ix\theta_j}(1+e^{2i\theta_j})}{2N\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j}}. \ \ \ \text{Identities (\ref{eq63}) and (\ref{eq65})} \ \text{are used}. \end{aligned}$$ Substituting Eq. (\[eq01\]) into Eq. (\[eq8\]), we arrive at $\langle \Psi_{j,\pm}\|\psi(0)\rangle=e^{-ix_0\theta_j}(p_0Z_{j,\pm} + q_0Z_{j,\pm}M_{j,\pm}e^{-i\theta_j+i\phi\pm\frac{i\pi}{2}})$ and $\langle\psi(0)\|\Psi_{N-j,\pm}\rangle= e^{-ix_0\theta_j}(p_0Z_{j,\mp} + q_0Z_{j,\mp}M_{j,\mp}e^{-i\theta_j-i\phi\mp\frac{i\pi}{2}})$. The term $\langle \Psi_{j,\pm}\|\psi(0)\rangle \langle\psi(0)\|\Psi_{N-j,\pm}\rangle$ becomes $$\label{eq13} \begin{aligned} &\langle \Psi_{j,\pm}\|\psi(0)\rangle \langle\psi(0)\|\Psi_{N-j,\pm}\rangle =e^{-2ix_0\theta_j}(p_0Z_{j,\pm} + q_0Z_{j,\pm}M_{j,\pm}e^{-i\theta_j+i\phi\pm\frac{i\pi}{2}}) \\ &\times (p_0Z_{j,\mp} + q_0Z_{j,\mp}M_{j,\mp}e^{-i\theta_j-i\phi\mp\frac{i\pi}{2}}) \\ &= e^{-2ix_0\theta_j}\Big( p_0^2Z_{j,\pm}Z_{j,\mp} + q_0^2 Z_{j,\pm}Z_{j,\mp}M_{j,\pm}M_{j,\mp}e^{-2i\theta_j} \\ & + p_0q_0Z_{j,\pm}Z_{j,\mp}M_{j,\pm}e^{-i\theta_j+i\phi\pm\frac{i\pi}{2}} + p_0q_0Z_{j,\pm}Z_{j,\mp}M_{j,\mp}e^{-i\theta_j-i\phi\mp\frac{i\pi}{2}} \Big) \\ &=e^{-2ix_0\theta_j}Z_{j,\pm}Z_{j,\mp}\Big[ p_0^2 + q_0^2 M_{j,\pm}M_{j,\mp}e^{-2i\theta_j} + p_0q_0e^{-i\theta_j}(M_{j,\pm}e^{i\phi\pm\frac{i\pi}{2}} + M_{j,\mp}e^{-i\phi\mp\frac{i\pi}{2}}) \Big] \\ &=\frac{ae^{-2ix_0\theta_j}}{2N\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j}} \cdot \Big[ p_0^2+q_0^2e^{-2i\theta_j} + p_0q_0e^{-i\theta_j}\big( \frac{\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j} \pm b\sin\theta_j}{a}e^{i\phi\pm\frac{i\pi}{2}} \\ & + \frac{\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j} \mp b\sin\theta_j}{a}e^{-i\phi\mp\frac{i\pi}{2}} \big) \Big].\ \ \text{Identities (\ref{eq63}) and (\ref{eq65})} \ \text{are used}. \end{aligned}$$ In Eq. (\[eq13\]), the first two terms ($p_0^2$ and $q_0^2e^{-2i\theta_j}$) in the bracket do not depend on the parity sign $\pm$, the summation over $\pm$ will be double. In contrast, the last two terms in the small bracket $()$ depend on the parity sign $\pm$, and the summation over $\pm$ leads to $\sum_{\pm}(M_{j,\pm}e^{i\phi\pm\frac{i\pi}{2}} + M_{j,\mp}e^{-i\phi\mp\frac{i\pi}{2}})=\frac{2ib\sin\theta_j}{a}(e^{i\phi}+e^{-i\phi})=\frac{2b\cos\phi}{a}(e^{i\theta_j}-e^{-i\theta_j})$. Finally, Eq. (\[eq13\]) is simplified as, $$\label{eq14} \begin{aligned} &\sum_{\pm}\langle \Psi_{j,\pm}\|\psi(0)\rangle \langle\psi(0)\|\Psi_{N-j,\pm}\rangle =\frac{ae^{-2ix_0\theta_j}}{N\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j}} \cdot \Big[ (p_0^2+\frac{bp_0q_0\cos\phi}{a}) + (q_0^2 - \frac{bp_0q_0\cos\phi}{a})e^{-2i\theta_j} \Big]. \end{aligned}$$ Combining Eqs. (\[eq12\]) and (\[eq14\]), we obtain a simple form for $S_2$ $$\label{eq15} \begin{aligned} &S_2=\frac{a^2}{2N^2} \sum_{j=1}^{N-1} \frac{e^{2i(x-x_0)\theta_j}}{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j} \cdot \Big[ 1+ (p_0^2 + \frac{bp_0q_0\cos\phi}{a})e^{2i\theta_j} + (q_0^2 - \frac{bp_0q_0\cos\phi}{a})e^{-2i\theta_j} \Big], \end{aligned}$$ which is a function of the distance $d\equiv x-x_0$ between $x$ and $x_0$. Noting that $S_1=1/N$ and $S_3=1/N^2$, the limiting probability distribution $\pi(x)\equiv\pi(d)$ is closely related to $S_2$. Here we obtain exact solutions for the limiting probability distribution $\pi(x)$ in Eq. (\[eq10\]), $$\label{eq150} \begin{aligned} \pi(d)=&\pi(x-x_0)= \frac{1}{N}-\delta_{mod(N,2),0}\frac{1}{N^2} + \\ &\frac{a^2}{2N^2} \sum_{j=1}^{N-1} \frac{e^{2i(x-x_0)\theta_j}}{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j} \cdot \Big[ 1+ (p_0^2 + \frac{bp_0q_0\cos\phi}{a})e^{2i\theta_j} + (q_0^2 - \frac{bp_0q_0\cos\phi}{a})e^{-2i\theta_j} \Big]. \end{aligned}$$ which is crucial to analyze the symmetry of quantum walks. Here for the first time, we obtain the exact solutions for the limiting probability distribution for QWs using a general coin and swapping shift operator. Symmetry analysis and mixing time --------------------------------- In the following, we use the exact solution of the limiting probability distribution $\pi(d)$ to determine a general condition under which the quantum walk is symmetric. The symmetry of the limiting probability distribution requires $\pi(d)=\pi(-d)$. The summation in Eq. (\[eq15\]) is a real values, the imaginary part vanished when summing over $j$. Thus $S_2$ can be rewritten as the summation of the real part of the terms, $$\label{eq151} \begin{aligned} S_2(d)=&\frac{a^2}{2N^2} \sum_{j=1}^{N-1} \frac{1}{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j} \cdot \Big[ \cos2d\theta_j + (p_0^2 + \frac{bp_0q_0\cos\phi}{a})\cos2(d+1)\theta_j \\ &+ (q_0^2 - \frac{bp_0q_0\cos\phi}{a})\cos2(d-1)\theta_j \Big], \end{aligned}$$ In the above Equation, change $d$ to $-d$ arriving at, $$\label{eq152} \begin{aligned} S_2(-d)=&\frac{a^2}{2N^2} \sum_{j=1}^{N-1} \frac{1}{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j} \cdot \Big[ \cos2d\theta_j + (p_0^2 + \frac{bp_0q_0\cos\phi}{a})\cos2(d-1)\theta_j \\ &+ (q_0^2 - \frac{bp_0q_0\cos\phi}{a})\cos2(d+1)\theta_j \Big], \end{aligned}$$ If $S_2(d)=S_2(-d)$, coefficients in the parentheses are equal, which lead to, $$\label{eq16} 2\frac{b}{a}p_0q_0\cos\phi =q_0^2-p_0^2.$$ The above equation is the condition under which the quantum walk is symmetric, one of the main conclusions of this paper. It is evident that the unbiased initial coin state $p_0=q_0=\sqrt{2}/2,\ \phi=\pm\pi/2$ satisfy the above condition. In addition to this unbiased initial coin state, there are other solutions for Eq. (\[eq16\]). In the literature, it is well known that the unbiased initial coin state $(\|L\rangle\pm i \|R\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ leads to a symmetric probability distribution for the 1D quantum walks. Here we show that, in addition to this universal symmetry, there are other initial coin states could result in a symmetric distribution. In order to compare the symmetric behavior, we choose two additional solutions for further study. For the Hadamard walk $a=b=\sqrt{2}/2$, we choose initial coin states: ($CS_a$) $p_0=\sqrt{\frac{2-\sqrt{2}}{4}}=\sin\frac{\pi}{8}, q_0=\sqrt{\frac{2+\sqrt{2}}{4}}=\cos\frac{\pi}{8}, \phi=0$ and ($CS_b$) $p_0=\sqrt{\frac{5-\sqrt{5}}{10}}, q_0=\sqrt{\frac{5+\sqrt{5}}{10}}, \phi=\pm\frac{\pi}{3}$, as well as the unbiased initial coin state ($CS_c$) $p_0=q_0=\sqrt{2}/2,\ \phi=\pm\pi/2$ for comparison. Fig. \[fig1\] (d) shows the limiting probability distributions of the Hadamard walks with the three different initial coin states, which are exactly the same and satisfy $\pi(d)=\pi(-d)$ (See the black squares in Fig. \[fig1\] (d)). \[0.5\][![Probability distribution $P(d,t)$ for Hadamard quantum walks ($a=b=\sqrt{2}/2$) on cycles of size $N=200$ after $t=100$ (black curves) and $t=150$ (dashed red curves) steps for three different initial coin states: ($CS_a$) initial coin state $\|C_0\rangle=\sqrt{\frac{2-\sqrt{2}}{4}}\|L\rangle +\sqrt{\frac{2+\sqrt{2}}{4}}\|R\rangle$, ($CS_b$) initial coin state $\|C_0\rangle=\sqrt{\frac{5-\sqrt{5}}{10}}\|L\rangle +\sqrt{\frac{5+\sqrt{5}}{10}}e^{\pm\frac{i\pi}{3}}\|R\rangle$ and ($CS_c$) unbiased initial coin state $\|C_0\rangle=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}(\|L\rangle \pm i\|R\rangle) $. (d) is the limiting probability distributions $\pi(d)$ for the three different initial coin states ($CS_a$), ($CS_b$) and ($CS_c$), which are exactly the same(see black squares), as well as the biased initial coin states $\|C_0\rangle=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}(\|L\rangle -\|R\rangle$ (see the red dots) and $\|C_0\rangle=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}(\|L\rangle +\|R\rangle$ (see the blue triangles). (e) is the symmetric and asymmetric probability distributions $P(d,t)$ after $t=100$ steps for Hadamard quantum walks using the initial coin states $\|C_0\rangle=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}(\|L\rangle \pm i\|R\rangle) $ (black solid curve, symmetric distribution), $\|C_0\rangle=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}(\|L\rangle-\|R\rangle) $ (red dashed curve, asymmetric distribution) and $\|C_0\rangle=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}(\|L\rangle -\|R\rangle) $ (blue dotted curve, asymmetric distribution). (f) is the similar probability distributions for $P(d,t)$ after $t=150$ steps. The initial coin states $CS_a$, $CS_b$ and $CS_c$ satisfied Eq. (\[eq16\]), thus the probability distributions shown in (a)-(c) are nearly the same. \[fig1\]](Graph1.eps "fig:")]{} It is worth mentioning that if the initial state and coin parameters satisfy Eq. (\[eq16\]), the limiting probability distribution is symmetric. Now a natural question is that whether the evolution probability $P(d=x-x_0,t)$ is also symmetric during all the time. To address this question, we show the evolution probability $P(d,t)$ for Hadamard quantum walks with the three different initial states in Fig. \[fig1\](a)-(c),(e)-(f). We can see that the evolution probability distributions are nearly the same, and the three different initial states give almost identical probability distributions. The symmetry for the unbiased initial coin state exactly satisfy $P(d,t)=P(-d,t)$ while the other initial states do not have such strict symmetry. This feature is consistent with the results in Ref. [@rn11] where the initial state $\|C_0\rangle=\sin\frac{\pi}{8}\|L\rangle + \cos\frac{\pi}{8}\|R\rangle$ nearly leads to a symmetric probability distribution. It is obvious that there are two distinct ways of arriving at a symmetric quantum walk, one is obtained by combining probabilities from two mirror image orthogonal components ($p_0=q_0=\sqrt{2}/2, \phi=\pm\pi/2$), the others are obtained by interference. \[0.25\][![ (Color online) (a) Dependence of the symmetry variation $V(t)$ on the evolution time $t$ for Hadamard walks with initial coin states ($CS_a$) $\|C_0\rangle=\sqrt{\frac{2-\sqrt{2}}{4}}\|L\rangle +\sqrt{\frac{2+\sqrt{2}}{4}}\|R\rangle$ (black solid curve) and ($CS_b$) $\|C_0\rangle=\sqrt{\frac{5-\sqrt{5}}{10}}\|L\rangle +\sqrt{\frac{5+\sqrt{5}}{10}}e^{\pm\frac{i\pi}{3}}\|R\rangle$ (red dashed curve). The blue dotted line indicates the power law decay $t^{-0.5}$. (b) Dependence of the mixing time $M_\epsilon$ on the threshold value $\epsilon$ for Hadamard walks with the initial coin states ($CS_a$, black squares) and ($CS_b$, red dots). \[fig2\]](Graph2.eps "fig:")]{} Except for the unbiased initial coin state $p_0=q_0=\sqrt{2}/2,\ \phi=\pm\pi/2$, the other initial coin states satisfying Eq. (\[eq16\]) only gives a proximate symmetric distribution of $P(d,t)$ while the symmetry of $\pi(d)$ is perfect. In order to make a quantitative analysis of the symmetry of the evolution probability, we use the variation $V(t)=\sum_d\|P(d,t)-P(-d,t)\|^2$ to measure the symmetry of the distribution. The smaller the $V(t)$ value, the more symmetric the quantum walk is. Fig. \[fig2\](a) shows the time dependence of $V(t)$ for Hadamard walks with the initial coin states ($CS_a$) and ($CS_b$). As we can see, the symmetry variation $V(t)$ oscillate frequently and decays as a power law of $t^{-0.5}$. This suggests that the evolution probability of quantum walk converges to a symmetry distribution rapidly as the evolution time increased. To quantify how fast the evolution probability converges to the symmetric distribution, we define a mixing time for the symmetry variation $M_{\epsilon}=min\{\tau \ \|\ \forall \ t>\tau,\ V(t)< \epsilon\}$. Fig. \[fig2\](b) shows the dependence of the mixing time $M_\epsilon$ on the threshold value $\epsilon$ for Hadamard walks with the initial coin states ($CS_a$) and ($CS_b$). As we can see, the mixing time also shows a power-law decay of $\epsilon$. This result is similar to mixing time behavior for quantum walks on Hypercube [@rn12; @rn13]. We also try to compare the symmetry variation $V(t)$ and mixing time $M_{\epsilon}$ for the other initial coin parameters and initial states. We find that quantum walk with the unbiased initial states has the smallest symmetry variation $V(t)$ and mixing time $M_{\epsilon}$. The Hadamard quantum walks have a smaller $V(t)$ than the other walks using biased coins ($a,b\neq\sqrt{2}/2$). This may suggest that quantum walks with unbiased coin parameters and initial states mix to the symmetric distribution fast. We hope this conclusion can be used in constructing efficient quantum algorithms. Conclusions =========== In summary, we obtain exact analytical solutions of the long-time averaged probabilities for the 1D quantum walks for the first time. According to the analytical solutions, we determine a general condition under which the quantum walks are symmetric. We show that, in addition to the symmetric initial coin state $(\|L\rangle \pm i \|R\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ could lead to a symmetric probability distribution, choosing other appropriate initial state parameters ($p_0$, $q_0$, $\phi$) could also achieve a symmetric quantum walk. We define a symmetry variation $V(t)$ to quantify the symmetry and find that the evolution probability distribution converges to the symmetric distribution quickly. We hope such symmetric condition for quantum walks could provide useful insights in construction of efficient quantum algorithms. [Acknowledgments:]{} This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under project 11205110, Innovation and entrepreneurship training program for College Students under project 2015xj070. Yusuke Ide is supported by Yokohama Academic Foundation. The matrix form of the evolution operator $\hat{U}$ =================================================== The swapping shift operator $\hat{S}$ swaps the particle’s state, moving the particle to the neighboring position and changing the direction. The swapping shift operator $\hat{S}$ acting on an arbitrary state$\|i,J\rangle$ is summarized as, $$\label{a1} \hat{S}\|i,J\rangle= \begin{cases} \|i+1,L\rangle, & \text{if } J=R \\ \|i-1,R\rangle, & \text{if } J=L \end{cases}$$ The periodic boundary condition of the cycle requires $\hat{S}\|1,L\rangle=\|N,R\rangle$, $\hat{S}\|N,R\rangle=\|1,L\rangle$. The elements of the swapping shift operator $\hat{S}$ in the Hilbert space is, $$\label{a2} \begin{aligned} \langle i,J\|\hat{S}\|i',J'\rangle= \begin{cases} \delta_{i,i'+1}, & \text{if } J=L, J'=R \\ \delta_{i+1,i'}, & \text{if } J=R, J'=L \\ 0, & \text{Otherwise.} \end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ Noting that the coin operator $\hat{C}=\begin{pmatrix} a &\ \ \ b \\ b &\ \ -a \end{pmatrix}$ and the relationship $\hat{U}=\hat{S}(\hat{I}_p\otimes \hat{C})$, we get the matrix form for the evolution operator $\hat{U}$ $$\label{a3} \hat{U}= \kbordermatrix{\mbox{}&1&\cdots&{\scriptscriptstyle N-1}&{\scriptscriptstyle N}&\vrule &1&\cdots&{\scriptscriptstyle N-1}&{\scriptscriptstyle N}\\ \cline{2-10} 1 &0 & &0 &b &\vrule &0 & &0 &-a \\ 2 &b &0 & & &\vrule &-a &0 & & \\ \vdots & &\ddots &0 & &\vrule & &\ddots &0 & \\ {\scriptscriptstyle N} & & &b &0 &\vrule & & &-a &0 \\ \hline 1 &0 &a & & &\vrule &0 &b & & \\ \vdots & &0 &\ddots & &\vrule & &0 &\ddots & \\ {\scriptscriptstyle N-1} & & &0 &a &\vrule & & &0 &b \\ {\scriptscriptstyle N} &a & & &0 &\vrule &b & & &0 }$$ Eigenvalues and eigenstates of the evolution operator $\hat{U}$ =============================================================== In this section, we determine the eigenvalues and eigenstates for the evolution operator $\hat{U}$ obtained in Eq. (\[a3\]). Eigenvalues ----------- To obtain the eigenvalues of $\hat{U}$, we start our analysis on the eigenequation of the evolution operator $\hat{U}$ (see Eq. (\[a3\])). Suppose the eigenequation of $\hat{U}$ is $\hat{U}\|\Psi\rangle=u\|\Psi\rangle$ ($\hat{U}\|\Psi_{j,J}\rangle=u_{j,J}\|\Psi_{j,J}\rangle$), the eigenstates $\|\Psi\rangle$ can be expanded as $$\small \label{a4} \|\Psi\rangle=\sum_{j,J}\alpha_{j,J}\|j,J\rangle=\sum_{j}\alpha_{j,L}\|j,L\rangle+\sum_{j}\alpha_{j,R} \|j,R\rangle$$ Noting that the matrix form of $\hat{U}$ in Eq. (\[a3\]), the eigen equation $\hat{U}\|\Psi\rangle=u\|\Psi\rangle$ can be decomposed into the following $2N$ linear equations, $$\begin{aligned} b\alpha_{N,L}-a\alpha_{N,R} &=u\alpha_{1,L}, \label{a5} \\ b\alpha_{j,L}-a\alpha_{j,R} &=u\alpha_{j+1,L}, \ \ \ 1\leqslant j\leqslant N-1 \label{a6} \\ a\alpha_{j,L}+b\alpha_{j,R} &=u\alpha_{j-1,R}, \ \ \ 2\leqslant j\leqslant N \label{a7} \\ a\alpha_{1,L}+b\alpha_{1,R} &=u\alpha_{N,R}, \label{a8}\end{aligned}$$ Utilizing Eq. (\[a6\]) to eliminate $\alpha_{j,R}$ and $\alpha_{j-1,R}$, Eq. (\[a7\]) becomes $\alpha_{j+1,L}+\alpha_{j-1,L}=\frac{u^2+1}{bu}\alpha_{j,L}$. This is similar to the recursive relation of the Chebyshev polynomials (see Appendix A in Ref. [@rn14]). Noting the recursive relations and the mapping relationship $\frac{u^2+1}{bu}\equiv 2x$ in the definition of the Chebyshev polynomials of the second kind, the variables $\alpha_{j,L}$ ($j\in [1,N]$) can be expressed as a function of $\alpha_{2,L}$ and $\alpha_{1,L}$, $$\label{a9} \alpha_{j,L}=U_{j-2}(x)\alpha_{2,L}-U_{j-3}(x)\alpha_{1,L}, \ \ j\in [1,N]$$ where $U_{n}(x)$ is the Chebyshev polynomials of the second kind (See Appendix A in Ref. [@rn14]). Substituting $\alpha_{1,R}$, $\alpha_{N,R}$ into Eq. (\[a8\]), we arrive at $2x\alpha_{1,L}=\alpha_{2,L}+\alpha_{N,L}$. Analogously, substituting $\alpha_{N,R}$, $\alpha_{N-1,R}$ into $a\alpha_{N,L} +b\alpha_{N,R}=u\alpha_{N-1,R}$ leads to $2x\alpha_{N,L}=\alpha_{N-1,L}+\alpha_{1,L}$. Utilizing Eq. (\[a9\]) to eliminate $\alpha_{N,L}$ and $\alpha_{N-1,L}$ , we obtain two independent equations for $\alpha_{2,L}$ and $\alpha_{1,L}$, $$\label{a10} [1+U_{N-2}(x)]\alpha_{2,L} = [2x+U_{N-3}(x)]\alpha_{1,L}$$ and $$\label{a11} \begin{aligned} ( 2xU_{N-2}(x)-U_{N-3}(x) ) \alpha_{2,L} & \equiv U_{N-1}(x)\alpha_{2,L} = [2xU_{N-3}(x)-U_{N-4}(x)+1]\alpha_{1,L} \\ &\equiv [U_{N-2}(x)+1]\alpha_{1,L}. \ \text{(A7) in Ref.~\cite{rn14} is used}. \end{aligned}$$ Eqs. (\[a10\]) and (\[a11\]) should have nonzero solutions, the determinant of the four coefficients equals to 0, which leads to, $$\label{a12} [U_{N-2}(x)+1]^2-[2x+U_{N-3}(x)]U_{N-1}(x)=0.$$ According to the Chebyshev identities (A8) and (A10) in Ref. [@rn14], we have $xU_{N-1}(x)-U_{N-2}(x)=T_{N}(x)$ and $U^2_{N-2}(x)-U_{N-1}(x)U_{N-3}(x)=U_0(x)=1$. Thus Eq. (\[a12\]) can be simplified as, $$\label{a13} T_N(x)=1.$$ Here, $T_n(x)$ is the Chebyshev polynomial of the first kind (see Appendix A in Ref. [@rn14]). The $N$ solutions of the above equation can be represented as the following simple trigonometric function, $$\label{a14} x_j=\cos\theta_j, \theta_j = \frac{2j\pi}{N}.\ \forall \ N, \ j=1,2,...,N.$$ Using the mapping relation $u=bx\pm i\sqrt{1-b^2x^2}$, the $2N$ eigenvalues of $\hat{U}$ are given by, $$\label{a15} \small u_{j,\pm}=bx_j\pm i\sqrt{1-b^2x_j^2}, x_j=\cos\theta_j, \theta_j= \frac{2j\pi}{N}, j\in [1,N].$$ Eigenstates ----------- Now we analyze the eigenstates $\|\Psi\rangle$. According to Eqs. (\[a6\]) and (\[a9\]), the right components $\alpha_{j,R}^s$ can be written as a function of $\alpha_{2,L}$ and $\alpha_{1,L}$, $$\label{a16} \begin{aligned} \alpha_{j,R} = &\frac{1}{a}\{ [bU_{j-2}(x)-uU_{j-1}(x)]\alpha_{2,L} - [bU_{j-3}(x)-uU_{j-2}(x)]\alpha_{1,L} \} \end{aligned}$$ When $T_N(x)=1$, the four coefficients of $\alpha_{2,L}$ and $\alpha_{1,L}$ in Eqs. (\[a10\]) and (\[a11\]) are zero. Here, for the discrete eigenvalues we set $\alpha_{2,L}(x_j)=B(a,b,\theta_j)e^{2i\theta_j}$ and $\alpha_{1,L}(x_j)=B(a,b,\theta_j)e^{i\theta_j}$. According to Bloch theorem and Eq. (\[a9\]), it is easy to find a general Bloch ansatz solution for $\alpha_{k,L}^s(x_j)$, $$\label{a17} \alpha_{k,L}(x_j)=B(a,b,\theta_j)e^{ik\theta_j}.$$ Likewise, according to Eq. (\[a16\]), we find a general solution for $\alpha_{k,R}(x_j)$, $$\label{a18} \alpha_{k,R}(\theta_j)\|_{u_{j,\pm}}= \frac{\mp i}{a} e^{i\theta_j}\Big(\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j} \pm b\sin\theta_j \Big) B(a,b,\theta_j)e^{ik\theta_j}.$$ Here, the factor $B(a,b,\theta_j)$ can be determined by the normalization condition $\sum_{k,J}\|\alpha_{k,J}^m(x_j)\|^2=1$. After some algebraic calculus, we obtain, $$\label{a19} \|B(a,b,\theta_j)\|_{u_{j,\pm}}= \frac{a}{\sqrt{N[a^2+(\sqrt{1-b^2\cos^2\theta_j}\pm b\sin\theta_j)^2}]}.$$ Thus, we have obtained all the orthonormalized eigenstates for $\hat{U}$. [Albert2000]{} A.M. Childs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 180501 (2009). N.B. Lovett, S. Cooper, M. Everitt, M. Trevers, and V. Kendon, Phys. Rev. A 81, 042330 (2010). A. M. Childs and W. Dam, Rev. Mod. Phys., [82]{}, 1 (2010). N. Shenvi, J. Kempe and K. B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. A [67]{}, 052307 (2003). Salvador E. Venegas-Andraca, Quantum Information Processing vol. [11]{}(5), pp. 1015-1106 (2012). V. Kendon, Math. Struct. Comp. Sci., [17]{}, 1169 (2006). J. Kempe, Contemp. Phys. [44]{}, 307 (2002). N. Konno, [Quantum walks, U. Franz and M. Schurmann (Eds): Quantum Potential Theory]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 1954, pp.309-452, Springer, (2008). O. Mulken and A. Blumen, Phys. Rep. [502]{}, 37 (2011). F. W. Strauch, J. Math. Phys. [48]{}, 082102 (2007); Phys. Rev. A [74]{}, 030301 (R) (2006). A. M. Childs, Commun. Math. Phys. 294, 581?603 (2010). N. Konno, T. Machida, T. Wakasa, Yokohama Mathematical Journal, Vol.[58]{}, pp.53-63 (2012). M. Bednarska, A. Grudka, P. Kurzynski, T. Luczak and A. Wojcik, Phys. Lett. A 317, 21-25 (2003). X. P. Xu, X. K. Zhang, Y. Ide, N. Konno, Annals of Physics [344]{}, 194-212 (2014). B. Tregenna, W. Flanagan, R. Maile and V. Kendon, New. J. Phys. [5]{}, 83.1-19 (2003). F.L. Marquezino, Phys. Rev. A [77]{}, 042312 (2008). C. Moore and A. Russell, [Quantum Walks on the Hypercube]{}, Proceeding RANDOM’02 Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Randomization and Approximation Techniques Pages 164-178, Springer-Verlag London, UK (2002). X. P. Xu, Y. Ide, N. Konno, Phys. Rev. A 85, 042327 (2012).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| In this paper, the notions of [trapping]{} and [confining]{} the robber on a graph are introduced. We particularly present some necessary conditions for graphs $G$ not containing the path on $k$ vertices (referred to as $P_k$-free graphs) for some $k\ge 4$, so that $k-3$ cops do not have a strategy to capture or confine the robber on $G$. Utilizing the latter conditions, we show that the number of vertices of a connected cograph on which a cop does not have a strategy to confine the robber has a tight lower-bound of eight. We also explore the effects of twin operations- which are well known to provide a characterization of cographs- on the number of cops required to capture or confine the robber on cographs.\ [Keywords:]{} Cographs; Confining Cop Number; Game of Cops and Robbers; Trapping Cop Number; $P_k$-free Graph; Train-chasing Lemma\ [AMS subject classification:]{} 05C57, 91A46 author: - \| Masood Masjoody\ `[email protected]` title: Confining the Robber on Cographs --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ For the definition of the game of cops and robbers and relevant basic definitions and terminology, see [@masjoody2018cops]. For other basic graph theoretic definitions see [@chartrand2019chromatic]. The game of cops and robbers on graphs with a forbidden induce subgraph was studied in [@CDM154]. The main results in [@CDM154] are summarized as follows: \[thm: joret\][@CDM154] 1. For a graph $H$, the class of $H$-free graphs is cop-bounded iff every component of $H$ is a path. 2. The class of $P_k$-free graphs ($k\ge 3$) is $(k-2)$-copwin. The results in [@CDM154] were extended [@masjoody2018CMS2; @masjoody2018cops], mainly through the introduction of the [Train-chasing Lemma]{} (Lemma \[lemma: train-chase-robber\]), to the game of cops and robbers on graphs with a set of forbidden induced subgraphs. [@masjoody2018cops] Let $G$ be a graph and $U$ be the set of all triples $(u,v,H)$ where $H$ is a connected subgraph of $G$, and $u,v\in V(H)$ with $d_H(u,v)\ge 2$. A [chasing function for]{} $G$ is a function $\theta$ mapping every triple $(u,v,H)\in U$ onto the neighbor of $u$ along a $(u,v)$-shortest path in $H$. \[lemma: train-chase-robber\] Consider an instance of the game of cops and robber on a graph $G$. Let $\theta$ be a chasing function for $G$. Let $k\in \mathbb{N}$ and suppose on the cops’ turn in step one there are $k$ cops $C_1,\dots,C_k$ in a vertex $v_1$ of the graph while the robber is located in a vertex $w_1$. Further, suppose the robber can and will play in such a way to survive the next $k$ steps of the game, regardless of how the cops $C_1,\dots, C_k$ play. Denote the following (generally not predetermined) robber’s positions with $w_2,\dots,w_{k}$. Then, let $H_i$ ($i\in[1\operatorname{\cdot\cdot}k]$) and $v_i$ ($i\in[2\operatorname{\cdot\cdot}k]$) be defined recursively by the following relations: - $H_1=G$; - $v_{i+1}=\theta(v_i,w_i,H_i)$ for $i\in[1\operatorname{\cdot\cdot}k]$; - $X_i=N_{H_i}(v_i)\setminus \{v_{i+1}\}$ for $i\in[1\operatorname{\cdot\cdot}k]$; - $H_{i+1}:$ the component of $v_1$ in $H_{i}-X_i$ for $i\in [1\operatorname{\cdot\cdot}k]$. Then the following holds: 1. Every $H_i$ is an induced subgraph of $G$. 2. If $uv\in E(G)\setminus E(H_{k+1})$ such that $u\in V(H_{k+1})$, then $v\in\bigcup_{i=1}^{k}X_i$. 3. Vertices $v_1,\dots,v_{k+1}$, in that order, induce a path in $H_k$. 4. The cops can play such that on the cops’ turn in step $k$ every $C_i$, $i\in[1\operatorname{\cdot\cdot}k]$, is located in vertex $v_i$. 5. Keeping every $C_i$ in $v_i$ for the rest of the game forces the robber to stay in $H_{k+1}$. ![image](Fig-train-chasing-poster.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"} \[pic: train-chase\] In [@masjoody2018cops], the Train-chasing Lemma was in particular used to characterize classes $\mathscr{F}$ of graphs such that $\mathscr{F}$-free graphs are cop-bounded, under the condition that there is a constant bounding the diameter of the components of elements of $\mathscr{F}$. The latter characterization generalizes Theorem \[thm: joret\](a). It is worth mentioning that the following extension of Theorem \[thm: joret\](b) is also an immediate corollary of the Train-chasing Lemma. (See [@yang2015optimal] for the definition of the [one-active-cop]{} version of the game of cops and robbers.) \[thm: Pk-free-Masood\][@masjoody2018cops] For $k\ge 3$, $k-2$ cops require no more than $k-1$ steps of the game to capture the robber on a $P_k$-free graph in the one-active-cop version of the game of Cops and Robbers. In this paper we consider $P_k$-free graphs from the viewpoint of some new notions relevant to the cop-number of graphs, described below. \[def: conf.cop.no.\] The trapping cop number of a graph $G$, denoted $tcn(G)$, is the minimum number of cop that can force an arrangement of the cops and the robber on vertices of $G$ in which the robber has to stay in the closed neighborhood $N_G[v]$ of a vertex $v$ in order to avoid capture in the next move of the cops, in which case we say that the cops have [trapped]{} the robber. \[def: conf.cop.no.\] The confining cop number of a graph $G$, denoted $ccn(G)$, is the minimum number of cop that can force an arrangement of the cops and the robber on vertices of $G$ in which the robber has to stay in its position in order to avoid capture in the next move of the cops, in which case we say that the cops have [confined]{} the robber. \[def: conf.cop.corner.\] Let $G$ be a graph with $\|G\|\ge 3$. We call a vertex $v$ of $G$ a [confined corner]{} of $G$ if there exists a vertex $w$ such that $d_G(v,w)=2$ and $N_G(v)\operatorname{\subseteq}N_G(w)$, in which case $w$ is said to [confine]{} $v$ [in]{} $G$. \[prop: c(G)-ccn(G)\] For every graph $G$ one has $tcn(G)\le ccn(G)\le c(G)\le tcn(G)+1$. The first two inequalities are obvious. As for the last one, note that With $ tcn(G)+1$ cops at hands, $ tcn(G)$ of them eventually force the robber to stay in $N_G[v]$ for some vertex $v$. By keeping those cops stationary and placing the remaining cop in $v$, the capture of the robber will be guaranteed. In light of Proposition \[prop: c(G)-ccn(G)\], the following result can be presented as an extension of Theorem \[thm: Pk-free-Masood\]. \[thm: P-k-free-tcn\] If $G$ is a $P_k$-free graph for some $k\ge 3$, then $tcn(G)\le k-3$. Furthermore, $k-3$ cops need no more than $k-3$ steps of the game to trap the robber in the one-active-cop version of the game of Cops and Robbers. The proof is just an adaptation of the proof of Theorem \[thm: Pk-free-Masood\] with $k-3$ cops in play. See [@masjoody2018cops] for details. The case $k=3$ is a triviality. Note that by Propositions \[prop: c(G)-ccn(G)\] and Theorem \[thm: P-k-free-tcn\], for a $P_k$-free graph $G$ one has $tcn(G)>k-3$ iff $tcn(G)=c(G)=k-2$. \[notation: G-k-path-free\] Given $k\ge 3$, we will denote the class of all $P_k$-free graphs $G$ satisfying $ccn(G)=k-2$ (resp. $c(G)=k-2$) by $\mathscr{G}_{k,c}$ (resp. $\mathscr{G}_k$). In Section \[sec: G-k\] we will establish some necessary conditions for elements of $\mathscr{G}_k$ and $\mathscr{G}_{k,c}$. In light of such conditions, in Section \[sec: cographs\] we will consider the game of cops and robbers on $P_4$-free graphs, also known as [cographs]{}. \[def: twin\] Distinct vertices $u,v$ in a graph $G$ are said to be [twins]{} (or to form a [twin pair]{}) if every other vertex in $G$ is adjacent to both $u$ and $v$, or non-adjacent to both $u$ and $v$. A pair $u,v$ of twin vertices in $G$ is called [true]{} (resp. [false]{}) whenever $N_G[u]=N_G[v]$ (resp. $N_G(u)=N_G(v)$). Several characterizations of cographs were established in [@corneil1981complement], one of which states that a graph $G$ is a cograph iff every nontrivial induced subgraph of $G$ has a pair of twins. As one can easily see, the latter implies the following characterization, which is of our special interest in Section \[sec: cographs\]: \[thm: cograph-twin\] A connected nontrivial graph $G$ is a cograph iff it can be obtained from $K_2$ by a sequence of twin operations. Some properties of $\mathscr{G}_k$ and $\mathscr{G}_{k,c}$ {#sec: G-k} ========================================================== One can easily see that $\mathscr{G}_{k,c}\operatorname{\subseteq}\mathscr{G}_k$. In that regard, first we establish some properties of $\mathscr{G}_k$. \[prop: G-k C-k cycle\] Let $G\in \mathscr{G}_k$ and $v_1\in V(G)$. With $k-3$ cops at hands, suppose the robber uses any winning strategy against the cops. In addition, suppose the cops start at $v_1$ and play according to any chasing function $\theta$ for $G$ in the first $k-3$ steps of the game. Let $H_i$ and $v_i$ be as in Lemma \[lemma: train-chase-robber\]. Furthermore, for $j\in[1\operatorname{\cdot\cdot}(k-3)]$ let $$M_j:=N_{G}(v_j)\setminus \bigcup \{N_G[v_i]: 1\le i \le k-2, \;i\not=j \},$$ and for $j>k-3$ let $M_{j}$ be the $j$th neighborhood of $v_1$ in $H_{k-2}$. ![image](Fig-Y.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"} \[pic: prop: G-k C-k cycle\] Then: 1. $M_j=\varnothing$ for $j\ge k-1$; 2. $M_j\not= \varnothing$ for each $j\in [1\operatorname{\cdot\cdot}(k-2)]$; 3. $M_1\Leftrightarrow M_{k-2}$; and 4. For each $u\in M_1$ and $w\in M_{k-2}$, $G[\{u,w,v_1,\dots,v_{k-2}\}]$ is a $k$-cycle; in particular, every vertex of $G$ belongs to an induced $k$-cycle; and 5. One has $$\label{eq: 1 prop: G-k C-k cycle}M_{k-2}\cap \Bigg(\bigcap_1^{k-3} N_G(M_j)\Bigg)\not=\varnothing,$$ in particular $G$ contains a vertex $w$ so that for each $j\in[4\operatorname{\cdot\cdot}k]$, $w$ belongs an induced $C_j$ in $G$. At the end of step $k-3$ of the game we have the cops along the induced path $P:\;v_1=v,v_2,\cdots,v_{k-3}$ in $H_{k-2}$, the robber at a vertex $w \in M_{k-2} $- hence, in particular, $M_{k-2}\not=\varnothing$- and the game restricted to $H_{k-2}$ with the properties set forth in Lemma \[lemma: train-chase-robber\]. In particular, if $M_j\not=\varnothing$ for some $j\ge (k-1)$, $H_{k-2}$ and, hence, $G$ would contain an induced $k$-path (indeed, $(j+1)$-path) from $v_1$ to $M_j$, a contradiction. This establishes (a). Then, observe that since $v_{k-2}$ dominates $M_{k-2}$, as long as the cops cover the vertices of $P$ the robber has to stay in $M_{k-2}$. Moreover, if $M_j=\varnothing$ for some $j\in[1\operatorname{\cdot\cdot}(k-3)]$, then keeping cops in all $v_i$ with $i\in [1\operatorname{\cdot\cdot}(k-3)]\setminus \{j\}$ would still suffice to keep the robber in $M_{k-2}$, allowing the cops to cover all vertices in $\{v_i: i\in[1\operatorname{\cdot\cdot}(k-2)]\setminus \{j\}\}$ in the next step of the game; thereby capture the robber by the following step of the game. But this contradicts the assumption that $G\in\mathscr{G}_k$. Therefore, (b) also holds. Next, note that that if there exist $x\in M_1$ and $y\in M_{k-2}$ such that $xy\notin E(G)$, then $G[\{x,v_1,\dots,v_{k-2},y\}]$ would be a$k$-path, a contradiction. Hence, (c) must also hold. Note that (d) is immediate from (c) and the fact that any vertex $v\in V(G)$ can set to be the initial position $v_1$ of the cops. Finally, if for the position $w$ of the robber at the end of step $k-3$ of the game there exists $j_0\in[1\operatorname{\cdot\cdot}(k-3)]$ so that $w\not\in N_G(M_{j_0})$, then, as argued for (a), covering all vertices in $\{v_i: i\in [1\operatorname{\cdot\cdot}(k-2)]\}$ by the cops forces the robber to stay in the neighborhood of at least one cap; thereby the robber will be captures by the very next step of the game; a contradiction. Hence, one has $$w\in \bigcap_1^{k-3}N_G(M_j) ,$$ from which (e) follows. \[corol: G-k 2-connected\] Every $G\in \mathscr{G}_k$ is 2-connected. In light of Proposition \[prop: G-k C-k cycle\](d), it suffices to show that no induced $k$-cycle in $G$ contains a cut-vertex of $G$. To this end, consider an induced $k$-cycle $C$ of $G$ and assume, toward a contradiction, that $C$ contains a cut-vertex $x$ of $G$. Let $B$ be the block of $G$ that contains $C$, and $B'$ be another block of $G$ that contains $x$. Pick a neighbor $y$ of $x$ in $C$, and any neighbor $z$ of $x$ in $B'$. Then, the graph $$G[(V(C)\setminus \{y\})\cup \{z\}]$$ has to be a $P_k$; a contradiction. \[prop: G-k,c\] Let $G\in \mathscr{G}_{k,c}$ and $v_1\in V(G)$. We consider the assumptions and notations of Proposition \[prop: G-k C-k cycle\] with the exception that we assume the robber uses any winning strategy against confinement by the cops.Then, one has: 1. $\|M_j\|\ge 2$ for $j\in \{1,k-2\}$. 2. $E(G[M_j])$ is nonempty for $j\in\{1,k-2\}$. 3. $\|V(G)\|\ge 2k-2$. (a) and (b): Suppose the cops state still after step $k-3$ of the game so that the robber has to stay in $M_{k-2}$ for the rest of the game. Since the robber’s strategy avoids confinement, the robber at $w$ must have a neighbor $w'\in M_{k-2}$. Hence, $E(G[M_{k-2}])\not=\varnothing$ and $\|M_{k-2}\|\ge 2$. likewise, by the cops occupying vertices $v_2,\dots,v_{k-2}$ in step $k-2$, the robber has to leave $w$ to a vertex $u\in M_1$ to avoid capture. Then, by the assumption $G\in \mathscr{G}_{k,c}$, keeping the cops stationary in the next step of the game shows shows that there is a vertex $u'$ satisfying $u'\in N_G(u)\setminus N_G(\{v_i:i\in[2\operatorname{\cdot\cdot}(k-2)\})$ to which the robber can move in step $k-1$ of the game. As such, considering the graph $$G[\{u,u'\}\cup \{v_i:i\in[2\operatorname{\cdot\cdot}(k-2)\}]$$ shows that $u'$ must be in $N_G(v_1)$; thereby, $u'\in M_1$. As a result, we also have $E(G[M_{1}])\not=\varnothing$ and $\|M_{1}\|\ge 2$. (See Figure \[pic: 1 prop: G-k,c\].) ![image](Fig-Z.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"} \[pic: 1 prop: G-k,c\] (c) Since the $k-1$ sets $M_1,\dots, M_{k-2}$ and $\{v_i: i\in[1\operatorname{\cdot\cdot}(k-2)\}$ are mutually disjoint subsets of $V(G)$, according to (a) and Proposition \[prop: G-k C-k cycle\](b) we have $$\|V(G)\|\ge 2(k-4)+2\times 3=2k-2 ,$$ as desired. Cops and Robbers on Cographs {#sec: cographs} ============================ By Theorem \[thm: P-k-free-tcn\], for every cograph $G$ one has $tcn(G)=1$. In this section, we consider the effects of twin operations on the cop number and confining cop number of cographs. \[prop: twin-cn-cograph\] Let $G_1$ be a cograph and $x\in V(G_1)$. 1. If $G_2$ is obtained from $G_1$ by adding a true twin $y$ of $x$, then $c(G_1)=c(G_2)$. 2. If $G_3$ is obtained from $G_1$ by adding a false twin $z$ of $x$, then $c(G_1)\le c(G_3)$. We will use the fact that a graph is copwin iff it is dismantalable. (a) Since $N_{G_2}(x)=N_{G_2}(y)$, $G_1$ is a one-point retraction of $G_2$. As a result, if $c(G_1)=1$ then pasting $x$ in front of any elimination ordering of $G_1$ gives an elimination ordering of $G_2$; therefore $c(G_2)=1$. Moreover, one also has $c(G_1)=c(G_2)$ whenever $c(G_1)=2$, since cographs are cop-bounded by two. (b) By the fact that cographs are cop-bounded by two, one only needs to consider the case where $c(G_1)=2$. In this case, the robber has a winning strategy $\mathscr{S}$ against one cop on $G_1$. Then on $G_2$ and against one cop, the robber can react to any move of the cop to or from $y$ as if the cop has moved to or from $x$ and, as such, simply move among $V(G_1)$ according to $\mathscr{S}$. One can easily check that the latter is a winning strategy for the robber on $G_2$; therefore, $C(G_2)=2$ whenever $c(G_1)=2$. Note that the false twin operation can indeed increase the cop number of a cograph, as is the case with $C_4$ (with $c(C_4)=2$) which is obtained by the false twin operation on the degree-two vertex of the copwin graph $P_3$. \[thm: twin-cn-cograph\] Let $G_1$ be a cograph and $x\in V(G_1)$. 1. If $G_2$ is obtained from $G_1$ by adding a true twin $y$ of $x$, then one has $ccn(G_1)\le ccn(G_2)$. 2. If $G_3$ is obtained from $G_1$ by adding a false twin $z$ of $x$, then one has $ccn(G_1)= ccn(G_3)$. (a) It suffices to consider the case where $ccn(G_1)=2$ so that the robber has a strategy $\mathscr{S}$ against one cop on $G_1$ to avoid confinement. Then, the robber can mimic $\mathscr{S}$ on $G_2$, as shown in the proof of Proposition \[prop: twin-cn-cograph\](b), to avoid confinement by one cop on $G_2$. Therefore, $ccn(G_2)=2$ when $ccn(G_1)$. (b) Likewise the proof of (a), one can easily see that $ccn(G_3)=2$ whenever $ccn(G_1)=2$. Hence, in any case we have $ccn(G_1)\le ccn(G_3)$. Therefore, to complete the proof, we assume $ccn(G_1)=1$ and $ccn(G_3)=2$, and show that these assumptions together give rise to a contradiction. To this end, consider a fixed strategy $\mathscr{S}'$ for one cop leading to confining or capturing the robber on $G_1$. Then, in the game of cops and robbers on $G$ with one cop, move the cop within $V(G_1)$ by using the following strategy shadowing $\mathscr{S}'$: If the robber moves to or from $z$, follow $\mathscr{S}'$ pretending that the robber has moved to or from $x$. Eventually, the game will reach a situation corresponding to confining or capturing the robber on $G_1$. The latter case, in turn, corresponds to the capture of the robber on $G_3$ unless the cop and the robber on $G_3$ are located at $x$ and $z$, respectively, in which case the robber is confined by the cop. Hence, we may assume the game on $G_3$ has reached a situation corresponding to the confinement of the robber on $G_1$ while the robber and the cop are positioned at vertices, say, $x'$ and $y'$ with $d_{G_1}(x',y')=2$. Pick a vertex $z'\in N_{G_1}(x')\cap N_{G_1}(y')$. Keep in mind that $z\not\in \{x',y',z'\}$. If the position of the robber in the actual game (i.e. the game on $G_3$) is not $x'$, then it has to be $z$, in which case $x'=x$ and $ N_{G_3}(y')=N_{G_1}(y')$. Therefore, if $x=x'$ then $$\label{eq 1: thm: twin-cn-cograph} N_{G_3}(y')\supseteq N_{G_1}(x')=N_{G_3}(x')=N_{G_3}(z);$$ consequently, in the game on $G_3$ the cop (at $y'$) has also confined the robber (at $z$). (See Figure \[eq 1: thm: twin-cn-cograph\] for an illustration.) ![image](fig-a.pdf){width="0.6\linewidth"} \[pic: 1 prop: cograph- ccn=2\] Therefore, it only remains to deal with the case where the robber in the actual game is also positioned is at $x'$. If, in addition, one has $z\not\in N_{G_3}(x')$ or $z\in N_{G_3}(x')\cap N_{G_3}(y')$, then $N_{G_3}(x')\supseteq N_{G_3}(y')$, implying that the robber has been confined on $G_3$. Hence we may assume $$\label{eq: 1 thm: cographs-CR} z\in N_{G_3}(x')\setminus N_{G_3}(y').$$ To complete the proof, we will show that this assumption leads to a contradiction. (See Figure \[pic: 2 prop: cograph- ccn=2\] for an illustration of the following argument.)To this end, first note that considering $G_3[\{x',y',z',z\}]$ gives $$\label{eq: 2 thm: cographs-CR} zz'\in E(G_3),$$ since $G_3$ is $P_4$-free. As a result, we also have $$\label{eq: 2+1 thm: cographs-CR} xx',xz'\in E(G_3)$$ since $x$ and $z$ are twins in $G_3$. Note that by and we have $x'\not=x$ and $z'\not=x$. Furthermore, since $x'\in N_{G_3}(z)\setminus N_{G_3}(y')$ and vertices $z$ and $x$ are false twins in $G_3$, we also have $y'\not= x$. Hence, we have $$\label{eq: 3 thm: cographs-CR} x\not\in \{x',y',z'\}.$$ Moreover, since $N_{G_1}(y')\supset N_{G_1}(x')$ we have $$\label{eq: 5 thm: cographs-CR} xy'\in E(G_3).$$ ![image](fig-b.pdf){width="0.6\linewidth"} \[pic: 2 prop: cograph- ccn=2\] Finally, in light of , , and one gets $G_3[\{z,x',y,y'\}]\cong P_4$, a contradiction. \[corr: thm: twin-cn-cograph\] If $G$ is a cograph with $ccn(G)=2$, then for every graph $H$ obtained from $G$ by a sequence of twin operations one has $ccn(H)=2$. Adding a true twin vertex to a cograph can indeed increase the confining cop number. This claim, according to Theorem \[thm: cograph-twin\] and Theorem \[thm: twin-cn-cograph\], is equivalent to the statement that there exists a cograph $G$ with $ccn(G)=2$. \[prop: cograph- ccn=2\] The confining cop number of every cograph on fewer than 8 vertices is equal to one. Moreover, for every $n\ge 8$ there is a cograph $G$ on $n$ vertices such that $ccn(G)=2$. Let $G$ be a graph in $\mathscr{G}_{4,c}$ with the minimum number of vertices. Then, by Proposition \[prop: G-k,c\](c), if one has $\|V(G)\|\ge 6$. Indeed, by Proposition \[prop: G-k,c\] and in accordance with its notations, $G$ must have the graph $G_1$ of Figure \[pic: 1 prop: cograph- ccn=2\] as an induced subgraph. ![image](fig2.pdf){width="0.7\linewidth"} \[pic: 1 prop: cograph- ccn=2\] As such, if $\|V(G)\|=6$, one has $G=G_1$, in which case placing a cop at $w$ in the first step of the game forces the robber to chose $v_1$ as its first position, at which vertex the robber is confined; a contradiction. Hence, we have $$\|V(G)\|\ge 7.$$ Next, we will show that $\| V(G)\|\ge 8 $. To this end, we show that each of the following three cases gives rise to a contradiction: Case 1: : $\|V(G)\|= 7$ and $\|M_1\|=3$. Case 2: : $\|V(G)\|= 7$, $\|M_1\|=2$, and $\deg_G(v_1)=4$. Case 3: : $\|V(G)\|= 7$ and $\|M_2\|=3$. In this case, placing a cop at $w_1$ leads to the confinement or capture of the robber, hence, $ccn(G)=1$; a contradiction.\ Let $\{x\}=N_G(v_1)\setminus (M_1\cup \{v_2\}$. Since $x\not\in M_1$, we have $x\in N_G(v_2)$. If $x$ is adjacent to a vertex in $M_1$ (resp. $M_2$), placing a cop at that vertex leads to either the confinement of the robber at $v_1$ (resp. $v_2$) in step 1 or the capture of the robber in step 2; a contradiction. Hence, $N_G(x)=\{v_1,v_2\}$. But then the the graphs $G[\{u,w,v_2,x\}]$ will be a $P_4$; contradicting the assumption that $G$ is $P_4$-free. (See Figure \[pic: 2 prop: cograph- ccn=2\].) ![image](fig3.pdf){width="0.6\linewidth"} \[pic: 2 prop: cograph- ccn=2\] This case also leads to a contradiction; likewise Case I. Hence, $\|V(G)\ge 8$. Therefore, in light of Corollary \[corr: thm: twin-cn-cograph\] , to complete the proof it suffices to present a cograph of $H$ of order eight so that $ccn(H)=2$. As one can easily check, the graph of Figure \[pic: 3 prop: cograph- ccn=2\] satisfies these conditions. ![image](fig4.pdf){width="0.6\linewidth"} \[pic: 3 prop: cograph- ccn=2\] [1]{} Gary Chartrand and Ping Zhang. . CRC press, 2019. Derek G Corneil, Helmut Lerchs, and L Stewart Burlingham. Complement reducible graphs. , 3(3):163–174, 1981. Gwenaël Joret, Marcin Kamiński, and Dirk Theis. The cops and robber game on graphs with forbidden (induced) subgraphs. , 5(2), 2010. Masood Masjoody. The game of cops and robber on graphs with two forbidden induced subgraphs. Poster presented at CMS Winter Meeting, 2018. Masood Masjoody and Ladislav Stacho. Cops and robbers on graphs with a set of forbidden induced subgraphs. , 2018. Boting Yang and William Hamilton. The optimal capture time of the one-cop-moves game. , 588:96–113, 2015.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Contact-based vibrations play a critical role in the dynamics of granular materials. Significant insights into vibrational granular dynamics have been obtained with reduced-dimensional systems containing macroscale particles. We study contact-based vibrations of a two-dimensional monolayer of micron-sized spheres on a solid substrate. Measurements of the resonant attenuation of laser-generated surface acoustic waves reveal three collective vibrational modes involving both displacements and rotations of the microspheres. To identify the modes, we tune the interparticle stiffness, which shifts the frequency of the horizontal-rotational resonances while leaving the vertical resonance unaffected. From the measured contact resonance frequencies we determine both particle-substrate and interparticle contact stiffnesses and find that the former is an order of magnitude larger than the latter. This study paves the way for investigating complex contact-based dynamics of microgranular media, demonstrates a novel acoustic metamaterial, and yields a new approach to studying micro- to nanoscale contact mechanics in multiparticle networks.' author: - 'M. Hiraiwa$^{1}$, M. Abi Ghanem$^{1}$, S. P. Wallen$^{1}$, A. Khanolkar$^{1}$, A. A. Maznev$^{2}$, and N. Boechler$^{1}$' title: 'Complex contact-based dynamics of microsphere monolayers revealed by resonant attenuation of surface acoustic waves' --- Micro- and nanoscale particles in contact with other bodies experience strong adhesive forces that induce deformation near the point of contact [@IsraelachviliBook]. The understanding of contact mechanics is critical to many fields, including areas such as surface science [@IsraelachviliBook], contaminant removal [@MittalBook], self-assembly [@Israelachvili2008], powder technology and processing [@DuranBook; @PowderTechBook], and biomedicine [@BioMed]. In systems with adhered micro- and nanoscale particles, low frequency dynamic disturbances (compared to the intrinsic spheroidal modes of the spheres [@Sato1962]) can induce contact-based vibrational modes in single- and multi-particle systems, where the particles move like rigid bodies and the local region of deformation around the contact acts as a spring [@NesterenkoBook]. Such contact-based vibrational modes form the foundation for the dynamics of particulate assemblies. The contact-based dynamics of granular media play a critical role in fields such as wave propagation in geological and other microstructured materials [@NesterenkoBook]. While there has been significant progress in the study of the contact-based dynamics of macroscale granular media [@NesterenkoBook; @GranularCrystalReviewChapter; @Jamming], the dynamics of micro- to nanoscale particle assemblies are less understood. This difference in scale is important from a fundamental perspective; in particular, adhesion forces negligible for macroscale particles become critical at micro- to nanoscales. At the macroscale, studies of reduced dimensional systems, such as one- and two-dimensional granular arrays, have yielded significant insights into the dynamics of granular materials [@NesterenkoBook; @GranularCrystalReviewChapter]. In contrast, studies of the contact-based dynamics of micro- to nanoscale particle assemblies have hitherto been restricted to three-dimensional, typically disordered, settings [@NesterenkoBook; @Fytas2012; @Fytas2014; @Ayouch2012]. Recently, a contact resonance of microspheres assembled into a two-dimensional monolayer adhered to a solid substrate was measured via its hybridization with surface acoustic waves (SAWs) traveling in the substrate [@Boechler2013]. The results agreed well with a simple model where the particle motion was restricted to the vertical (out-of-plane) degree of freedom and the interaction between the particles was disregarded. However, more advanced models [@Wallen2015; @Gusev2011] predicted complex dynamics that are strongly affected by particle rotations. For motion in the sagittal plane, a close-packed monolayer of spheres on a solid substrate is expected to yield three collective contact-based vibrational modes: one predominantly vertical, and two of mixed horizontal-rotational character, all of which should interact with SAWs [@Wallen2015]. It has remained a mystery as to why the previous experiment only showed the presence of a single contact resonance mode. ![image](Figure1.png){width="18"} In this work, we reveal the presence of all three contact resonances predicted for the microsphere monolayer, by measuring the attenuation of SAWs using a scanned laser ultrasonic technique. We test the model by changing the interparticle contact stiffness via deposition of a thin aluminum film on top of the spheres, which shifts the horizontal-rotational contact resonance frequencies upwards. We further confirm the nature of the modes using a complementary laser-ultrasonic technique that preferentially excites the vertical contact resonance. In addition to providing direct evidence of the rotational-vibrational dynamics of microgranular media, our work opens a new approach for the study of micro- to nanoscale particle contact mechanics by enabling measurements of both interparticle and particle-substrate contact stiffness and offering insight into the role of shear contact rigidity. Results ======= Our sample is composed of a monolayer of $D$ = 2.0 $\mu$m diameter silica microspheres deposited on an aluminum-coated glass substrate, as shown in Figure \[Figure1\]a,b. The aluminum layer is $100$ nm thick, and the glass is $1.5$ mm thick. A wedge-shaped cell convective self-assembly technique is used to assemble the monolayer on the substrate [@WedgeCell]. To obtain a planar interface between substrate regions with and without the microsphere monolayer (hereafter referred to as the monolayer and blank regions, respectively), we use a micro-contact-printing method, as shown in Fig. \[Figure1\]a, wherein a soft Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) stamp is pressed into conformal contact with the microsphere monolayer and then is removed, such that the spheres detach from the substrate in the stamped region [@muCP]. A representative optical microscope image of the resulting interface is shown in Fig. \[Figure1\]b. To generate and measure SAW propagation in our sample, we utilize a scanned laser-ultrasonic pump-probe technique, as shown in Fig. \[Figure1\]c. We focus a sub-nanosecond laser pulse, which serves as a “pump,” into a line on the aluminum surface of the blank region of the substrate. The absorbed laser light induces rapid thermoelastic expansion of the aluminum film that launches counter-propagating, broadband SAW pulses in the substrate. Because of the high aspect ratio of the pump spot, the SAW pulse propagates as a plane wave in the direction perpendicular to the line source. The acoustic response of the sample is measured via a knife-edge photo-deflection technique [@ScrubyBook]. A continuous-wave “probe” beam, is incident through the substrate and focused to a small spot on the aluminum film. The reflected probe light is focused onto a fast photodetector, after being partially blocked by a sharp knife-edge. Changes in surface slope and refractive index in the sample caused by the propagating SAWs deflect the probe beam, which translates to a change in intensity on the photodetector. To obtain spatial information, the sample is scanned in the direction of the SAW propagation using a motorized translation stage. Both pump and probe are initially focused onto the blank region. The pump and probe remain at a fixed relative distance throughout the experiment. As the sample is scanned, both pump and probe move progressively closer to the interface, with the probe crossing into the monolayer region. The scan is stopped just before the pump reaches the interface. ![image](Figure2.png){width="18cm"} Figure \[Figure1\]d,e shows typical measured signals $S$, normalized to the maximum signal amplitude $S_0$ measured during the scan. Figure \[Figure1\]d corresponds to a probe position in the blank region, and Fig. \[Figure1\]e corresponds to a probe position 132 $\mu$m inside the monolayer region. The distortion of the signal in Fig. \[Figure1\]e, with respect to Fig. \[Figure1\]d, is a result of dispersion and dissipation induced by the monolayer. Figure \[Figure1\]f presents a spatiotemporal plot of the signals measured throughout the scan, which shows the distortion of the pulse as it propagates through the monolayer region. The Fourier spectra of the normalized signals in Fig. \[Figure1\]d and Fig. \[Figure1\]e are shown in Fig. \[Figure1\]g. The spectrum corresponding to the signal in the monolayer region shows a sharp dip at $108$ MHz. We also observe two smaller dips surrounding this resonance, and denote the three dips with vertical lines drawn at $f_{I,0}=49$ MHz, $f_{II,0}=108$ MHz, $f_{III,0}=197$ MHz. We also show a third spectrum, corresponding to a location $400$ $\mu$m inside the monolayer region, which demonstrates the evolution of the attenuation zones. To obtain position-dependent transmission spectra of SAWs traversing the interface, we normalize the Fourier spectra at each position by the average Fourier spectra of the incident SAW (averaged over all positions in the blank region). Figure \[Figure3\]a shows the measured transmission spectra as a function of distance from the interface. In the transmission spectra of Fig. \[Figure3\]a, three distinct attenuation maxima are evident, corresponding to the identified dips in Fig. \[Figure1\]g. We interpret the measured attenuation maxima as being caused by the interaction of SAWs with contact resonances of the microsphere monolayer, as described by the recently developed model of Ref. [@Wallen2015]. In this model, the microspheres are considered as rigid bodies, and the sphere-substrate and sphere-sphere contacts are represented as normal and shear springs, as is shown in Fig. \[Figure1\]h. This model predicts three collective vibrational modes of the monolayer involving vertical, horizontal, and rotational motion of spheres in the sagittal plane. At long wavelengths (compared to the particle spacing), one of the modes is purely vertical, with a frequency given by $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} f_N & = \frac{1}{2\pi} \left[\frac{K_N}{m}\right]^{1/2},\\ \label{Res_longwave1} \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ while two others are of mixed horizontal-rotational character, with frequencies given by $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} f_{RH} & = \frac{1}{2\pi} \left[\left(\frac{K_S}{4m}\right) \left(20 \gamma + 7 + \sqrt{400 \gamma^2 + 120 \gamma + 49}\right)\right]^{1/2}\\ f_{HR} & = \frac{1}{2\pi} \left[\left(\frac{K_S}{4m}\right) \left(20 \gamma + 7 - \sqrt{400 \gamma^2 + 120 \gamma + 49}\right)\right]^{1/2}, \label{Res_longwave2} \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $m=\rho \pi D^3 /6$ is the microsphere mass, $K_N$ is the particle-substrate normal stiffness, $K_S$ is the particle-substrate shear stiffness, $G_S$ is the interparticle shear stiffness, and $\gamma=G_S/K_S$. The interparticle normal contact stiffness $G_N$ does not affect these resonances at long wavelengths. The frequency $f_{RH}$ corresponds to the predominantly rotational mode and is always higher than the frequency of the predominantly horizontal mode $f_{HR}$. If the monolayer is placed on an elastic substrate, all three modes are predicted to interact with SAWs [@Wallen2015]. In the absence of dissipation, this interaction results in the hybridization and avoided crossing of the Rayleigh SAW with the contact resonances. In the presence of dissipation, avoided crossing may or may not take place, but one would invariably expect a peak in attenuation at the contact resonance frequency [@Garova1999]. As can be seen from Eq. \[Res\_longwave1\] and Eq. \[Res\_longwave2\], $f_{N}$ is determined solely by the particle-substrate contact, whereas $f_{RH}$ and $f_{HR}$ are affected by both contacts. Hence, if we increase the interparticle contact stiffness, only $f_{RH}$ and $f_{HR}$ are expected to increase. To test the model and verify the nature of the observed contact resonances, we coat the microsphere monolayer with a thin aluminum layer, which stiffens the interparticle contact without affecting the particle-substrate contact. Figures \[Figure3\]d-f show scanning electron microscope (SEM) images for the same interparticle contact in the uncoated sample, and after coating it with $20$ nm and $40$ nm of aluminum. Additional SEM images also confirm that the particle-substrate contact is shaded from the aluminum deposition by the microsphere. Figure \[Figure3\]b and Fig. \[Figure3\]c show transmission spectra for the samples coated with aluminum. We clearly see that the highest and the lowest attenuation maxima shift upwards upon the deposition of the aluminum, while the middle maximum remains nearly unaffected. The relatively small downshift of the middle resonance, which is approximately consistent with the predicted frequency downshift of $\sim4$% due to extra mass loading, confirms our assignment of the middle resonance to $f_N$. In all cases, the middle zone has the largest attenuation, indicating stronger coupling of this resonance to the propagating SAWs. This stronger coupling suggests that this is the same resonance observed in previous studies [@Boechler2013; @Khanolkar2015]. For further confirmation of the assignment of the resonances, we conduct a separate experiment on the sample coated with $40$ nm of aluminum,wherein a pump beam entering through the substrate is focused to a large diameter ($240$ $\mu$m at $1/e^2$ intensity level) spot, as shown in Fig. \[Figure5\]a. In this configuration, thermal expansion of the aluminum layer excites the vertical contact resonance of the spheres directly, while horizontal-rotational resonances are not excited because of symmetry constraints. The displacement of the spheres is measured with a grating interferometer [@NelsonGrating], which is also only sensitive to vertical motion. The measured signal shown in Fig. \[Figure5\]b contains oscillations at a frequency of $\sim100$ MHz, as can be seen from the Fourier spectrum in Fig. \[Figure5\]c. Thus the middle resonance in Fig. \[Figure3\]a-c is identified as the vertical mode. ![\[Figure5\] \[Color online\] (a) Schematic of the experiment with large spot excitation and grating interferometer detection. The interferometer uses a reference beam reflected from a blank (and unperturbed) region of the sample. (b) Normalized signal measured with the grating interferometer. (c) Fourier spectrum of the signal in (b). ](Figure3.png){width="8.5"} We compare the frequencies of the observed attenuation maxima shown in Fig. \[Figure3\] with those predicted by Eq. \[Res\_longwave1\] and Eq. \[Res\_longwave2\]. While the equations have three unknown parameters ($K_N$, $K_S$, and $G_S$), we relate $K_S$ to $K_N$ via the Hertz-Mindlin contact model [@Mindlin], which leaves two independent parameters. In the Hertz-Mindlin contact model, assuming a no-slip condition at the contact, the normal stiffness for a given contact is related to the shear stiffness, such that $K_S/K_N=4G^{}/E^{}$, where $E^* = [(1-\nu_1^2)/E_1 + (1-\nu_2^2)/E_2]^{-1}$ is the effective Young’s modulus of the contact, and $G^* = [(2-\nu_1)/G_1 + (2-\nu_2)/G_2]^{-1}$ is the effective shear modulus, where $E_1$ and $G_1$ are the moduli for the silica microspheres, and $E_2$ and $G_2$ are the moduli for the aluminum substrate [@Supplementary]. Using Eq. \[Res\_longwave1\] and the measured value of $f_{II,0}=f_N$, we find a particle-substrate normal contact stiffness of $K_N=4.0$ kN/m, and thus also obtain the particle-substrate shear stiffness $K_S=3.5$ kN/m. We then use a least-squares fit to determine the interparticle shear stiffness $G_S$, where the quantity $((f_{I}-f_{HR})/f_{I})^2+((f_{III}-f_{RH})/f_{III})^2$ is minimized, with $f_{HR}$ and $f_{RH}$ defined as in Eq. \[Res\_longwave2\]. For the uncoated sample, we obtain an interparticle shear stiffness of $G_S=0.3$ kN/m [@Supplementary]. In Fig. \[Figure3\], we denote the fitted contact resonance frequencies using white solid lines on the right side of each panel. For the uncoated sample, we see an excellent agreement between the measured attenuation frequencies and the fitted contact resonance frequencies. For the sample coated with $40$ nm of aluminum, the agreement is not as good. This difference may be due to deviations from the physical scenario described by our model due to the presence of the aluminum, including asymmetric interparticle contacts and the formation of “necks”, which may lead to bending resistance not taken into account in the model. We have also studied the effect of the microspheres on SAW dispersion. Figure \[Figure4\] shows the normalized magnitude of the two-dimensional (space-time) Fourier transform of the scanned measurements taken in the monolayer region. Figure \[Figure4\]a,c shows spectra corresponding to the uncoated sample. Figure \[Figure4\]b,d shows spectra corresponding to the sample with $40$ nm of aluminum. The spectra show a line corresponding to Rayleigh SAWs in the substrate, which has three gaps or regions of attenuation corresponding to the attenuation zones seen in Fig \[Figure3\]. The highest and lowest zones appear as lighter-colored, attenuated regions, whereas the middle gap shows a clear gap with curvature indicative of an avoided crossing. An emerging band gap can also be seen at the lowest resonance in Fig. \[Figure4\]b,d. Using the fitted contact resonance frequencies with the effective medium model for a monolayer of microspheres on an elastic substrate [@Wallen2015], we plot the calculated dispersion curves as the red dash-dotted lines in Fig. \[Figure4\] [@Supplementary]. For the strong middle resonance and also the emerging avoided crossing at the lowest resonance in Fig. \[Figure4\]b,d, we see reasonable agreement between experiment and theory in the curvature of the branches, which confirms that our model captures the coupling strength between the contact resonances and the SAWs. For resonances with weak coupling and low quality factors, hybridization gaps can appear as attenuation zones instead of avoided crossings [@Garova1999]. Thus weak, broad resonances seen in the attenuation data are not necessarily discernible in the dispersion measurements; this explains why weaker horizontal-rotational resonances were not identified previously in Ref. [@Boechler2013]. Another factor that makes the current experiment more sensitive is a longer SAW propagation distance involved, and greater resolution in the wave vector domain. ![\[Figure4\] Surface acoustic wave dispersion in samples with an (a,c) uncoated monolayer and (b,d) $40$ nm thick aluminum coating. The color plot denotes the calculated 2D Fourier spectra of SAWs propagating in the sample, and the color bar the normalized magnitude. Horizontal dashed and dotted lines correspond to the identified contact resonance frequencies for the uncoated sample and the sample coated with $40$ nm of aluminum, respectively. Short horizontal lines on the right of the panels are the fitted contact resonance frequencies. The second number in the subscript of the contact resonance frequencies denotes the thickness of the aluminum coating in nanometers. Red dash-dotted lines are the dispersion curves calculated using the fitted resonance frequencies. Panels (c) and (d) provide a closer view of the lower part of (a) and (b), respectively.](Figure4.png){width="9"} Discussion ========== A monolayer of microspheres on a substrate can be considered as a locally resonant metamaterial [@Liu2000; @Achaoui2013] for surface acoustic waves. Acoustic metamaterials are typically studied in the context of designing structures with tailored effective properties for controlling the propagation of acoustic waves. In this study, we measured acoustic waves propagating through the metamaterial to explore the dynamics of microgranular media, just as optical spectroscopy is used to study dynamics of atomic or molecular assemblies. Our study reveals the critical role of particle rotations: for instance, without rotations, the upper ($RH$) resonance would not be present [@Wallen2015]. Furthermore, while previously studied locally resonant acoustic metamaterials typically involved isolated resonant inclusions, the horizontal-rotational resonances of a granular monolayer revealed in this study involve collective dynamics of the microspheres. The observed contact resonances offer insight into the contact mechanics of microspheres by enabling the simultaneous measurement of interparticle and particle-substrate contact stiffnesses. The most intriguing result is that the interparticle shear contact stiffness is over an order of magnitude smaller than the particle-substrate contact stiffnesses. As a comparison, we use the Hertz-Mindlin elastic contact model in combination with the DMT model of an adhesive contact [@DMT] to calculate theoretical contact stiffnesses. This results in predicted stiffnesses $K_{N,DMT}=1.6$ kN/m, $K_{S,DMT}=1.4$ kN/m, and $G_{S,DMT}=0.8$ kN/m, which gives a ratio of less than two between the particle-substrate and interparticle stiffnesses. The measured particle-substrate normal contact stiffness is over twice as large as predicted, consistent with the trend observed in recent studies [@Boechler2013; @Khanolkar2015]. A discrepancy between estimated and measured values can be ascribed to factors such as uncertainty in the work of adhesion [@IsraelachviliBook; @Supplementary], plastic deformation, which may stiffen the contact [@SilicaNanospherePlasticity; @AgingPRL], or microslip at the contact, which may decrease the shear contact stiffness [@Johnson]. However, these factors are unlikely to fully explain the magnitude of the observed disparity between interparticle and particle-substrate contact stiffnesses. An examination of SEM images [@Supplementary] showed that the interparticle contact network is not uniform: even in closely packed regions, most particles do not form adhesive contacts with all six neighbors. This raises the question of how adhesive contact networks form following self-assembly. The ability of our measurements to characterize the average contact stiffness in a multi-particle network offers a unique opportunity to investigate this issue. The validation of microscale contact mechanics models [@MittalBook] is known to be particularly challenging, with large differences routinely seen between different experiments, and between experiments and theory [@Johannsmann2010]. The most common characterization approaches involve the use of atomic-force-microscopes (AFM) [@MittalBook; @Fuchs2014] or particle detachment methods [@PowderTechBook]. Our method, while being non-contact and non-destructive, offers information about equilibrium contact stiffnesses, and, in contrast to other dynamic techniques involving isolated particles [@Cetinkaya2005; @Johannsmann2010; @Audoin2012], enables the measurement of interparticle contact stiffness in a microscale multiparticle assembly. This work opens the door for the study of the contact-based dynamics of low-dimensional microgranular systems and their underlying contact mechanics. The discovery of collective vibrational modes including rotations as well as displacements, along with the characterization of shear and normal contact stiffnesses, will lead to better understanding of wave propagation in three-dimensional microscale granular media with applications in shock mitigation, energetic materials, seismic exploration, and powder processing. We note that the first evidence of rotational granular dynamics in a macroscale 3D granular medium has just recently been reported [@TournatRotationalModes]. Contact-based dynamics in systems of statically-compressed macroscale particles have also been used in the design of nonlinear phononic crystals and metamaterials for stress wave manipulation [@GranularCrystalReviewChapter] and signal processing applications [@Boechler2011]. Our study points the way towards future micro- to nanoscale analogs, which may have acousto-optic [@Bayer2008] or acousto-plasmonic [@Plasmonics] functionalities, and be rapidly and inexpensively manufactured via self-assembly. Finally, the sensitivity of the SAW attenuation to contact forces in the microgranular monolayer may be used to make SAW sensors for bioanalytical [@Gronewold] and other applications. Methods ======= [Sample fabrication]{}. The aluminum-coated, soda lime glass microscope slide was purchased from EMF Corp. The slide was rinsed with deionized water, acetone and isopropanol, and dried under air flow. It was then hydrophilized in a hydrogen peroxide bath ($80$ $^{\circ}$C) for fifteen minutes. The microspheres were purchased from Corpuscular Inc. as a suspension of $5.0$ wt% in water. Prior to the deposition, the suspension was further diluted to $1.25$ wt%, and was ultrasonicated for $3$ minutes. The angle of the wedge formed between the substrate and the top glass slide was $3^{\circ}$. We deposited $40$ $\mu$L of the diluted suspension into the wedge. The whole setup was then placed on a tilt, such that the meniscus drying front receded upwards on an incline of $15^{\circ}$. The assembly was allowed to dry in ambient lab environment ($40$% relative humidity, $22^{\circ}$ C). The PDMS stamp was made of Sylgard $184$ with a curing agent to base ratio of 1:10 and left to cure in an oven at $70^{\circ}$ C for a day to ensure solidification. The aluminum coating was deposited via electron-beam evaporation. The thickness of the evaporated aluminum layer was measured with a quartz crystal microbalance (QCM).\ [Photoacoustic characterization system]{}. The pulsed laser source used as the pump has $532$ nm wavelength, $430$ ps pulse duration, energy of 4 $\mu$J per pulse, and $1$ kHz repetition rate. The light was focused to a spot of $1.2$ mm $\times$ $20$ $\mu$m (axis length, at $1/e^2$ intensity level). The resulting surface displacement of the propagating SAW pulse is estimated to be $150$ pm [@Boechler2013]. The continuous probe laser has a wavelength $514$ nm and average power of $4$ mW at the sample. The probe passes through the glass substrate and is focused at the aluminum film to a 6 $\mu$m diameter spot (at $1/e^2$ intensity level). A balanced detection scheme is used, in which a metal coated right-angle prism acts as the €˜knife edge for two photodetectors. The separation between the focused pump and the probe beams was $850$ $\mu$m. In the grating interferometer experiments, the probe has a diameter of $80$ $\mu$m (at $1/e^2$ intensity level) and a power of $20$ mW at the sample.\ [Spatiotemporal signal processing]{}. For the spatiotemporal data shown in Fig. \[Figure1\]d-f and Fig. \[Figure4\], we compensate for the fixed pump-probe separation distance by shifting each measured signal in time by $x_s/c_R$ (where $x_s$ is the distance from a reference position, and $c_R=3128$ m/s is the Rayleigh wave speed in the aluminum-coated glass substrate [@GlassElastic]). We then zero-pad the signal at both beginning and end to obtain signals of uniform duration, and smooth with a $500$ MHz bandpass filter. Acknowledgements ================ This work was supported by the the US National Science Foundation (grant no. CMMI-1333858), the US Army Research Office (grant no. W911NF-15-1-0030), and the University of Washington Royalty Research Foundation. The contribution by A.A.M. was supported by the National Science Foundation Grant No. CHE-1111557. M.H. acknowledges support from the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant No. DGE-1256082. Author Contributions ==================== M.H. performed the experiments. A.K. fabricated the samples. M.H. and M.A.G. conducted the data analysis. S.P.W. conducted the theoretical modeling. M.A.G. conceived the aluminum deposition as a method for interparticle stiffness tuning. All authors contributed to the development of concepts, the design of the experiments, and the writing of the paper. [99]{} Israelachvili, J. N. [Intermolecular and Surface Forces]{} Elsevier (2011). Mittal, K. L. and Jaiswal, R. [Particle Adhesion and Removal]{} Wiley (2015). Min, Y., Akbulut, M., Kristiansen, K., Golan, Y. and Israelachvili, J. The role of interparticle and external forces in nanoparticle assembly. Nature Mater. 7, 527â€“538 (2008). Duran, J. [Sands, Powders, and Grains: An Introduction to the Physics of Granular Materials]{} Springer (2000). Masuda, H., Higashitani, K., and Yoshida, H. [Powder Technology Handbook]{} CRC Press (2006). Fernandes, P. A. L., Delcea, M., Skirtach, A. G., Möhwald, H., and Fery, A. Quantification of release from microcapsules upon mechanical deformation with AFM. Soft Matter 6, 1879 (2010). Sato, Y. and Usami, T. Basic Study on the Oscillation of a Homogeneous Elastic Sphere. Geophys. Mag. 31, 15 (1962). Nesterenko, V. [Dynamics of Heterogeneous Materials]{} Springer (2001). Theocharis, G., Boechler, N., and Daraio, C. Nonlinear Periodic Phononic Structures and Granular Crystals, Acoustic Metamaterials and Phononic Crystals, pp. 217-251, Springer (2013). Bi, D., Zhang, J., Chakraborty, B., and Behringer, R. P. Jamming by shear. Nature 480, 355 (2011). Mattarelli, M., Montagna, M., Still, T., Schneider, D. & Fytas, G. Vibration spectroscopy of weakly interacting mesoscopic colloids. Soft Matter 8, 4235 (2012). Schneider, D., Schmitt, M., Hui, C. M., Sainidou, R., Rembert, P., Matyjaszewski, K., Bockstaller, M. R., and Fytas, G. Role of Polymer Graft Architecture on the Acoustic Eigenmode Formation in Densely Polymer-Tethered Colloidal Particles. ACS Macro Lett. 3, 1069 (2014). Ayouch, A., Dieudonné, X., Vaudel, G., Piombini, H., Vallé, Gusev, V., Belleville, P., and Ruello, P. Elasticity of an assembly of disordered nanoparticles interacting via either Van der Waals-bonded or covalent-bonded coating layers. ACS Nano 6, 10614 (2012). Boechler, N., Eliason, J. K., Kumar, A., Maznev, A. A., Nelson, K. A., and Fang, N. Interaction of a Contact Resonance of Microspheres with Surface Acoustic Waves. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 036103 (2013). Wallen, S. P., Maznev, A. A., and Boechler, N. Dynamics of a Monolayer of Microspheres on an Elastic Substrate. http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.00844 (2015). Tournat, V., Pèrez-Arjona, I., Merkel, A., Sanchez-Morcillo, V. and Gusev, V. Elastic waves in phononic monolayer granular membranes. New J. Phys. 13, (2011). Sun, J., Tang, C. J., Zhan, P., Han Z. l., Cao, Z. S., Wang, Z. L., Fabrication of Centimeter-Sized Single-Domain Two-Dimensional Colloidal Crystals in a Wedge-Shaped Cell under Capillary Forces. Langmuir 26, 7859 (2010). Lee, B. H., Shin, H., and Sung, M. M. Patterning a two-dimensional colloidal crystal by water-mediated particle transfer printing. Chem. Mater. 19, 5553 (2007). Scruby, C. B. and Drain, L. E. [Laser ultrasonics: techniques and applications]{} Adam Hilger (1990). Garova, E. A, Maradudin, A. A., and Mayer, A. P. Interaction of Rayleigh waves with randomly distributed oscillators on the surface. Phys. Rev. B 59, 13291 (1999). Khanolkar, A., Wallen, S., Abi Ghanem, M., Jenks, J., Vogel, N., and Boechler, N., A self-assembled metamaterial for Lamb waves. Appl. Phys. Lett. 107, 071903 (2015). Glorieux, C., Beers, J. D., Bentefour, E. H., Van de Rostyne, K., and Nelson, K. A. Phase mask based interferometer: Operation principle, performance, and application to thermoelastic phenomena. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 75, 2906 (2004). Mindlin, R. D. Compliance of Elastic Bodies in Contact. J. Appl. Mech. 16, 249 (1949). See supplementary information for the identified and fitted contact resonance frequencies, material properties used in the calculations, and additional SEM images of the monolayer. Liu, Z., Zhang, X., Mao, Y., Zhu, Y. Y., Yang, Z., Chan, C. T, and Sheng, P. Locally Resonant Sonic Materials. Science 289, 1734 (2000). Achaoui, Y., Laude, V., Benchabane, S., and Khelif, A. Local resonances in phononic crystals and in random arrangements of pillars on a surface. J. Appl. Phys. 114, 104503 (2013). Muller, V. M., Derjaguin, B. V., and Toporov, Yu. P. On two methods of calculation of the force of sticking of an elastic sphere to a rigid plane. Colloids and Surf. 7, 251 (1983). Wang, X. D., Shen, Z. X., Zhang, J. L., Jiao, H. F., Cheng, X. B., Ye, X. W., Chen L. Y., and Wang, Z. H. Contact between submicrometer silica spheres. Langmuir 26, 5583 (2010). D’Amour J. N., Stalgren, J. J. R., Kanazawa, K. K., Frank, C. W., Rodahl, M., and Johannsmann, D. Capillary Aging of the Contacts between Glass Spheres and a Quartz Resonator Surface. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 058301 (2006). Johnson, K. L. [Contact Mechanics]{}, Cambridge University Press (1985). Vittorias, E., Kappl, M., Butt, H. J. & Johannsmann, D. Studying mechanical microcontacts of fine particles with the quartz crystal microbalance. Powder Technol. 203, 489 (2010). Fuchs, R., Weihart, T., Meyer, J., Zhuang, H., Staedler, T., Jiang, X., Luding, S. Rolling, sliding and torsion of micron-sized silica particles: experimental, numerical and theoretical analysis. Granul. Matter 16, 281 (2014). Murthy Peri, M. D. & Cetinkaya, C. Non-contact microsphere–surface adhesion measurement via acoustic base excitations. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 288, 432â€“43 (2005). Guillet, Y., Audoin, B., Ferrié, M. & Ravaine, S. All-optical ultrafast spectroscopy of a single nanoparticle-substrate contact. Phys. Rev. B 86, 035456 (2012). Merkel, A., Tournat, V., and Gusev, V. Experimental Evidence of Rotational Elastic Waves in Granular Phononic Crystals. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 225502 (2011). Boechler, N., Theocharis, G., and Daraio, C. Bifurcation-based acoustic switching and rectification. Nature Mater., 10, 665 (2011). Akimov, A. V., Tanaka, Y., Pevtsov, A. B., Kaplan, S. F., Golubev, V. G., Tamura, S., Yakovlev, D. R., and Bayer, M. Hypersonic modulation of light in three-dimensional photonic and phononic band-gap materials. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 033902 (2008). Jais, P. M., Murray, D. B., Merlin, R., and Bragas, A. V. Metal Nanoparticle Ensembles: Tunable Laser Pulses Distinguish Monomer from Dimer Vibrations. Nano Lett. 11, 3685 (2011). Bansal, N. P. and Doremus, R. H. [Handbook of Glass Properties]{} Academic Press (1986). T. M. A. Gronewold. Surface acoustic wave sensors in the bioanalytical field: Recent trends and challenges. Anal. Chem. Acta. 603, 119 (2007).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We present the results of transverse emittance and longitudinal current profile measurements of high bunch charge ($\geq$100 pC) beams produced in the DC gun-based Cornell Energy Recovery Linac Photoinjector. In particular, we show that the cathode thermal and core beam emittances dominate the final 95% and core emittance measured at 9-9.5 MeV. Additionally, we demonstrate excellent agreement between optimized 3D space charge simulations and measurement, and show that the quality of the transverse laser distribution limits the optimal simulated and measured emittances. These results, previously thought achievable only with RF guns, demonstrate that DC gun based photoinjectors are capable of delivering beams with sufficient single bunch charge and beam quality suitable for many current and next generation accelerator projects such as Energy Recovery Linacs (ERLs) and Free Electron Lasers (FELs).' author: - Colwyn Gulliford - Adam Bartnik - Ivan Bazarov - Bruce Dunham - Luca Cultrera title: 'Demonstration of Cathode Emittance Dominated High Bunch Charge Beams in a DC gun-based Photoinjector' --- Linear electron accelerators boast a wide range of current and planned applications in the physical sciences. Examples include: x-ray sources [@ref:TJNAF; @ref:pddr; @ref:lcls], electron-ion coolers [@ref:eRHIC], Ultra-fast Electron Diffraction (UED) experiments [@ref:uedslac1; @ref:uedutor1; @ref:uedutor2; @ref:uedbnl1], and fixed-target nuclear physics experiments [@ref:mixingangle1]. A key feature of many of these applications is the potential to produce beams where the initial beam quality, set by the source, dominates the final beam quality at the usage point. This has lead to the design of a next generation of machines, such as high energy Energy Recovery Linacs (ERLs) [@ref:pddr], and Free Electron Lasers (FELs) [@ref:lcls] which could provide diffraction limited hard x-rays with orders of magnitude brighter beams than modern storage rings. The successful design and implementation of such machines has the potential to impact an impressively broad range of research in physics, chemistry, biology, and engineering. For next generation high energy x-ray sources like the proposed Linac Coherent Light Source-II (LCLS-II) [@ref:slacspecs1], the creation (at MHz repetition rates) and effective transport of multi-MeV beams with high bunch charges ($\geq$100 pC), picosecond bunch lengths, and sub-micron normalized transverse emittances represents a beam dynamics regime previously thought attainable only with RF gun based photoinjectors [@ref:LBNL]. In this letter, we challenge this assumption, and show that the DC gun-based Cornell ERL injector can produce cathode emittance dominated beams which meet the bunch charge, emittance, and peak current specifications of a next generation light source. In doing so, we also demonstrate excellent agreement between measurement and simulation of the injector, and show that ultimate optimization of the emittance in high-brightness photoinjectors may require advanced transverse laser shaping along with the use of low intrinsic emittance photocathodes. Before discussing our experimental results, we review the definitions of the key figures of merit for beam quality in high-brightness accelerators relevant for this work: emittance and brightness. For the beam densities encountered in this work ($10^{17}$-$10^{18}$ $\mathrm{e}/\mathrm{m}^3)$, classical relativistic Hamiltonian mechanics, with a self-interaction described by a space charge potential, sufficiently approximates the single bunch beam dynamics [@ref:rsecomp; @ref:disorderedheating]. In this model, the Hamiltonian for each bunch separates into a sum over $N=q/e$ Hamiltonians of the same form, reducing the 6N-D ensemble phase space volume conserved in Liouville’s theorem to the 6D phase space of a single bunch. In the absence of coupling between each of the 2D canonical phase spaces ($x_i$, $P_{x_i}$), the conserved 6D phase space volume separates into three conserved 2D volumes. From a physics stand point, these three conserved quantities represent the most fundamental definition of 2D emittance. However, as a figure of merit, this definition fails to capture the effect of distortions of the phase space due to non-linear fields. This typically motivates the definition of the (normalized) rms emittance: $\epsilon_{n,x_i} = \frac{1}{mc}\sqrt{\langle x_i^2\rangle\langle p_{x_i}^2\rangle-\langle x_ip_{x_i}\rangle^2}$. Note the use of the mechanical momenta $p_{x_i}$. Under the above assumptions, conservation of this emittance follows directly from Liouville’s theorem, provided the forces on the bunch are linear. In practice, bunches in high-brightness photoinjectors experience both non-linear and longitudinally correlated fields arising from space charge and time-dependent RF fields. Left unchecked, these fields lead to emittance growth along the beamline. The mitigation of these effects, known as emittance compensation [@ref:ecomp; @ref:rsecomp], determines the degree to which the cathode emittance, given by: $$\begin{aligned} \epsilon_{n,x}=\frac{1}{mc} \sigma_{x,0}\sigma_{p_x,0} = \sigma_x\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{MTE}}{mc^2}}, %/mc% = \sigma_x\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{MTE}}{mc^2}}, \label{eqn:thermalemittance}\end{aligned}$$ dominates the beam quality downstream. Here $\sigma_{p_x,0}$ is the momentum variance intrinsic to the cathode material, which can be expressed in terms of the mean (kinetic) energry of the photoemitted electrons (MTE), and $\sigma_{x,0}$ is the spatial variance of the laser distribution. The rms emittance motivates a simple definition for the average transverse (normalized) brightness, defined generally as the particle flux per unit 4D transverse phase space volume [@ref:syncradps; @ref:maxbb]: $$\begin{aligned} \overline{\mathcal{B}}_{n} = \frac{\bar{I}}{\epsilon_{n,x}\epsilon_{n,y}}, \label{eqn:avgbrightness}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{I}$ is the average beam current. To characterize the contribution of the central core of the phase space to the emittance, as well as provide a pratical means to compare non-Gaussian beams, we define the emittance vs. fraction curve (see [@ref:syncradps; @ref:lowemitter] for details): for every area in phase space $a$, we find a bounding contour $D(a)$ which maximizes the enclosed fraction $f$ of beam particles. The rms emittance computed for the particles inside $D(a)$ defines the corresponding fractional emittance $\epsilon_{n,x}(f)$. From this we define the core emittance as $$\begin{aligned} \epsilon_{n,x}^{\mathrm{core}}=\left.d\epsilon/df\right\|_{f=0} = \frac{1}{4\pi\rho_0}, \label{eqn:coredef}\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_0$ is the peak in the phase space distribution function (typically the centroid). The corresponding brightness as a function of fraction and peak brightness follow directly from Eqns. (\[eqn:avgbrightness\]-\[eqn:coredef\]): $$\begin{aligned} \overline{\mathcal{B}}_{n}(f) = \frac{\bar{I}f^2}{\epsilon_{n,x}(f)\epsilon_{n,y}(f)},\hspace{0.5cm} \overline{\mathcal{B}}^{\mathrm{peak}}_{n}=\left.\overline{\mathcal{B}}_{n}\right\|_{\mathrm{core}}.%\nonumber \label{eqn:brightcore}\end{aligned}$$ In addition to defining the principle figures of merit for high-brightness accelerators, Eqns. (\[eqn:thermalemittance\]-\[eqn:brightcore\]) make clear the importance of preserving the thermal and cathode core emittances: the degree of conservation sets the extent to which the intrinsic cathode MTE determines the downstream beam quality. For cathode emittance dominated beams, any improvement in the MTE translates into immediate improvement in the final beam quality. With this property in mind, we turn to the main purpose of this work: demonstrating that the Cornell ERL injector, a 5-15 MeV machine featuring a DC gun followed by a short SRF linac, can produce beams with a high degree of emittance preservation in the beam dynamics regime set by next generation light sources. Originally designed to create low emittance, moderate bunch charge ($\leq$77 pC) beams at high (1.3 GHz) repetition rate for a full hard x-ray ERL, the Cornell injector currently holds the world record for high average current from a photoinjector with cathode lifetimes suitable for an operating user facility [@ref:hcrecord], as well as the record for lowest demonstrated emittance from a DC gun-based photoinjector at bunch charges of 19 and 77 pC [@ref:lowemitter]. As of this work, the Cornell injector remains largely the same as described in [@ref:lowemitter], with the most notable difference being the current operation of the DC gun at 395 kV. For the measurements in this work, we used the LCLS-II injector 95% normalized emittance and peak current specifications shown in Table-\[tab:lclsII\_injector\_params\] as our working parameters [@ref:slacspecs1]. Bunch Charge 20 pC 100 pC 300 pC ------------------------ ------------- ------------- ------------- 95% $\epsilon_{n,x,y}$ 0.25 $\mu$m 0.40 $\mu$m 0.60 $\mu$m Peak Current 5 A 10 A 30 A : LCLS-II Injector Specifications[]{data-label="tab:lclsII_injector_params"} For all direct phase space and longitudinal profile data taken with our Emittance Measurement System (EMS), we exclusively used a 50 MHz laser to limit the beam power deposited into the interceptive EMS diagnostics. This laser system produces 520 nm, 1 ps rms pulses with comparable pulse energy to the primary 1.3 GHz laser used for full repetition rate experiments [@ref:GHzlaser]. Four rotatable birefringent crystals temporally shape the primary pulses by splitting each into 16 copies with tunable relative intensities set by the crystal rotation angles. For transverse shaping, we used a beam expander and pinhole to clip the Gaussian laser distribution at roughly the half maximum intensity (truncation fraction of 50%). All measurements were performed using a single NaKSb cathode with a $140\pm10$ meV MTE. In order to determine the injector settings that produce optimal emittances and peak currents, we ran Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm (MOGA) optimizations using the 3D space charge code General Particle Tracer (GPT) [@ref:gpt1]. For each of the LCLS-II nominal charges, the optimizer simultaneously minimized both the emittance and rms bunch length at the location of the EMS in the simulated injector, subject to realistic constraints on all relevant injector and beam parameters. For a detailed description of our 3D injector model, refer to [@ref:lowemitter]. Additionally, we provided the optimizer with a realistic simulation of the laser distribution, and allowed the optimizer to vary the transverse pinhole size and truncation fraction, as well as the rotation of the longitudinal shaping crystal angles. The resulting Pareto fronts (shown later) provided injector settings that simultaneously satisfied both the 95% emittance and peak current goals specified by the LCLS-II injector design. In all cases, the optimizer chose a 9-9.5 MeV final beam energy at the EMS. Additionally, the optimizer chose 0.73 mm, 1.9 mm, and 3.5 mm pinhole diameters, and roughly $50\%$ for the truncation fraction for the three bunch charges respectively. The corresponding pinholes available at the time of measurement were 1 mm, 2 mm, and 3.5 mm. Post processing of the optimized simulations showed a weak dependence of the transverse emittances on the temporal shaping crystal angles. For simplicity, we tuned the crystal angles to produce a flat top temporally. For each bunch charge we loaded the corresponding optimal settings into the injector and tuned the machine to produce the lowest emittances possible while still meeting the peak current targets. All critical machine parameters matched those chosen by the optimizer to within 5%, with the notable exception of the pinhole used for the 20 pC measurements. At these optimal machine settings, we measured the initial transverse laser distribution at the cathode, as well as the longitudinal electron current distribution, and both the horizontal and vertical projected phases spaces at the EMS. From the phase spaces we computed the emittance vs. fraction curves, and the core emittances. The thermal emittances were computed directly from the measured transverse laser profiles according to Eqn. (\[eqn:thermalemittance\]). In order to characterize the initial temporal laser shape, we measured the longitudinal electron beam current profile at near zero charge (0.02 $\pm$ 0.01 pC) with all RF cavities off. Finally, we loaded the corresponding machine settings and measured laser distributions for each bunch charge into our virtual accelerator GUI [@ref:lowemitter], and ran 250k macro-particle GPT simulations for comparison with measurement. Fig. \[fig:laser\_data\] shows the measured laser distributions on a CCD camera located at the same distance from the clipping pinhole as the cathode. ![(a) The measured transverse laser distributions. (b) The simulated temporal laser distribution (green), the resulting electron current profile at the EMS from GPT (dashed blue), and the measured electron current profile (red).[]{data-label="fig:laser_data"}](laser_data){width="80mm"} To match the optimization results as best as possible, we tuned the laser spot size on the laser CCD so that the edge truncation fraction was $50\%$ using a beam expander. Fig. \[fig:laser\_data\](b) shows the measured temporal current profile of the electron beam at the EMS (red), for a bunch charge of 0.02 $\pm$ 0.01 pC, and with all RF cavities off. The green curve shows the simulated initial temporal laser distribution (normalized to 0.02 pC) and the resulting simulated electron beam current profile at the location of the EMS in GPT (dashed blue). Fig. \[fig:xy\_ps\_vs\_q\] displays the measured horizontal and vertical projected phases spaces corresponding to the best measured emittances. Note the use of the normalized mechanical momenta $\gamma\beta_{x_i} = p_{x_i}/mc$. ![Measured horizontal (a) and vertical (b) projected phase spaces.[]{data-label="fig:xy_ps_vs_q"}](xy_ps_vs_q){width="80mm"} One striking feature seen in Fig. \[fig:xy\_ps\_vs\_q\] is the overall symmetry between the horizontal and vertical phase spaces. ![Comparison of the simulated (blue) and measured (red) current profiles as a function of bunch charge. Peak current targets are shown in black.[]{data-label="fig:simcomp:current_profiles"}](current_profiles){width="68mm"} Fig. \[fig:simcomp:current\_profiles\] shows the comparison of the measured (red) and simulated longitudinal current profiles (blue). In addition to the excellent agreement seen between measurement and simulation, we note that all peak current targets were met. Table \[tab:emittances\] displays the thermal and core emittance at the cathode and the resulting measured 95% (Table-\[tab:emitt\]) and core emittances (Table-\[tab:coreemitt\]) at the EMS. We estimate a $\pm6$% relative error for the thermal emittances, and a $\pm$10% relative error in the 95% emittances measured with the EMS (up to the specified resolution of $\leq$ 0.05 $\mu$m). The random error between subsequent measurements using the EMS was typically $\leq$1%. \ We note that this data quantitatively reflects the qualitative symmetry seen in the phase space measurements (Fig. \[fig:xy\_ps\_vs\_q\]), and as well as satisfies all of the LCLS-II injector emittance targets. The table also shows the ratio of the thermal emittance and the final 95% emittance, and the ratio of the initial and final core emittances. In all measurements, the thermal emittances were preserved to within 58%-80%. Similarly, the core emittances were preserved within 67-87%. We point out that the roughly 80-90% preservation of the core emittance for all charges except 20 pC. In this case, the finite resolution of the EMS ($\leq$ 0.05 $\mu$m) likely becomes a contributing factor when measuring such small emittances. We conclude that the actual core emittance for this bunch charge is smaller than the quoted value, as suggested by simulation. Nevertheless, these results demonstrate the main focus of this work: contrary to previous thought, DC gun based photoinjectors are capable of delivering cathode emittance dominated beams at high bunch charges suitable for use in next generation FELs like the LCLS-II. In order to determine the effect of the laser shape on the emittances, we ran a second round of optimizations using the measured transverse laser distributions in Fig. \[fig:laser\_data\](a) and the crystal angles used to create the flattop Fig. \[fig:laser\_data\](b). All other relevant injector parameters varied as before. ![Optimized emittance vs. rms bunch length using (blue) a perfect variable truncated Gaussian and variable temporal distribution, (red) the measured laser distributions. Measured data are shown in black.[]{data-label="fig:simcomp:enopt"}](en_vs_trms){width="70mm"} Fig. \[fig:simcomp:enopt\] shows the average 100% emittance, $\epsilon_{n}=\frac{1}{2}(\epsilon_{n,x}+\epsilon_{n,y})$, vs. rms bunch length at each bunch charge. Shown in blue are the initial optimizations with varied laser distribution parameters, and ideal transverse shape. The red curves show the results of the second round of optimizations using the measured laser distributions (Fig. \[fig:laser\_data\]). The emittances corresponding to the data in Figs. \[fig:xy\_ps\_vs\_q\]-\[fig:simcomp:current\_profiles\] and Table-\[tab:emittances\] are shown in black. We note that the emittance growth due to the laser (distance between blue and red curves at the measured bunch lengths shown in black) increases with bunch charge, as one might expect. For the 100 and 300 pC measurements, this produces roughly a 23%, and 27% relative emittance growth, due primarily to the error in transverse laser shape (as opposed to the pinhole size). In the 20 pC case, the 42% relative emittance growth seen is likely due to the use of a pinhole size 40% larger than the optimal value. In this work, we have shown that optimal injector settings found using MOGA optimizations of 3D space charge simulations of the Cornell ERL injector produce machine states that preserve both the measured 95% and core emittance, computed from direct phase space measurements, to within 57-87% for 20, 100, 300 pC bunches. Furthermore, the resulting measured emittances and longitudinal current profile show excellent agreement with corresponding GPT simulations, and meet the stated 95% emittance and peak current specifications of the LCLS-II injector design. Additionally, we have shown that the transverse laser shape plays an important role in determining the optimal emittances, adding further relevance to the recent demonstration of accurate, arbitrary transverse laser shaping at Cornell [@ref:lasershaping1; @ref:lasershaping2]. In conclusion, this work shows that DC gun based photoinjectors can produce cathode emittance dominated beams with single bunch beam quality rivaling that produced by RF gun based injectors for charges up to 300 pC, and represents a significant expansion of the beam dynamics regime for which DC gun-based injectors are applicable. We acknowledge Jared Maxson for his useful discussions and interest in this work. This work was supported, in part, by the LCLS-II Project and the US Department of Energy, Contract DE-AC02-76SF00515. [22]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\ 12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [**, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.662) @noop []{}, (, ) [**, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2010.176) @noop []{} (, , ) @noop []{}, (, ) [, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1927699) [, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2801027) in [](\doibase 10.1364/ICUSD.2012.IT3D.1) (, ) p. [**, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.181602) @noop []{}, (, , ) [**, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.15.103501) [, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.55.7565) @noop [ ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} [, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.15.050703) [, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.104801) [, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.16.073401) [, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4789395) [, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OE.20.004850) [“,” ](http://www.pulsar.nl/gpt/) () @noop [** ()]{} @noop [ ()]{}	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- address: - \| HEFIN, University of Nijmegen/NIKHEF,\ P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands\ E-mail: [email protected] - 'on behalf of the L3 collaboration' author: - 'D. J. MANGEOL' title: 'MOMENTS OF THE CHARGED-PARTICLE MULTIPLICITY DISTRIBUTION IN Z DECAYS AT LEP' --- Introduction ============ Although the number of charged particles is only a global measure of the characteristics of the final state of a high-energy collision, it has proved a fundamental tool in the study of particle production. Independent emission of single particles leads to a Poissonian multiplicity distribution. Deviations from this shape, therefore, reveal correlations [@kittel]. The shape of the charged-particle multiplicity distribution analysed with the ratio of cumulant factorial moments to factorial moments[@dremin1], $H_q$, is known to reveal quasi-oscillations [@SLD], when plotted versus the order q, with a first minimum at $q=5$. The usual way to interpret this result is to refer to perturbative QCD, which provides us with calculations for the $H_q$ of the parton multiplicity distribution [@dremin2]. The Next to Next to Leading Logarithm Approximation (NNLLA), which has the most accurate treatement of energy-momentum conservation, predicts for the $H_q$ a negative first minimum near 5 followed by quasi-oscillations. This behavior may be expected for the charged-particle multiplicity distribution under the Local Parton-Hadron Duality (LPHD) hypothesis, which assumes that the hadronization does not distort the shape of the multiplicity distribution. However, this result can also be interpreted in a more phenomenological way by viewing the shape of the charged-particle multiplicity distribution as a superposition of different types of event like 2-jet and 3-jet events[@shoulder]. This can be investigated using rather simple parametrizations, as a weighted sum of two Negative Binomial Distributions (NBD), each NBD carrying parameters (mean, $\bar{n}$ and dispersion, $D$) taken from the experimental 2-jet or 3-jet charged-particle multiplicity distributions and using as relative weight the 2-jet fraction ($\alpha_{\mathrm{2jet}}$), $\mathrm{2NBD}_{\mathrm{full sample}}=\alpha_{\mathrm{2jet}}\mathrm{NBD}_{\mathrm{2jet}}+ (1-\alpha_{\mathrm{2jet}})\mathrm{NBD}_{\mathrm{3jet}}$. A similar parametrization can also be tested using light- and b-quark events[@flavour], instead of 2-jet and 3-jet events. The test of the two approaches is done by measuring charged-particle multiplicity distributions and their moments for the full, light- and b-quark samples. These samples were also subdivided into 2-jet and 3-jet events obtained from various $y_{\mathrm{cut}}$ values. This analysis is based on data collected by the L3 detector[@det1] in 1994 and 1995 at the energy of the $\mathrm{Z}$. The data sample corresponds to approximately one million selected hadronic events. A b-tag algorithm is used to discriminate between light-(udsc) and b-quark events[@btag]. Furthermore, the resulting multiplicity distributions are fully corrected for selection, detector inefficiencies[@tune; @sil3; @susinno] and light- or b-quark purity. It has been shown that the $H_q$ moments are very sensitive to truncation[@trunc]. Since we want to compare a large variety of multiplicity distributions, we have to make sure that all distributions are affected by the truncation in the same way. Therefore, the truncation is defined as the fraction of events removed in the tail of the charged-particle multiplicity distribution of the full sample (events with multiplicity larger than 48 are removed), and the same fraction of events is then removed in all charged-particle multiplicity distributions studied. Test of the pQCD approach ========================= The $H_q$ for the charged-particle multiplicity distribution of the full, light- and b-quark samples (figure \[fig:hq\]) exhibit a first negative minimum at $q=5$ and quasi-oscillation for greater $q$. The $H_q$ measured from the light-quark sample are found to agree very well with those of the full sample, while slight differences exist, mainly at low q, for the $H_q$ measured from the b-quark sample. The observed behavior is similar to that predicted by the NNLLA. However, also JETSET [@jetset] agrees very well with all the data samples, even though the parton shower of JETSET does not use NNLLA. ![$H_q$ for various Monte Carlo options[]{data-label="fig:mc"}](hq_k0tag_col_prelim.eps "fig:"){width="5.8cm" height="6cm"} ![$H_q$ for various Monte Carlo options[]{data-label="fig:mc"}](mc_new.eps "fig:"){width="5.8cm" height="6cm"} The same behaviour is found when using other parton generation and fragmentation models and even when we use matrix element production of $\mathrm{q}\bar{\mathrm{q}}$ only, even with independent fragmentation. This shows us that the $H_q$ behavior can be reproduced without the need for the NNLLA of pQCD. Furthermore, our analysis of jet multiplicity obtained at perturbative energy scales ($\gtrsim1\GeV$), where pQCD predictions for the behaviour of $H_q$ should be directly accessible, did not show any of the pQCD predictions made for the $H_q$ [@mystuff] . Therefore, the $H_q$ behavior seen for the charged-particle and jet multiplicity distribution at non-perturbative energy scales only, appears unrelated to the behavior of the $H_q$ calculated in NNLLA. The phenomenological approach ============================= ![$H_q$ of the charged-particle multiplicity distribution for b-quark with the $H_q$ calculated from the 2NBD parametrizations[]{data-label="fig:hqfit"}](pn_btag_2nbd_fit.eps "fig:"){width="5.8cm" height="6cm"} ![$H_q$ of the charged-particle multiplicity distribution for b-quark with the $H_q$ calculated from the 2NBD parametrizations[]{data-label="fig:hqfit"}](hq_fit_btag.eps "fig:"){width="5.8cm" height="6cm"} This approach relies on the assumption that we can view the charged-particle multiplicity distribution as a superposition of distributions originating from various processes related to the topology of the event, as 2-jet, 3-jet, light- or heavy-quark events. Assuming that each of these processes can by itself be described by a relatively simple parametrization as the NBD, the charged-particle multiplicity distribution of the full sample would then be a weighted sum of all the contributions. All together, these various contributions would explain the shape of the charged-particle multiplicity distribution and, hence, the $H_q$ behavior. We checked mainly two hypotheses with this parametrization. 1\. The first assumes that the shape of the charged-particle multiplicity distribution of the full sample arises from the superposition of 2-jet and 3-jet events. Our 2-jet and 3-jet samples were obtained using the Durham algorithm[@dur] for a set of six $y_\mathrm{cut}$ values. As parameters for the NBD’s, we used the means and dispersions calculated from the experimental 2-jet and 3-jet charged-particle multiplicity distributions. The relative weight between the two NBD’s was taken to be the fraction of 2-jet events for a given $y_\mathrm{cut}$ value. This gives us a fully constrained 2NBD parametrization of the full sample. The resulting $\chi^2$ are given in the left half of table 1. Since the $H_q$ moments from charged-particle multiplicity distributions of full, light- and b-quark samples are very similar, we also tested this hypothesis on light and b-quark samples separately, isolating in these cases the 2-jet and 3-jet events from the light- and b-quark samples. The resulting $\chi^2$ for the b-quark sample are given in the right half of table 1. ![Evolution of $H_7$ as a function of $y_\mathrm{cut}$ for 2-jet and 3-jet, light- and b-quark events[]{data-label="fig:h7"}](hq_23jet_k0.eps "fig:"){width="5.8cm" height="6cm"} ![Evolution of $H_7$ as a function of $y_\mathrm{cut}$ for 2-jet and 3-jet, light- and b-quark events[]{data-label="fig:h7"}](h7_ycut.eps "fig:"){width="5.8cm" height="6cm"} We find amazingly good $\chi^2$ for the 2NBD parametrizations of the full (column 2 of table 1), light- (not shown) and b-quark (column 5 of table 1) samples. (see also figure \[fig:pnfit\] for the case of the b-quark sample). We calculated the $H_q$ from the parametrizations and also these are found to be in good agreement with the $H_q$ measured for the full, light and b-quark samples (figure \[fig:hqfit\] for the b-quark sample). However, none of the NBD parametrizations are able to describe any of the individual 2- or 3-jet charged-particle multiplicity distributions themselves, even though the $\chi^2$ is seen to decrease when the purity increases. 2. We also attempted to parametrize the 2-jet and 3-jet charged-particle multiplicity distributions, and as a consistency check the full sample, by a superposition of light and b-quark events, using in that case as relative weight between the two NBD’s, the fraction of b-quark events, $R_b$[@lephf]. Results are summarized in table 2. We don’t find any agreement at all, neither for 2NBD parametrization of the full sample which has a $\chi^2/\mathrm{dof}$ near $13$. This constitutes by its failure a good check of the method, since it shows that not all combinations of two NBD’s agree with the data. We extended the study of the 2-jet and 3-jet samples to the measurement of their $H_q$ moments. We find that, even if the oscillations are still there, their amplitudes are far smaller than for the full sample (figure \[fig:hq23jet\]). Furthermore the size of the oscillations decreases when the purity in 2 jet (3 jet) in the 2-jet (3-jet) sample increases. Differences at low $q$ (mainly for $q<8$) are found between the $H_q$ of 2-jet and 3-jet events, and also large differences are seen for fixed $q$ when the $H_7$ moment is plotted versus $y_\mathrm{cut}$ (figure \[fig:h7\]). We see differences between $H_q$ of 2-jet and 3-jet events of the light- and b-quark samples, however the oscillations are comparable to those of 2-jet or 3-jet events of the full samples. All together, this supports the phenomenological approach when we assume that the shape of the charged-particle multiplicity distribution arises from a superposition of 2-jet and 3-jet events. ------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ $y_\mathrm{cut}$ $\mathrm{2NBD}_\mathrm{all}$ $\mathrm{NBD}_\mathrm{2jet}$ $\mathrm{NBD}_\mathrm{3jet}$ $\mathrm{2NBD}_\mathrm{all}$ $\mathrm{NBD}_\mathrm{2jet}$ $\mathrm{NBD}_\mathrm{3jet}$ $0.03$ 1.4 56 8.5 2.6 19 2.2 $0.015$ 0.6 36 15 1.4 13 3.4 $0.01$ 20.4 8 6.3 0.93 9.8 4.4 $0.006$ 0.7 16 36 0.53 5.5 6.4 $0.004$ 1.5 9.4 57 0.53 3.5 8.5 $0.002$ 5. 5.5 119 3 0.8 15 ------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ : $\chi^2$ between the 2-jet, 3-jet parametrization and their experimental counterpart \[tab:23jet\] ------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------- $y_\mathrm{cut}$ $\mathrm{2NBD}_\mathrm{2jet}$ $\mathrm{2NBD}_\mathrm{3jet}$ $0.03$ 74 8 $0.015$ 46 14 $0.01$ 39 9 $0.006$ 23 33 $0.004$ 14 48 $0.002$ 5 100 ------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------- : $\chi^2$ between the light-, b-quark parametrization and their experimental counterpart \[tab:lbtag\] Conclusions =========== The oscillatory behavior of the $H_q$ moments of the charged-particle multiplicity distribution is usually interpreted as a confirmation of NNLLA, but investigations performed on different models of parton generation and for different fragmentation models have shown similar oscillatory behavior in all cases. Furthermore, the analysis of the $H_q$ of the jet multiplicity distributions reveals that this behavior appears only for very small $y_{\mathrm{cut}}$, corresponding to energy scales $\lesssim 100\MeV$, far from the perturbative region. This gives us strong indications that the oscillatory behavior is not related to the behavior predicted by the NNLLA. In search of an alternative origin of this $H_q$ behavior we have, therefore, investigated a more phenomenological answer which assumes that the shape of the multiplicity distribution results from the superposition of 2-jet and 3-jet events. Using a weighted sum of 2 NBD’s as a parametrization, we found very good agreement for both the charged-particle multiplicity distribution and its $H_q$ moment. This supports the idea that the main feature in the shape of the charged-particle multiplicity still visible in the final states are due to the presence of hard gluon radiation and to the hadronization. [99]{} E.A. De Wolf, I.M. Dremin, W. Kittel, . I.M. Dremin, . SLD Collab., K. Abe , . I.M. Dremin,;\ I.M. Dremin and V.A. Nechitaǐlo,. A. Giovannini, S. Lupia, R. Ugoccioni, . A. Giovannini, S. Lupia, R. Ugoccioni, . L3 , B. Adeva , ;\ J.A. Bakken , ;\ O. Adriani , ;\ B. Adeva , ;\ K. Deiters , ;\ B. Acciari , ;\ A. Adam , . J.G. Branson, A. Dominguez, I. Fisk, G. Raven, L3 Note 2108 (1997);\ L3 , M. Acciarri , ;\ A. Dominguez, Ph.D. thesis, University of California at San Diego (1998). S. Banerjee, D. Duchesneau, S. Sarkar, L3 Note 1818 (1995);\ J. Casaus, L3 Note 1946 (1996);\ L3 , B. Adeva , . The L3 detector simulation is based on GEANT, see R. Brun , CERN report CERN DD/EE/84-1 (Revised), 1987, and uses GHEISHA to simulate hadronic interactions, see[@gheisha]. H. Fesefeldt, RWTH Aachen report PITHA 85/02, 1985. G. Susinno, L3 Note 1996 (1996). A. Giovannini, S. Lupia, R. Ugoccioni, . T. Sj[ö]{}strand, ; T. Sj[ö]{}strand and M. Bengtsson, . W. Kittel, S.V. Chekanov, D.J. Mangeol, W. Metzger, Proc. XXVII Int. Symp. on Multiparticle Dynamics, eds G. Capon (North-Holland, 1998) p.30\ D.J. Mangeol, Proc. 8th Int. Workshop on Multiparticle Production, eds. T. Csörgő (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999) p.342\ W.J. Metzger, Proc. XXIX Int. Symp. on Multiparticle Dynamics, eds I. Sarcevic (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000) p.238 S. Bethke, , . The LEP/SLD heavy flavour working group, D. Abbaneo , LEPHF/99-01.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We review some aspects of current knowledge regarding the decay of metastable phases in many-particle systems. In particular we emphasize recent theoretical and computational developments and numerical results regarding homogeneous nucleation and growth in kinetic Ising and lattice-gas models. An introductory discussion of the droplet theory of homogeneous nucleation is followed by a discussion of Monte Carlo and transfer-matrix methods commonly used for numerical study of metastable decay, including some new algorithms. Next we discuss specific classes of systems. These include a brief discussion of recent progress for fluids, and more exhaustive considerations of ferromagnetic Ising models ([i.e.]{}, attractive lattice-gas models) with weak long-range interactions and with short-range interactions. Whereas weak-long-range-force (WLRF) models have infinitely long-lived metastable phases in the infinite-range limit, metastable phases in short-range-force (SRF) models eventually decay, albeit extremely slowly. Recent results on the finite-size scaling of metastable lifetimes in SRF models are reviewed, and it is pointed out that such effects may be experimentally observable.' author: - \| [Per Arne Rikvold and Bryan M. Gorman]{}\ \ Supercomputer Computations Research Institute,\ Department of Physics, and\ Center for Materials Research and Technology,\ Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052, U.S.A.\ title: Recent Results on the Decay of Metastable Phases --- 23truecm -1.25truecm 16.0truecm 0.65truecm 0truecm 0truecm =0.5truecm Introduction {#sec1} ============ Metastable phases are common in nature, and some of them have such extremely long lifetimes that they are practically indistinguishable from equilibrium phases. For example, even though the stable phase of carbon at room temperature and atmospheric pressure is graphite, the claim that diamonds are forever is not likely to be challenged on physical grounds. Other examples of metastable phases with average lifetimes that are measured in milliseconds to days, rather than in millions or billions of years, are supercooled or supersaturated fluids \[1–32\], ferroelectrics \[33–38\], the small single-domain ferromagnetic particles important in paleomagnetism and high-density recording media \[39–49\], and vortex states in superconductors [@OVCH93]. Further possible examples are the supercooled quark/gluon plasma associated with the QCD confinement transition [@KAJA92; @HACK92] and the “false vacuum” associated with the electroweak transition \[53–57\], both of which may have played important roles in the early development of the universe. To clarify what we understand by a metastable phase, it is hard to improve on the empirical descriptions due to Penrose and Lebowitz [@PENR71; @PENR79] and Sewell [@SEWE80].\ ([i]{}) The free energy of the system is not fully minimized.\ ([ii]{}) Only one thermodynamic phase is present, and for sufficiently small and slow perturbations the usual laws of reversible thermodynamics apply.\ ([iii]{}) A system starting in the metastable phase is likely to take a long time to escape.\ ([iv]{}) Escape is irreversible: once out of the metastable phase, the system is extremely unlikely to return. We concentrate on systems for which the order parameter is a nonconserved scalar (Model A in the Hohenberg-Halperin scheme of dynamic universality classes [@HOHE77]) so that the metastability is imposed by an applied external field. (The closely related phenomenon of hysteresis imposed by an oscillating field is discussed by Acharyya and Chakrabarti elsewhere in this volume [@ACHA94].) Even so, many of the phenomena we discuss can be generalized to systems with a multidimensional and/or conserved order parameter . The wide variety of contexts in which metastability has been studied, often independently, makes it difficult to present a discussion that is equally accessible to all potentially interested readers. In this review we have chosen to use the language of Ising models. The most important reason for this choice is our belief that the present theoretical understanding of metastable phases and their modes of decay is most highly developed in applications to the relatively simple kinetic Ising models and their equivalent formulations as lattice-gas models. A secondary reason is the high symmetry of the Ising formulation. Throughout this paper we therefore use Ising ferromagnets as generic examples. Below we define these models and give the standard transformations that will enable the reader to convert our results to the lattice-gas language appropriate to, [e.g.]{}, fluids, binary mixtures, and adsorbate systems. An Ising ferromagnet is defined by a Hamiltonian ([i.e.]{}, an energy functional), $$\label{eqISING} {\cal H} = - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i,j} J_{i,j} s_i s_j - H \sum_i s_i \;,$$ where $s_i \! = \! \pm 1$ (“up” or “down”) is a binary variable, or “spin,” at site $i$, $H$ is the applied field, and the sums run over all $\cal N$ sites on a $d$-dimensional lattice. The interaction energies $J_{i,j}$ are positive and symmetric under interchange of the site indices $i$ and $j$, and without loss of generality we set $J_{i,i}$=0. By requiring that $\sum_j J_{i,j} \! \equiv \! zJ$ is independent of $i$ we ensure the spatial homogeneity of the energy functional. We also note that $\cal H$ is invariant under the transformation $\{ s_i \rightarrow -$$s_i, \; H \rightarrow -$$H \}$. The order parameter conjugate to $H$ is the “magnetization” or “polarization”, $$\label{ISINGm} m = {\cal N}^{-1} \sum_{i} s_i \;.$$ As is well known [@STAN71], this model is equivalent to a two-state lattice-gas model with local concentration variables $c_i$=0 or 1 (“empty” or “occupied”), for which Eq. (\[eqISING\]) takes the form $$\label{eqLG} {\cal H} = - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i,j} \Phi_{i,j} c_i c_j - \mu \sum_i c_i + \frac{{\cal N}}{2} \left( \mu - \frac{1}{2} \mu_0 \right) \equiv {\cal H}_{\rm LG} + \frac{{\cal N}}{2} \left( \mu - \frac{1}{2} \mu_0 \right) \;,$$ where the quantities appearing in the two equivalent formulations of the Hamiltonian, Eq. (\[eqISING\]) and Eq. (\[eqLG\]), are linked by the transformations $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqISLG} c_i &=& (s_i \! + \! 1)/2 \nonumber\\ \Phi_{i,j} &=& 4J_{i,j} \nonumber\\ \mu &=& 2H \! + \! \mu_0 \;.\end{aligned}$$ Here $\Phi_{i,j}$ are attractive lattice-gas interaction energies and $\mu$ is the chemical potential, whose value at coexistence ([i.e.]{}, for $H$=0) is $\mu_0$=$-$$2zJ$. The chemical potential is related to the (osmotic) pressure $p$ as $\mu \! - \! \mu_0 = k_{\rm B}T \ln (p/p_0)$, where $k_{\rm B}T$ is Boltzmann’s constant times the absolute temperature, and $p_0$ is the pressure at coexistence. The order parameter conjugate to $\mu$ is the density, $$\label{LGm} \rho = {\cal N}^{-1} \sum_{i} c_i = (m+1)/2 \;.$$ The energy functional $\cal H$ is not a quantum-mechanical Hamiltonian and does not impose a unique dynamic on the system. When one uses an Ising or lattice-gas model to describe the kinetics of a physical system, one must therefore define a specific stochastic dynamic to simulate the interactions with the system’s surroundings. Usually it is physically most realistic to choose a dynamic which is [local]{} in the sense that it only allows transitions involving a single site or a pair of nearest-neighbor sites, and in this review we mostly limit our attention to such dynamics. Simple examples are the Metropolis [@METR53] and Glauber [@GLAU63] dynamics, which are among the algorithms we consider in the context of Monte Carlo simulations in Sec. \[Sec-MC\]. (Under somewhat restrictive conditions, the Glauber dynamic has been obtained from the quantum mechanical equations of motion for a system of distinguishable spin-1/2 particles weakly coupled to an infinitely large quantum reservoir [@MART77].) The Ising (lattice-gas) model below its critical temperature and in the absence of an applied field (with $\mu$=$\mu_0$) has two coexisting, ordered phases of equal free energy: one with positive magnetization (high density) and one with negative magnetization (low density). This degeneracy is lifted by applying a nonzero field (changing $\mu$ away from $\mu_0$): the phase whose magnetization is parallel to the field (for which $\rho(\mu)$$-$$\rho(\mu_0)$ has the same sign as $\mu$$-$$\mu_0$) becomes the unique equilibrium phase, and the one with the opposite magnetization (“wrong” density) becomes metastable. The system can be prepared in the metastable phase by equilibrating it in a nonzero field that is then instantaneously reversed. Although the system is no longer in equilibrium immediately after the field reversal, it is nevertheless stable against small fluctuations, and its thermodynamic properties are similar to those it would have in the equilibrium phase. This is because configurations obtained by flipping small clusters of neighboring spins cost more free energy by introducing an interface between previously parallel spins than they gain by lowering the field energy. In order for this metastable phase to decay, it is therefore necessary that a cluster is created that is sufficiently large for the free energy gained by aligning more spins with the field to just outweigh the cost of breaking the necessary extra bonds. Such a fluctuation corresponds to a local maximum in the free-energy landscape and is usually called a “critical nucleus” or a “critical droplet”. Once randomly created through a thermal fluctuation in the metastable phase, it is likely to grow further. During this growth period the now “supercritical” droplet incorporates spins from the metastable phase into a growing, and soon macroscopic, domain of the equilibrium phase. The timescale for the creation of a critical droplet is in general much longer than that characteristic of the subsequent growth. Real systems are of course more complicated than the simple picture discussed above. Nevertheless, it covers the essential physics of nucleation in a variety of situations. Some of the additional complications that arise in the study of metastability in fluids with continuous degrees of freedom are briefly discussed in Sec. \[Sec-LV\]. The nucleation mechanism described above, which is usually known as [homogeneous]{} or [thermally activated]{} nucleation, will be the focus of our attention. It is the dominant mechanism in systems that are free of defects, or in which the defect concentration is low, or in which the defects are much smaller than the critical droplet size. Whenever this is not the case, heterogeneous nucleation on defects or interfaces may be the dominant process for producing droplets of the equilibrium phase [@SHNE94]. However, the subsequent growth process depends little on the nucleation mechanism [@ISHI71; @EVAN45]. The organization of the remainder of this review is as follows. Section \[Sec-FT\] contains a brief review of classical nucleation theory and some of the general results obtained in the “post-classical” period after the 1940’s. In Sec. \[Sec-Cmet\] we review numerical Monte Carlo (in Sec. \[Sec-MC\]) and transfer-matrix (in Sec. \[Sec-CTM\]) methods to study nucleation and metastable decay, primarily in kinetic Ising models. Following these general sections we consider specific classes of systems: fluids in Sec. \[Sec-LV\], Ising models with weak long-range forces (WLRF models) and their relation to mean-field approximations in Sec. \[Sec-LRF\], and Ising models with short-range forces (SRF models) in Sec. \[Sec-SRF\]. The subsections in Sec. \[Sec-LRF\] are Sec. \[Sec-LRFn\], which contains specific nucleation rates for the ramified critical droplets characteristic of WLRF models, and Sec. \[Sec-LRFtm\], which contains numerical results. The subsections in Sec. \[Sec-SRF\] are Sec. \[Sec-SRFn\], which contains specific nucleation rates for the compact critical droplets characteristic of SRF models, Sec. \[Sec-KJMA\], in which we discuss the interplay between nucleation and the [growth]{} of supercritical droplets, Sec. \[Sec-FSE\], in which we consider finite-size effects, and Sec. \[Sec-DL\], in which we consider effects of the discrete lattice at low temperatures. Finally, in Sec. \[Sec-D\], we give a concluding summary and discussion. Droplet Theory of Homogeneous Nucleation {#Sec-FT} ======================================== The first scientific description of metastability may well be Fahrenheit’s experiments with supercooled water, published in 1724 [@F1724], and further observations were reported during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries by several workers [@DUNN69]. The basis for a theoretical understanding was laid 150 years after Fahrenheit’s paper with van der Waals’ [@VDW1873] and Maxwell’s [@MAXW1874] early mean-field approaches and Gibbs’ realization that the reversible work of formation of a droplet of the stable phase in a metastable background is a “measure of the stability” of the metastable phase \[4–6\]. Although Gibbs’ work clearly states the basic equations of what is today known as “Classical Nucleation Theory” (CNT), further development did not occur until the period from the 1920’s through the 1940’s. Gibbs’ essentially thermodynamic ([i.e.]{}, [static]{}) approach was then complemented by kinetic considerations by Volmer and Weber [@VOWE26], Farkas [@FARK27], Becker and D[ö]{}ring [@BEDO35], and Zeldovich [@ZELD43; @FREN46], whereas Bijl [@BIJL38], Frenkel [@FREN39], and Band [@BAND39] focused on calculating a constrained, metastable partition function through a cluster-expansion procedure inspired by that of Mayer [@MAYE37]. The basic result for the nucleation rate can be written in a Van’t Hoff-Arrhenius [@VH1884; @AR1889] form, $$\label{eqCNT} \Gamma = {\cal P} e^{ - \beta F_{\rm c} } \;,$$ where $\cal P$ is a non-exponential prefactor, $F_{\rm c}$ is the free-energy cost of a critical droplet (Gibbs’ “measure of stability”), and $\beta$=$1/k_{\rm B}T$ is the inverse temperature. (A compact historical sketch is given by Dunning [@DUNN69]. For more recent general reviews of metastability and the kinetics of first-order phase transitions see, [e.g.]{}, Refs. \[31, 72–74\].) The “post-classical” developments in nucleation theory are mainly efforts to evaluate $F_{\rm c}$ and/or the prefactor in Eq. (\[eqCNT\]) for specific systems. This observation in itself provides an important insight: the lifetime of a metastable state depends crucially on the structure and dynamics of the excitations through which it decays [@FISH90]. The relevance of the classification scheme for dynamic critical phenomena due to Hohenberg and Halperin [@HOHE77] to metastable decay is not clear. In addition to those aspects of the physics that influence both the static and the dynamic universality, such as the interaction range and the symmetries and dimensions of both the system itself and the order parameter, the conservation laws that influence the dynamic scaling should also be important for the nucleation rate. The “metastable thermodynamics” that can be observed during the period [before]{} the decay takes place is almost indistinguishable from true equilibrium thermodynamics. This has inspired efforts to treat metastability through suitable generalizations of equilibrium statistical mechanics. Notable among these are three papers by Langer \[76–78\], in which he shows that for a wide class of models, whose dynamics can be described by a Fokker-Planck equation, the homogeneous nucleation rate (per unit time and volume) may be written as $$\Gamma = \frac{\beta \kappa}{\pi} \| {\rm Im} \widetilde{f} \| \;, \label{eqLANG}$$ where ${\rm Im} \widetilde{f}$ is the imaginary part of a “metastable” free-energy density $\widetilde{f}$, which is obtained by analytically continuing the equilibrium free-energy density $f$ into the metastable phase. The “kinetic prefactor” $\kappa$ contains all dependence on the specific dynamic. This important work brings together aspects of CNT with results on droplet theory and analytic continuation from Andreev [@ANDR64] and Fisher [@FISH67] and on thermally activated processes from Landauer and Swanson [@LASW61] and Kramers [@KRAM40]. Despite its apparent simplicity and its similarity to the corresponding relation in quantum mechanics (obtained by replacing $\widetilde{f}$ by the energy and $\beta \kappa/ \pi$ by $2/\hbar$) no general proof of Eq. (\[eqLANG\]) exists, and its domain of validity remains unclear. Analytic verification for specific models has been reported, [e.g.]{}, by Newman and Schulman [@NEWM80] for a Curie-Weiss ferromagnet, by Roepstorff and Schulman [@ROEP84] for an urn model, by Gaveau and Schulman [@GAVE89] for a class of models including the droplet model of condensation [@FREN46; @ANDR64; @FISH67], and by Penrose [@PENR94] for the droplet model with Becker-Döring dynamics. A different approach is to assume the validity of Eq. (\[eqLANG\]) and calculate $\| {\rm Im} \widetilde{f} \|$ analytically or numerically. Again, analytic calculation requires a specific model for the fluctuations included in the calculation of the analytic continuation $\widetilde{f}$. Such field-theoretical calculations were done by Coleman and Callan [@COLE77; @CALL77] for the “false vacuum” in quantum-field theory, by Büttiker and Landauer [@BULA79; @BULA81] for a one-dimensional (1D) overdamped sine-Gordon chain, by McCraw [@MCCR80] for a 1D Kac model with algebraically decaying interactions, by Günther, Nicole, and Wallace [@GNW80], who generalized Langer’s field-theoretical calculation to arbitrary spatial dimension (see Sec. \[Sec-SRFn\]), by Zwerger [@ZWER85] for a $\phi^4$ field model, by Cottingham [et al.]{} [@COTT93] for a model of bubble formation in fluids, by Braun [@BRAU93; @BRAU94] for a model of switching in single-domain ferromagnetic particles, and by Klein and Unger [@KLEI83; @UNGE84] and Gorman [et al.]{} [@GORM94; @FIIG94], who used $\phi^3$ field theories to study WLRF systems near the classical spinodal (see Sec. \[Sec-LRF\]). As may be understood from the heuristic discussion of the decay of a metastable phase presented in Sec. \[sec1\], the metastable lifetime depends not only on the rate of nucleation of critical droplets, but equally importantly on the subsequent rate of growth of the supercritical droplets and on the interplay between these processes of nucleation and growth. This was realized by Kolmogorov [@KOLM37], Johnson and Mehl [@JOHN39], and Avrami [@AVRAMI] (KJMA) at about the same time as CNT was being developed, and a few years later by Evans [@EVAN45]. Computational Methods {#Sec-Cmet} ===================== In contrast to analytical calculations of $\Gamma$ or $\| {\rm Im} \widetilde{f}\|$, nonperturbative numerical methods do not require [a priori]{} knowledge about the critical excitations. In this section we briefly discuss two classes of such methods: some varieties of the well-known Monte Carlo (MC) method for numerical simulation, and a recently introduced extension of the equilibrium transfer-matrix (TM) method to also encompass metastable phases. Monte Carlo Methods {#Sec-MC} ------------------- Simulations using standard Metropolis or heat-bath dynamics with spatially local updates (see, [e.g.]{}, Ref. [@MKB73]) have remained the computational methods of choice for studying metastable decay in systems with nonconserved order parameter. The spatial locality of the algorithm preserves the free-energy barriers that dominate the nucleation rate, leading to relatively faithful representations of metastable dynamics in physical systems. (This is not generally true for cluster algorithms such as the one due to Swendsen and Wang [@SWEN87], which are used to accelerate equilibrium simulations near criticality. However, see further discussion below.) In equilibrium studies, the choice between the Metropolis [@METR53] and heat-bath algorithms (the latter also known as the Gibbs sampler or, when applied to the Ising model, the Glauber [@GLAU63] dynamic) is largely a matter of convenience, and it is often considered so trivial that it is not even stated explicitly. This habit sometimes has carried over to dynamical studies where, in our opinion, attention should be given to finding the dynamic best representing the physical system to be simulated. For completeness we give below the probabilities for an allowed transition from state $x$ to $x'$ for these two algorithms \[101–103\]. In the Metropolis algorithm a candidate state is selected according to a proposal distribution, which vanishes for forbidden transitions. (The decision about which transitions should be allowed is part of the full definition of the algorithm. For an Ising system one could for instance allow single-spin flips, nonlocal cluster flips as in the Swendsen-Wang [@SWEN87] and related \[104–106\] algorithms, or nearest-neighbor spin exchanges as in the conserved-order-parameter Kawasaki dynamic [@KAWA72].) The proposed transition is accepted with probability one if it leads to a reduction in energy, whereas an increase in energy is accepted with probability given by a Boltzmann factor, so that the acceptance probability may be written as $$\label{eq1aa} W_{\rm M}( x \rightarrow x' ) = \min \left\{ 1 , \exp \left[ - \! \beta \left( E(x') \! - \! E(x) \right) \right] \right\} \;.$$ In contrast, the heat-bath algorithms accept any state $x'$ to which a transition from $x$ is allowed, with the equilibrium probability over the set of all accessible states $x''$: $$\label{eq1ab} W_{\rm H}( x \rightarrow x' ) = \exp \left[ - \! \beta E(x') \right] \left/ \sum_{\{ x'' \; {\rm accessible \; from \; } x \}} \exp \left[ - \! \beta E(x'') \right] \right. \;.$$ Both the Metropolis and the heat-bath algorithm satisfy detailed balance, and with ergodicity they eventually converge to thermodynamic equilibrium. However, the detailed Markov processes generated are not identical. Beside the choice of the Metropolis or heat-bath transition probability, more subtle differences between algorithms may also influence the results of simulations, and even though data obtained by different local algorithms can often be connected by simply rescaling the time, the rescaling factor may depend nontrivially on temperature and distance from the coexistence curve. For example, in a recent study of metastable decay in the two-dimensional Ising model with the Metropolis dynamic [@RIKV94A], Rikvold [et al.]{} found that the manner in which the candidate site for the next spin update was chosen (sequentially or randomly) affected the observed field dependence of the kinetic prefactor in Eq. (\[eqLANG\]). Similarly, in a recent study of magnetization relaxation in the three-dimensional Ising model at the critical point, Ito demonstrated that the detailed nature of the finite-size effects depends not only on the choice between the Metropolis and heat-bath dynamics, but also on whether a sequential or a checker-board update scheme was used [@ITO93]. In choosing the MC algorithm for a particular study, one should therefore consider whether the quantities of interest are universal in the sense that they are the same for all local algorithms, or whether they depend on the dynamical details of the algorithm used. For low temperatures and close to coexistence, both the local algorithms discussed above and the physical dynamic they simulate spend most of the time creating short-lived, microscopic excitations in the metastable phase. Because of the smallness of the subcritical clusters, this is also true for the modified Swendsen-Wang cluster dynamic used in MC simulations by Ray, Tamayo, and Wang [@RAY90A; @RAY90B] and studied theoretically by Martinelli, Olivieri, and Scoppola [@MART91]. The brute-force way around this problem is to apply more computer power in the form of various kinds of supercomputers or special-purpose machines (as, [e.g.]{}, in Refs. [@RIKV94A; @TOMI92A; @TOMI92B]), but inevitably the slowness of the dynamic makes this approach impracticable. Very recently, two novel MC algorithms have been introduced, which make simulations deep in the metastable region feasible. Both methods utilize absorbing Markov chains [@IOSI80]. One of them, introduced by Novotny \[113–115\], generalizes the rejection-free $n$-fold way algorithm of Bortz, Kalos, and Lebowitz [@BORT75] and achieves CPU-time savings of many orders of magnitude relative to the local algorithms. This speedup is obtained without changing the underlying dynamic in any way. The other method, introduced by Lee [et al.]{} [@JLEE94A], combines absorbing Markov chains with the Multicanonical method [@BERG92]. The resulting dynamic depends on the microscopic configurations only through their projection onto the order parameter. Nevertheless, most qualitative and quantitative features of the dependences of the metastable lifetimes on field, temperature, and system size agree with theoretical results and direct simulations for local dynamics. By comparison with such more traditional methods, this algorithm may help deepen our understanding of universality in metastable decay. Preliminary results from both methods are promising (some are presented in Secs. \[Sec-FSE\] and \[Sec-DL\]), and we hope to review further progress in the future. It is common in dynamical MC simulations of metastable decay (regardless of the particular algorithm employed) to study the relaxation of the order parameter, starting from the metastable phase. This approach is closely related to the use of nonequilibrium relaxation functions, introduced by Binder [@BIND73A]. It has been used for SRF models in two \[37, 104, 108, 110, 111, 120–129\], three \[38, 105, 130–132\], and higher [@RAY91] dimensions, and also for WLRF models [@PAUL88; @HEER84; @HEER82; @PAUL89]. Some recent results are presented in Sec. \[Sec-SRF\]. The Constrained-Transfer-Matrix Method {#Sec-CTM} -------------------------------------- The Constrained-Transfer-Matrix (CTM) method introduced by one of us [@RIKV89] is particularly suited for numerical calculation of the analytically continued free-energy density $\widetilde{f}$ in the field-theoretical droplet theory discussed in Sec. \[Sec-FT\], without needing a theoretical model of the critical droplet geometry. The method extends the usual concept of the transfer matrix (TM) [@DOMB60] to also include constrained nonequilibrium states. Here we give a brief description of the technique. More detailed discussions can be found in Refs. [@GORM94; @FIIG94; @RIKV89; @CCAG93; @CCAG94A]. In a standard TM calculation, an $N$$\times$$L$ lattice is considered in the limit $L$$\rightarrow$$\infty$, and the Hamiltonian (the energy functional) is written as a sum of layer Hamiltonians, ${\cal H} = \sum_{l=1}^L \bar{\cal H}(x_l,x_{l+1})$, where $\bar{\cal H}$ depends only on the configurations $x_l$ and $x_{l+1}$ of two adjacent layers. The TM is a positive matrix, $$\label{meth-eq3b} {\bf T}_0 = \sum_{x,x'} \| x \rangle e^{- \beta \bar{\cal H}(x,x')} \langle x' \| = \sum_\alpha \| \alpha \rangle \lambda_\alpha \langle \alpha \| \;,$$ where the second equality represents a standard eigenvalue expansion. By the Perron-Frobenius theorem [@DOMB60], the dominant eigenvalue $\lambda_0$ is positive and nondegenerate, and the corresponding eigenvector $\| 0 \rangle$ is the only one with elements that can all be chosen positive. From ${\bf T}_0$ one can calculate by standard methods the probability densities, correlation functions, and partition function that fully describe the equilibrium phase [@DOMB60]. The CTM method generalizes this well-known equilibrium technique by associating with each eigenvalue $\lambda_\alpha$ a “constrained” TM ${\bf T}_\alpha$ so that “constrained” joint and marginal probability densities are defined in analogy with the equilibrium ($\alpha$=0) case: $$\begin{aligned} \label{meth-eq3} P_\alpha(x_l,x_{l+k}) &=& \langle\alpha\|x_l\rangle\langle x_l\|(\lambda_\alpha^{-1} {\bf T}_\alpha)^{\|k\|}\|x_{l+k}\rangle\langle x_{l+k}\|\alpha\rangle \nonumber\\ P_\alpha(x_l) &=& \langle\alpha\|x_l\rangle \langle x_{l}\|\alpha\rangle \;.\end{aligned}$$ It was pointed out by McCraw, Schulman, and Privman [@MCCR78; @PRIV82A; @PRIV82B] that the constrained marginal probability densities $P_\alpha(x)$, as defined above, can be interpreted as actual probability densities over single-layer configurations in a constrained phase. To obtain explicitly the constrained joint probability densities $P_\alpha(x_l,x_{l+k})$ that define the inter-layer correlations in the constrained phase, one must determine the constrained TM, ${\bf T}_\alpha$. It is chosen to commute with ${\bf T}_0$, and in order to ensure convergence of $P_\alpha(x_l,x_{l+k})$ towards stochastic independence as $\|k\|$$\rightarrow$$\infty$, each eigenvalue $\| \lambda \|$$>$$\| \lambda_\alpha \|$ is reweighted to become $\lambda_\alpha^2/\lambda$, so that the dominant eigenvalue of ${\bf T}_\alpha$ is $\lambda_\alpha$. A “constrained” free-energy density is defined by $$\label{meth-eq9} f_\alpha = -\frac{\ln\|\lambda_\alpha\|}{\beta N}+\frac{1}{\beta N} \sum_{x_i,x_{i+1}}P_\alpha(x_i,x_{i+1}){\rm Ln}\left( \frac{\langle x_i\|{\bf T}_\alpha\|x_{i+1}\rangle} {\langle x_i\|{\bf T}_0 \|x_{i+1}\rangle}\right)\;,$$ where Ln($z$) is the principal branch of the complex logarithm. For $\alpha$=0 this reduces to the standard equilibrium result, $f = f_0 = -(N \beta)^{-1} \ln \lambda_0$. For $\alpha$$>$0 the eigenvector $\| \alpha \rangle$, corresponding to the dominant eigenvalue of ${\bf T}_\alpha$, is orthogonal to $\| 0 \rangle$ and therefore cannot have all positive elements. As a result, ${\bf T}_\alpha$ cannot in general be a positive matrix, and the second term in Eq. (\[meth-eq9\]) becomes complex-valued. It has been observed by G[ü]{}nther [et al.]{} [@CCAG94A] that this second term can be considered as a complex generalization of the Kullback discrimination function (see, [e.g.]{}, Ref. [@KAPU92]) for $P_\alpha(x_l,x_{l+1})$ with respect to the divergent ‘probability density’ obtained by substituting ${\bf T}_0$ for ${\bf T}_\alpha$ in Eq. (\[meth-eq3\]). Successful applications of this method to calculate $\| {\rm Im} \widetilde{f} \|$ have recently been performed, both for WLRF systems [@GORM94; @FIIG94; @RIKV89; @RIKV92], and for SRF systems [@CCAG93; @CCAG94A; @CCAG94B]. Some results are shown in Secs. \[Sec-LRF\] and \[Sec-SRF\]. Fluid Systems {#Sec-LV} ============= As mentioned in Sec. \[sec1\], metastable decay in fluid systems, such as condensation of a supersaturated vapor or freezing of a supercooled liquid, presents complications not encountered in Ising or lattice-gas systems. In this section we mention some of these difficulties and give a few references. Most of the early theoretical work on metastability that led to the formulation of CNT \[4–14\] was explicitly concerned with fluids, as were the early mean-field approaches of van der Waals [@VDW1873] and Maxwell [@MAXW1874]. Extensive reviews can be found in Refs. \[17–19\]. One of the most obvious differences between fluids and lattice-gas systems is that fluids have continuous degrees of freedom associated with droplet translation and rotation. Their effects were considered by Lothe, Pound, and collaborators [@LOTH62; @FEDE66], who evaluated the prefactor in Eq. (\[eqCNT\]) and obtained an increase in the predicted condensation rate, relative to earlier theories, on the order of 10$^{17}$. (See, however, a recent discussion in Ref. [@TALA94].) The long controversy over the Lothe-Pound result emphasizes the importance and difficulty of understanding the pre-exponential factors in the nucleation rate. An important conceptual problem arises when one tries to formulate a precise droplet definition \[25–29\]. It was already considered by Gibbs, who introduced a “dividing surface” between the liquid droplet and the vapor, but it does not seem yet to have reached a fully satisfactory solution for fluid systems [@GOUL93]. Even in the much simpler Ising model, the proper definition of droplets has been realized only relatively recently in terms of the “Fortuin-Kastelyn-Coniglio-Klein-Swendsen-Wang” cluster definition. For general and historical discussions of the Ising droplet definition, see Refs. [@WANG89; @STAU92B], and for discussions in the context of metastability, see Refs. \[104–106, 145\]. A serious problem of a numerical nature is the difficulty of accurately locating the coexistence curve in a model in which its position is not given by symmetry, as it is for the Ising or binary lattice-gas model. (Even in more complicated lattice-gas models this is a nontrivial problem [@BORG92].) The extremely strong dependence of the nucleation rate on the distance from the coexistence curve will cause even a small error in its location to produce large errors in numerical estimates of the droplet free energy and the pre-exponential factor. Recent large-scale computer simulations are discussed in Refs. [@SWOP90; @DUIJ92], and further reviews of progress in the theory of metastability in fluids can be found in Refs. \[22–24, 31\]. Ising Models with Weak Long-Range Forces {#Sec-LRF} ======================================== In the limit of infinite interaction range, ferromagnetic Ising models with weak, long-range interactions (WLRF models) have been rigorously shown to possess infinitely long-lived metastable phases [@PENR71; @PENR79; @HEMM76]. These phases lie on a hysteresis (or van der Waals) loop that reaches beyond the Maxwell construction in the phase diagram, and whose critical points correspond to sharp spinodals beyond which the metastable phases disappear. In this respect a WLRF model is similar to a mean-field theory [@VDW1873; @MAXW1874; @NEEL49], except that in a mean-field theory the only allowed form of fluctuation is a spatially uniform change of the order parameter. The free-energy cost of such a change is extensive in the system volume [@MCCR80; @PAUL89], and the mean-field approximation therefore predicts that metastable lifetimes are infinite in the thermodynamic limit. Since the behavior of a number of physical systems, including superconductors and long-chain polymer mixtures, are often well described by WLRF models, there has been an interest in studying metastability in these models. Analytic approaches include the early field-theory treatment of a model fluid with conserved order parameter by Cahn and Hilliard [@CAHI58; @CAHI59], the Fokker-Planck equation [@MCCR80; @PAUL89; @GRIF66], renormalization-group analyses [@GUNT78; @RIKV93], and arguments from random long-range bond percolation [@RAY90C; @MONE92], in addition to analytic continuation of the free-energy density \[83, 92–95\]. Numerical approaches include MC simulations \[129, 131, 134, 135, 153–155\], traditional TM calculations [@NOVO86], and calculations of $\|{\rm Im}\widetilde f\|$ by the CTM method described in Sec. \[Sec-CTM\] [@GORM94; @FIIG94; @RIKV89; @RIKV92]. As pointed out by Klein and coworkers \[92, 93, 153–155\], the critical droplet in a WLRF model near the spinodal is a [ramified]{} structure whose local order parameter is only slightly different from that of the metastable phase. (Note the contrast with the SRF case, in which the critical droplet is compact. See Sec. \[Sec-SRFn\].) Only during the supercritical growth phase does the droplet center compactify, leading to a measurable change in the global order parameter. As a consequence, it is difficult to determine the nucleation time accurately from MC simulations by monitoring the order parameter or, equivalently, the nonequilibrium relaxation function. Therefore, several new techniques have been developed to analyze MC data for metastable decay in WLRF systems, including the analysis of recrossing events [@PAUL88], monitoring the number of spins in the largest cluster [@MONE88], and intervention techniques [@MONE92]. Some of the recent work in this area has been reviewed in Ref. [@GOUL93]. The difficulties associated with accurately determining the nucleation rate in WLRF models make them particularly attractive candidates for study by alternative numerical techniques, such as the CTM method. A simple WLRF system suitable for CTM investigation is the Quasi-One-Dimensional Ising (Q1DI) model, introduced by Novotny [et al.]{} [@NOVO86]. In its simplest form it is a chain of $L$ layers, each of which contains $N$ Ising spins, $s_{l,n}$=$\pm$1. Each spin interacts ferromagnetically with each of the 2$N$ spins in the adjacent layers with coupling $J/N$$>$0 (these are the nonzero $J_{i,j}$ in Eq. (\[eqISING\]) for this model), and with an external field $H$. In terms of the single-layer magnetizations, $m_l$=$N^{-1}\sum_{n=1}^N s_{l,n}$, the Hamiltonian is $$\label{eqQ1DIa} {\cal H} = -N\sum_{l=1}^L[Jm_lm_{l+1}+Hm_l]\;.$$ Nucleation {#Sec-LRFn} ---------- In a WLRF system like the Q1DI model, where droplet “interfaces” are difficult to define, the onset of nucleation is detected by a rapid increase in the magnetization of some layer to within a small neighborhood of the equilibrium value. The physical picture is that of a bell-shaped magnetization profile that quickly develops into a radially expanding front separating the two competing phases. It was shown by Gorman [et al.]{} [@GORM94] that the free-energy cost of nucleation for the Q1DI model can be approximated by mapping the free-energy density functional of the model to a Ginzburg-Landau form and solving the resulting Euler-Lagrange equation. A $\phi^3$ expansion of the potential around the exactly known [@NEWM80; @PAUL89] mean-field spinodal field $H_{\rm s}$, in which $\lambda=\|H\|-\|H_{\rm s}\|\rightarrow0^-$, gives the following free-energy cost for a $d$-dimensional WLRF system with force range $R$ [@KLEI83; @UNGE84]: $$\label{eqQ1DIb} F_{\rm c} = A(T)R^d\|\lambda\|^{(6-d)/4} \left[1+O(\lambda^{1/2})\right]\;,$$ where $A(T)$ is a nonuniversal function of $T$. For the Q1DI model $R$=$N$ and $d$=1 [@RIKV93; @NOVO86]. By solving the Euler-Lagrange equation numerically, one can also take into account the corrections to the expansion, as well as discrete lattice effects [@GORM94]. The prefactor to the Van’t Hoff-Arrhenius term in $\|{\rm Im}\widetilde f\|$ can be calculated by expanding the free-energy density functional about the stationary points corresponding to the metastable phase and the critical droplet. The determinants of the two resulting Schrödinger operators give [@GORM94] $$\label{eqQ1DIc} \|{\rm Im}\widetilde f\| = B(T)(V'/V)R^{d/2}\|\lambda\|^{d(1-d/8)} \left[1+O(\lambda^{1/2})\right] e^{-\beta F_{\rm c}}\;,$$ where $B(T)$ is a nonuniversal function of $T$, $V$ is the system volume, and $V'$ is the volume of the subspace in which the droplet itself is free to move without a cost in free energy. For the Q1DI model, $V'/V$=$L/(NL)$=$N^{-1}$ [@GORM94]. From Eqs. (\[eqQ1DIb\]) and (\[eqQ1DIc\]) we see that for large $N$, unless $H$ is extremely close to $H_{\rm s}$, the free-energy cost $F_{\rm c}$ of surmounting the nucleation barrier is large, so the exponential factor sets the scale for the metastable lifetime. However, for small $N$, or for $H$$\approx$$H_{\rm s}$, the lifetime is more strongly dependent on the particulars of the dynamic and on the detailed structure of the saddle point in the free-energy functional. The finite-range-scaling of $\|{\rm Im}\widetilde f\|$ near the spinodal is found by recasting Eqs. (\[eqQ1DIb\]) and (\[eqQ1DIc\]) in terms of a scaling variable $\zeta$=$R^{4d/(6-d)}\|\lambda\|$, giving $$\label{eqQ1DId} \|{\rm Im}\widetilde f\| = (V'/V)R^{-(d/2)\left[d+3({d-2})/({6-d})\right]}\Phi(T,\zeta)$$ with a scaling function $\Phi$ dependent only on $T$ and $\zeta$. The dynamic prefactor $\kappa$, taken from the lowest eigenvalue of the Schrödinger operator corresponding to the saddle point, scales as $\|\lambda\|^{1/2}$, but is independent of $R$. The finite-range scaling of the nucleation rate $\Gamma$ is thus $$\label{eqQ1DIe} \Gamma = (V'/V)R^{-(d/2)\left[d+({3d-2})/({6-d})\right]} {\cal G}(T,\zeta)$$ with a scaling function $\cal G$ dependent only on $T$ and $\zeta$. Numerical Transfer-Matrix Results {#Sec-LRFtm} --------------------------------- The CTM method outlined in Sec. \[Sec-CTM\] was applied by Gorman [et al.]{} [@GORM94] to Q1DI systems of infinite length and finite cross section $N$, with $N$ up to between 100 and 500. Figure \[figQ1DIa\] shows typical spectra of Re$f_\alpha$ and $\|{\rm Im}f_\alpha\|$ plotted against $H$ at a fixed temperature. These spectra are compared with the analytically continued free energy in the limit $N$$\rightarrow$$\infty$, which corresponds to a Curie-Weiss mean-field result (thick, dashed curves). In each calculation, as demonstrated in the figure, a unique $\alpha$ was found for which Re$f_\alpha$ computed from Eq. (\[meth-eq9\]) closely approximated the real part of the mean-field metastable free energy. Invariably, the same $\alpha$ produced the smallest nonzero value for $\|{\rm Im}f_\alpha\|$. As $H$ was changed away from $H_{\rm s}$ towards $H$=0, the value of the metastable $\|{\rm Im}f_\alpha\|$ was exponentially suppressed. If the metastable $f_\alpha$ represents the analytically continued free-energy density, then one expects $\ln\|{\rm Im}f_\alpha\|$ to be a measure of the height of the nucleation barrier, as seen from Eq. (\[eqQ1DIc\]). Extrapolated CTM estimates of the barrier height $F_{\rm c}$ are compared in Fig. \[figQ1DIb\] with the free-energy cost of the saddle-point solution to the Euler-Lagrange equation, which was obtained by numerical integration. The agreement is remarkable and extends over an extremely wide range of fields and temperatures, for most of which the lifetimes are too long for standard Monte Carlo techniques to be useful. Similar results were found in a study of a three-state WLRF model [@FIIG94], even where two competing metastable states were present, suggesting that Langer’s formula has a wider applicability than previous studies have claimed [@GAVE89]. These CTM results, as well as the MC results in Ref. [@FIIG94], are consistent with Ostwald’s empirical “Law of Stages” ([Gesetz der Umwandlungsstufen]{}) [@DUNN69; @OS1896], whereby a metastable phase may decay via intermediate metastable states before reaching equilibrium. Ising Models with Short-Range Forces {#Sec-SRF} ==================================== In contrast to the situation for WLRF models, metastable phases in systems with short-range forces (SRF models) eventually decay, even though their lifetimes may be many orders of magnitude larger than other characteristic timescales of the system [@MCDO62]. Thus, whereas mean-field theory provides a qualitatively acceptable description of metastability for WLRF systems in the long-range limit, it gives a quite misleading picture for SRF systems. The following subsections are devoted to a discussion of metastability and metastable decay appropriate for SRF systems. As a prototype for the metastable dynamics of SRF systems, we consider in detail the decay of the magnetization in an impurity-free kinetic nearest-neighbor Ising ferromagnet in an unfavorable applied field. The critical point of this model is in the same static universality class as the liquid/vapor phase transition [@GOLD92]. (However, the liquid/vapor transition is in a different dynamic universality class: that of Model H [@HOHE77].) The Hamiltonian is obtained from Eq. (\[eqISING\]) by setting $J_{i,j}$=$J$ if $i$ and $j$ are nearest-neighbor sites and $J_{i,j}$=0 otherwise, explicitly yielding $$\label{eq1} {\cal H} = - J \sum_{\langle i,j \rangle} s_i s_j - H \sum_i s_i \;,$$ where $\sum_{\langle i,j \rangle}$ and $\sum_i$ run over all nearest-neighbor pairs and over all sites on a $d$-dimensional hypercubic lattice of volume $L^d$, respectively [@NOTE]. In a typical MC study of metastable decay in this model one starts from the metastable phase and follows the relaxation of the magnetization, which is closely related to Binder’s nonequilibrium relaxation functions [@BIND73A] and is directly obtained as an average over the droplet size distribution [@FISH67; @BIND76; @STAU92]. The volume fraction of stable phase at time $t$ is $\phi_{\rm s}(t) = \left( m_{\rm ms} \! - \! m(t) \right) / \left( m_{\rm ms} \! - \! m_{\rm s} \right)$, where $m_{\rm s}$ and $m_{\rm ms}$ are the bulk equilibrium and metastable magnetizations, respectively. The metastable lifetime is typically estimated as the mean-first-passage-time for $\phi_{\rm s}(t)$ to a preset value. Monte Carlo studies using this or similar methodology have been performed in two \[37, 104, 108, 110, 111, 120–129\], three \[38, 105, 130–132\], and higher [@RAY91] dimensions. Several of these studies were analysed in terms of droplet theory, establishing general agreement between theory and simulations. A potentially more accurate, but also more computationally intensive, method to estimate the lifetimes could use the recrossing-event distribution discussed by Paul and Heermann [@PAUL88] to determine a field-dependent cutoff value for $\phi_{\rm s}$, as suggested by Rikvold [et al.]{} [@RIKV94A]. Metastability in the two-dimensional nearest-neighbor Ising ferromagnet has also been studied by traditional TM methods by McCraw, Schulman, and Privman [@MCCR78; @PRIV82A; @PRIV82B], and by the CTM method by G[ü]{}nther, Rikvold, and Novotny [@CCAG93; @CCAG94A; @CCAG94B]. Nucleation {#Sec-SRFn} ---------- To obtain quantitative comparisons between numerical results and the droplet-based nucleation theory, one must calculate explicitly the field-theoretical expression for the nucleation rate, Eq. (\[eqLANG\]). This requires as input the free energy of a [compact]{} critical droplet $F_{\rm c}(T,H)$, as obtained by CNT [@LANG67; @GNW80]. (Note the contrast with the WLRF case, in which the critical droplet is ramified. See Sec. \[Sec-LRF\].) Sufficiently far below the critical temperature we can calculate this by a standard droplet-theory argument (see, [e.g.]{}, [@ABRA74; @GUNT83A; @GUNT83B]) that is modified to consider the nonspherical droplets that appear at low $T$ because of the anisotropy of the surface tension \[108, 138, 139, 144, 160–163\]. The free energy of a $d$-dimensional droplet of radius $R$ (defined as half the extent of the droplet along a primitive lattice vector) and volume $\Omega_d R^d$ is $$\label{eq5} F(R) = \Omega_d^{(d-1)/d} R^{d-1} \widehat{\Sigma} - \|H\| \Delta m \Omega_d R^d \;.$$ The quantity ${\widehat{\Sigma}}$ is a temperature- and, in principle, field-dependent proportionality factor which relates the surface contribution to $F(R)$ with the droplet volume [@ZIA82; @ZIA82X]. The difference in bulk free-energy density between the metastable and stable states is $\|H\| \Delta m$, which takes some account of droplet nesting through the magnetization difference $\Delta m$ [@HARR84; @BRUC81]. Maximizing $F(R)$ yields the critical radius, $$\label{eq2a} R_{\rm c}(T,H) = \frac{(d \! - \! 1)\sigma_0}{\|H\| \Delta m}$$ where $\sigma_0 \! = \! \widehat{\Sigma} / ( d \Omega_d^{1/d} ) $ is the surface tension along a primitive lattice vector [@ZIA82], and the free-energy cost of a critical droplet, $$\label{eq3} F_{\rm c}(T,H) = \left( \frac{d \! - \! 1}{\|H\| \Delta m} \right)^{d-1} \left( \frac{\widehat{\Sigma}}{d} \right)^d \;.$$ In addition to $R_{\rm c}$, the critical droplet is characterized by other degrees of freedom, including the critical growth mode, droplet translations, and deformations represented by capillary waves on the droplet surface. The field-theoretical expression for the nucleation rate, Eq. (\[eqLANG\]), properly accounts for the effects of these additional degrees of freedom, and it is obtained explicitly by a saddle-point calculation that yields \[76–78, 90\] $$\label{eq4a} \Gamma(T,H) = A(T) \|H\|^{b+c} e^{- \beta F_{\rm c}(T,H) \left( 1 + O(H^2) \right)} = A(T) \|H\|^{b+c} e^{- \left( \beta \Xi / \|H\|^{d-1} \right) \left( 1 + O(H^2) \right)}$$ with $$\label{eq4b} \Xi = \left( \frac{d \! - \! 1}{\Delta m}\right)^{d-1} \left( \frac{\widehat{\Sigma}}{d}\right)^d \;.$$ The quantity $A(T)$ is a nonuniversal function of the temperature only, $$\label{eq14} b = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} (3 \! - \! d)d/2 & \mbox{~for $1 \! < \! d \! < \! 5$, $d \! \neq \! 3$} \\ -7/3 & \mbox{~for $d$=3} \end{array}\right.$$ is a universal exponent related to excitations on the surface of the critical droplet [@LANG67; @GNW80], and $c$ gives the $H$ dependence of the kinetic prefactor $\kappa$ [@LANG68; @LANG69]. The kinetic prefactor is the only part of $\Gamma(T,H)$ that may depend explicitly on the specific dynamic. The Becker-D[ö]{}ring cluster dynamics is defined in terms of a master equation for the probability distribution $c_l$ of $l$-particle clusters. The original theory only allows $l$ to change by $\pm$1 [@FREN46], but later modifications also allow cluster coagulation and fragmentation [@BIND74]. The CNT result for the exponential part of $\Gamma(T,H)$ can be obtained from this approach. The existence and uniqueness of a solution $c_l(t)$ that is metastable in the sense of the Penrose-Lebowitz-Sewell criteria have been proven both for the original dynamic [@PENR89; @KREE93A] and for the coagulation-fragmentation generalization [@KREE93B]. However, describing the clusters only in terms of their particle numbers does not suffice to obtain the pre-exponential factor in Eq. (\[eqCNT\]) for a particular system. This was demonstrated explicitly by Binder and Stauffer [@BIND76C], who obtained a result formally analogous to Eq. (\[eq4a\]) by using a droplet model in which the individual clusters were characterized by several coordinates in addition to the particle number $l$. For $d$=2, there is substantial numerical evidence that $b$=1, as predicted by Eq. (\[eq14\]). This is obtained from calculations that do not involve the dynamics, such as analyses of series expansions [@HARR84; @LOWE80; @WALL82] and transfer-matrix calculations [@CCAG93; @CCAG94A; @CCAG94B]. These studies, as well as MC work \[108, 171–173\], also indicate that the free-energy cost of the critical droplet is given by Eq. (\[eq3\]) with the zero-field equilibrium values for $\widehat{\Sigma}$ and $\Delta m$. We therefore adopt the notations $\widehat{\Sigma}$=$\widehat{\Sigma}(T)$, $\Delta m$=$2m_{\rm s}(T)$, and $\Xi$=$\Xi(T)$ to emphasize the lack of field dependence in these quantities. The quantity $\widehat{\Sigma}(T)$ can be obtained with arbitrary numerical precision by combining a Wulff construction with the exact, anisotropic zero-field surface tension [@ZIA82], and $m_{\rm s}(T)$ is obtained from the exact Onsager-Yang equation [@YANG52]. These general results, that the surface free energy and bulk magnetization of compact critical droplets are determined by the zero-field equilibrium surface tension and magnetization, respectively, are also supported by MC studies of nucleation rates in three dimensions [@RAY90B; @STAU82; @STAU92]. For dynamics that can be described by a Fokker-Planck equation, it is expected that the kinetic prefactor is proportional to $R_{\rm c}^{-2}$ [@LANG68; @LANG69; @GNW80], which by Eq. (\[eq2a\]) yields $c$=2. This value has been confirmed numerically for the Metropolis algorithm with updates at randomly chosen sites, but it does not appear to apply if the sites are chosen sequentially [@RIKV94A]. The numerical results cited above indicate that CNT, modified by the post-classical results for the prefactor exponents, gives very good agreement with the observed behavior of kinetic Ising and lattice-gas models, even moderately far away from the coexistence curve. A rough estimate for the field strength beyond which the simple droplet theory discussed here should break down (or at least become suspect) is obtained by requiring that $2R_{\rm c}(H,T)$$>$1 [@CCAG94A]. The resulting crossover field is sometimes called the “mean-field spinodal point”, or MFSP [@RIKV94A; @TOMI92A], but it is [not]{} identical to the sharp spinodal found when the Ising ferromagnet is treated in the mean-field approximation. The MFSP is located at $H_{\rm MFSP}(T) = 2(d-1) \sigma_0(T) / 2m_{\rm s}(T)$. The field region beyond this limit we call [the strong-field region]{}. It will not be discussed further here, but we hope to return to it in the future. Growth and the KJMA Theory {#Sec-KJMA} -------------------------- The reasoning behind the Kolmogorov-Johnson-Mehl-Avrami (KJMA) theory is quite simple \[96–98, 175–178\]. Critical droplets are assumed to nucleate in the metastable phase and subsequently grow without substantial deformation [@NAKA60]. (Recent discussions relevant to the limitations of the latter assumption can be found in Refs. \[180–183\].) The nucleation rate $\Gamma$ may either be constant (homogeneous nucleation), or all the nuclei may already be present at $t$=0 (heterogeneous nucleation [@ISHI71]). The KJMA theory is simple to work out for both cases [@ISHI71; @EVAN45], but only the former will be pursued here. The radial growth velocity, which approaches a constant limit for large droplets, is obtained in an “Allen-Cahn” approximation \[72, 73, 175–178, 184–186\] as $$\label{eq6} v_\bot = (d \! - \! 1) \nu \left( R_{\rm c}^{-1} \! - \! R^{-1} \right) \stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle R \rightarrow \infty}{\longrightarrow} (d \! - \! 1) \nu R_{\rm c}^{-1} \equiv v_0 \;,$$ where the coefficient $\nu$ depends on the details of the kinetics. (To avoid confusion, we note that the usual growth law for spinodal decomposition in systems with nonconserved order parameter, $R$$\sim$$t^{1/2}$, results from setting $R_{\rm c}^{-1}$=0 ([i.e.]{}, $H$=0) in Eq. (\[eq6\]). The $R$$\sim$$t$ growth law obtained in the case of metastable decay is a consequence of the difference in bulk free energy between the two phases, which acts as a driving force for the growth [@GUNT83B; @LIFS62; @CHAN77].) If we set $v_\bot$=$v_0$, neglect the volumes of the critical droplets, and consider an uncorrelated “ideal gas” of freely overlapping domains of the stable phase, then the volume fraction of stable phase at time $t$ is $$\label{eqKJMA} \phi_{\rm s}(t) = 1 - \exp \left[ - \Gamma {\Omega_d} v_0^d \int_0^t (t \! - \! s)^d {\rm d}s \right] = 1 - \exp \left[ { - \frac{\Omega_d}{d \! + \! 1} \left( \frac{t}{t_0} \right)^{d+1} } \right] \;,$$ where the integration variable $s$ is the time at which a particular supercritical droplet was nucleated. This relation is known as Avrami’s law. The timescale $t_0$ is the characteristic time for collisionless growth and sets the basic timescale for the decay of the metastable phase. By performing the integration in Eq. (\[eqKJMA\]), one sees that $t_0$ is given by $$\label{eq7a} t_0(T,H) = (v_0^d \Gamma )^{- \frac{1}{d+1}} = B(T) \|H\|^{- \frac{b+c+d}{d+1}} \exp \left[ \frac{1}{d+1} \frac{ \beta \Xi (T) }{ \|H\|^{d-1}} \right] \;,$$ where $B(T)$ is a nonuniversal function of $T$. The second equality in Eq. (\[eq7a\]) was obtained by using Eq. (\[eq4a\]) for the homogeneous nucleation rate $\Gamma(T,H)$, neglecting for simplicity the correction term in the exponential. By comparing Eq. (\[eq7a\]) for $t_0$ with Eq. (\[eq4a\]) for $\Gamma$, we notice that, apart from the pre-exponential factors, the characteristic time $t_0$ is simply given by the nucleation rate to the power $-$$1/(d$+1) [@STAU92]. Associated with $t_0$ is the characteristic lengthscale for collisionless growth, which we loosely call the mean droplet separation. It is given by $$\label{eq7b} R_0(T,H) = v_0 t_0 = C(T) \|H\|^{- \frac{b+c-1}{d+1}} \exp \left[ \frac{1}{d+1} \frac{ \beta \Xi (T) }{ \|H\|^{d-1}} \right] \;,$$ where $C(T)$ is a nonuniversal function of $T$. The lengthscale $R_0$ can be very large for weak fields, and we note that, even though the critical droplet radius $R_{\rm c} \! \sim \! \|H\|^{-1} \! \rightarrow \! \infty$ as $\|H\| \! \rightarrow \! 0$, $R_{\rm c}/R_0 \! \rightarrow \! 0$ in the same limit. The KJMA theory gives a good approximation for sufficiently small $\phi_{\rm s}$ (well below the percolation limit [@STAU92B]) that droplet correlations do not significantly alter the growth, and it quickly became popular for analyzing experimental results on metastable decay in a number of areas. These include situations in which $d$ is smaller than the dimension of the physical space and must be interpreted as the dimension of the subspace in which the droplets grow [@AVRAMI]. However, the theory does not seem to have attracted sustained attention from theorists until the 1980’s, when Sekimoto derived exact expressions for the space-time correlation function and the structure factor for the KJMA process \[175–178\]. These results were later generalized to infinitely [@AXE86] and multiply [@OHTA87] degenerate equilibrium phases, and mean-field results for the multiply degenerate case with multiple nucleation and growth rates have been obtained, both with homogeneous and heterogeneous nucleation [@BRAD89; @ANDR92]. Applications of Eq. (\[eqKJMA\]) have recently been made to theoretical studies of metastable decay in long-range interaction models and ferroelectrics \[35–38\], to nanometer-sized ferromagnetic particles [@RICH94], and to kinetic Ising models [@DUIK90; @BEAL94; @RICH94; @RIKV94A]. Several of these papers contain kinetic MC simulations [@DUIK90; @BEAL94; @RICH94; @RIKV94A; @AXE86; @BRAD89; @ANDR92]. Finite-Size Effects {#Sec-FSE} ------------------- In an infinitely large system, the number of critical and supercritical droplets is of course infinite, and the decay of the order parameter is well described by Avrami’s law, Eq. (\[eqKJMA\]). In this section we consider how finite system size modifies the KJMA picture. Although finite-size scaling has been extremely useful in the study of equilibrium critical phenomena (see, [e.g.]{}, Ref. [@PRIV90B]), systematic finite-size analysis of metastable decay seems to have been performed only recently [@ORIH92; @DUIK90; @RIKV94A; @TOMI92A]. The discussion below follows closely that of Ref. [@RIKV94A]. For simplicity we retain our exclusive focus on hypercubic systems of volume $L^d$ with periodic boundary conditions. For temperatures well below the critical temperature $T_{\rm c}$ and fields inside the MFSP, the correlation lengths in both the stable and the metastable phase are microscopic. We are then left to consider the interplay between three lengths: the system size $L$, the mean droplet separation $R_0$, and the critical radius $R_{\rm c}$. In the large-$L$ limit, where $$\label{eq10} L \gg R_0 \gg R_{\rm c} \;,$$ the system can be approximately partitioned into $(L/R_0)^d \! \gg \! 1$ cells of volume $R_0^d$. Each cell decays in an independent Poisson process of rate $R_0^d \Gamma \! = \! t_0^{-1}$. The volume fraction is then self-averaging, so that Eq. (\[eqKJMA\]) can be inverted to yield the average time it takes for the volume fraction of the equilibrium phase to increase to a given value $\phi_{\rm s}$, $$\label{eq9} \langle t(\phi_{\rm s}) \rangle \approx t_0(T,H) \left[ - \frac{d \! + \! 1}{\Omega_d} \ln (1 \! - \! \phi_{\rm s}) \right]^{\frac{1}{d+1}} \;.$$ The relative standard deviation of $t(\phi_{\rm s})$ is $$\label{eq10b} r = \frac{\sqrt{\langle t(\phi_{\rm s})^2 \rangle - \langle t(\phi_{\rm s}) \rangle^2 }} {\langle t(\phi_{\rm s}) \rangle} \approx (R_0/L)^{\frac{d}{2}} \rho \;,$$ where $\rho$$\approx$1 is the relative standard deviation of a single Poisson process (not to be confused with the lattice-gas density defined in Eq. (\[LGm\])). The regime characterized by $r \! \ll \! 1$ has been termed “the deterministic region” [@RIKV94A; @TOMI92A]. It is subdivided into the strong-field region mentioned in Sec. \[Sec-SRFn\], and a region characterized by a finite density of growing droplets, which we call [the multi-droplet region]{} [@RIKV94A]. Observations of the deterministic region in MC simulations are also indicated in Refs. [@DUIK90; @BEAL94; @RICH94; @RAY90B; @RIKV94A; @BIND74; @STOL77; @STAU92]. The characteristic absence of $L$-dependence in the multi-droplet regime was noted by Binder and M[ü]{}ller-Krumbhaar, who also derived equations equivalent to Eqs. (\[eqKJMA\]) and (\[eq9\]) [@BIND74]. Although the main emphasis was on the nucleation process, the multi-droplet picture was also implied in Langer’s work \[76–78\]. For smaller $L$, so that $$\label{eq11} R_0 \gg L \gg R_{\rm c} \;,$$ the random nucleation of a single critical droplet in a Poisson process of rate $L^d \Gamma$ is the rate-determining step. This is followed by relatively rapid growth, until this droplet occupies the entire system after an additional time much shorter than the average waiting time before a second droplet nucleates. Therefore, the characteristic lifetime becomes $$\label{eq12} \langle t(\phi_{\rm s}) \rangle \approx \left( L^d \Gamma(T,H) \right)^{-1} \approx L^{-d} [A(T)]^{-1} \|H\|^{-(b+c)} \exp \left[ \frac{ \beta \Xi (T) }{ \|H\|^{d-1}} \right] \;.$$ In this case $r \! \approx \! 1$, and $\langle t(\phi_{\rm s}) \rangle$ depends only weakly on the threshold $\phi_{\rm s}$. This single-droplet region is part of “the stochastic region” identified in Ref. [@TOMI92A], and it was detected in MC simulations in Refs. [@DUIK90; @BEAL94; @RICH94; @RAY90B; @RIKV94A; @STOL77; @MCCR78; @STAU92]. The crossover between the deterministic and stochastic regimes is determined by the condition $L \! \propto \! R_0$ with a proportionality constant of order unity. We identify the crossover field with the “dynamic spinodal point” (DSP) introduced in Ref. [@TOMI92A], and in the limit $H \! \rightarrow \! 0$ we explicitly obtain from Eq. (\[eq7b\]) $$\label{eq15} H_{\rm DSP} \sim \left( \ln L \right)^{- \frac{1}{d-1}} \;.$$ This crossover field was observed in MC simulations reported in Refs. [@DUIK90; @BEAL94; @RICH94; @RAY90B; @RIKV94A; @STOL77; @STAU92]. Following Refs. [@RIKV94A; @TOMI92A], we estimate $H_{\rm DSP}$ as the field where the relative standard deviation for the lifetime is $r$=1/2. We emphasize that, although $H_{\rm DSP}$ vanishes as $L \! \rightarrow \! \infty$, the approach to zero is exceedingly slow, especially for $d$=3 and above. Therefore, $H_{\rm DSP}$ may well be measurably different from zero for systems that are definitely macroscopic as far as their equilibrium properties are concerned. (As an illustration, increasing $L$ from 100 to 10$^{10}$ for $d$=3 decreases the leading term in $H_{\rm DSP}$ only to approximately one-half of its original value!) Finally, we consider the small-$L$ limit, $$\label{eq16} R_0 \gg R_{\rm c} \gg L \;.$$ In this case the volume term can be neglected in Eq. (\[eq5\]), and the free-energy cost of a droplet occupying a volume fraction $\phi_{\rm s} \! = \! V(R)/L^d$ is $F(\phi_{\rm s}) \! \propto \! L^{d-1} \phi_{\rm s}^{(d-1)/d} \widehat{\Sigma}(T)$ with a proportionality constant between 1 and 1/$d$, so that the first-passage time to a given $\phi_{\rm s}$ is independent of $H$ and diverges exponentially with $L^{d-1}$. Since the dynamics in this region of extremely weak fields or extremely small systems is similar to that on the coexistence line, $H$=0 [@WIES94], we call it [the coexistence region]{}. The crossover field between the coexistence and single-droplet regions, called “the thermodynamic spinodal point” (THSP) in Ref. [@TOMI92A], is determined for a given $\phi_{\rm s}$ by $\Omega_d (R_{\rm c}/L)^d \! = \! \phi_{\rm s}$, which yields $$\label{eq17} H_{\rm THSP} = \frac{1}{L \phi_{\rm s}^{1/d}} \frac{(d \! - \! 1) \widehat{\Sigma}(T)}{2 d m_{\rm s}(T)} \;.$$ This crossover field was observed in MC simulations reported in Refs. [@RICH94; @RIKV94A; @MCCR78]. In summary, by comparing the characteristic lengths $R_0$ and $R_{\rm c}$ with the lattice constant and the system size $L$, one can identify four different field regions, in which the decay proceeds through different excitations. In order of increasingly strong unfavorable field $\|H\|$, these are the “coexistence region,” characterized by subcritical fluctuations on the scale of the system volume; the “single-droplet region,” characterized by decay via a single critical droplet; the “multi-droplet region,” characterized by decay via a finite density of droplets; and the “strong-field region,” in which the droplet picture is inappropriate. The crossover fields between these regions, $$\label{eq20} [ H_{\rm THSP} \! \sim \! L^{-1} ] < [ H_{\rm DSP} \! \sim \! (\ln L)^{-\frac{1}{d-1}} ] < [ H_{\rm MFSP} \sim L^0 ] \, ,$$ are accurately predicted by droplet theory. The different regions and crossover fields are illustrated in Figs. \[figA\]–\[figC\]. In Fig. \[figA\] are shown average metastable lifetimes for $L$$\times$$L$ square Ising ferromagnets with $L$=128 and 720 at $T$=0.8$T_{\rm c}$. The data points were obtained by the Metropolis algorithm with updates at randomly chosen sites [@RIKV94A] and have here been extrapolated past $H_{\rm THSP}$ for $L$=128 (given by Eq. (\[eq17\])), using Eq. (\[eq12\]) for the lifetime in the single-droplet region. The four field regions can clearly be distinguished. An alternative view of the information contained in Fig. \[figA\] is found in Fig. \[figH\], which shows as a function of $L$ the field $H_{\rm sw}$ at which $\langle t(\phi_{\rm s}$=1/2)$\rangle \! = \! \tau$, plotted for two different values of $\tau$ at $T$=0.8$T_{\rm c}$ [@RICH94]. This figure corresponds to a contour plot of data like those shown in Fig. \[figA\]. In accordance with usage in the experimental literature on small magnetic particles \[41–48\], we call $H_{\rm sw}$ the “switching field.” For qualitative comparison we have also included in Fig. \[figH\] data digitized from Fig. 5 of Ref. [@CHAN93], which shows the effective switching field (corrected for the demagnetization field) [vs.]{} the particle diameter for single-domain ferromagnetic barium ferrite particles, measured by magnetic-force microscopy at room temperature. Considering the different dimensionalities of the model and the experimental system, and that no particular effort was made to fit the parameters in the Ising model to the experiments, we find the similarity between the simulated and the experimental switching fields striking. This qualitative agreement may indicate that the decay of the metastable magnetization state in the barium ferrite particles proceeds through similar nucleation and growth mechanisms as in the Ising model, and it should be relevant to the current debate over the magnetization reversal mode in single-domain ferromagnetic particles \[42–48\]. In both the multi-droplet and the single-droplet regions, the metastable lifetime (determined by Eqs. (\[eq7a\]) and (\[eq12\]), respectively) has the form of an exponential in $1/\|H\|^{d-1}$ multiplied by a power-law prefactor in $\|H\|$. In both regions the derivative of $\ln \langle t(\phi_{\rm s}) \rangle$ with respect to $1/\|H\|^{d-1}$ can therefore be written as $$\label{eq13} \Lambda_{\rm eff} \equiv \frac{{\rm d} \, \ln \langle t(\phi_{\rm s}) \rangle} {{\rm d} \, (1/\|H\|^{d-1})} = \lambda \|H\|^{d-1} + \Lambda \;,$$ with $\lambda \! = \! (b \! + \! c)/(d \! - \! 1)$ and $\Lambda \! = \! \beta \Xi(T)$ in the single-droplet region, and $\lambda \! = \! (b \! + \! c \! + \! d)/(d^2 \! - \! 1)$ and $\Lambda \! = \! \beta \Xi(T)/(d \! + \! 1)$ in the multi-droplet region. The quantity $\Lambda_{\rm eff}$, calculated from the MC data in Fig. \[figA\], is shown in Fig. \[figB\]. The dashed straight lines correspond to Eq. (\[eq13\]) with the theoretically expected exponent $b$+$c$=3 and the numerically exact $\Xi(0.8T_{\rm c})$ [@ZIA82] (see discussion in Sec. \[Sec-SRFn\]). The data points for both system sizes follow the lower of the two lines in the weak-field part of the multi-droplet region. The steep rise in $\Lambda_{\rm eff}$ expected near $H_{\rm DSP}$ is seen for both systems. However, only the smaller one penetrates into the single-droplet region in the field range for which data could be obtained with a reasonable amount of computer time. A detailed statistical analysis is given in Ref. [@RIKV94A]. Due to the dramatic increase in the metastable lifetime as $T$ is lowered, numerical data confirming the theoretical predictions at lower temperatures must be obtained by other techniques, such as the CTM method or one of the new MC methods discussed in Sec. \[Sec-Cmet\]. In Fig. \[figC\] we show the temperature dependence of $H_{\rm DSP}$ for $L$$\times$$L$ systems with $L$=24 and 240, as obtained by the new MC with absorbing Markov Chains (MCAMC) method \[113–115\], together with our analytic estimate for $H_{\rm MFSP}$. The slow decay of $H_{\rm DSP}$ with $L$ predicted by Eq. (\[eq15\]) can be seen. Also note the dramatic widening of the single-droplet region as $T$ is lowered for a system of fixed size, in agreement with recent exact predictions [@MART91; @NEVE91; @SCHO92]. Confirmation that the quantity $\Xi(T)$ is given by its zero-field equilibrium value is given in Fig. \[figD\] (after Ref. [@GORM94B]), which shows estimates of $\Xi(T)$ for $T$ between 0.17$T_{\rm c}$ ($T/J$=0.4) and 0.8$T_{\rm c}$ based on the CTM method [@CCAG93; @CCAG94A], MCAMC simulations [@NOVO94C], and standard Metropolis MC simulations [@RIKV94A]. The CTM estimates were obtained by fitting the logarithmic derivative of the metastable $\|{\rm Im}f_\alpha\|$ to Eq. (\[eq13\]) with $b$=1, $c$=0, and the correction term from Eq. (\[eq4a\]) included. The numerical estimates for $\Xi(T)$ obtained by the different methods agree very well with each other, as well as with the exact equilibrium result. Discrete-Lattice Effects {#Sec-DL} ------------------------ Recently, a series of rigorous papers \[106, 193, 194, 196–198\] have appeared that discuss effects of the lattice discreteness on the metastable lifetimes in the limit $T$$\rightarrow$0. The approach is to consider a birth-death process describing the time dependence of the fluctuations corresponding to subcritical droplets in the two-dimensional Ising ferromagnet with single-spin-flip Metropolis [@NEVE91; @SCHO92; @SCOP93; @KOTE93] or modified Swendsen-Wang [@MART91] dynamics. For isotropic interactions [@MART91; @NEVE91; @SCHO92; @SCOP93] and $\|H\|/J$$<$2 it is shown that the metastable phase almost certainly decays through a single “proto-critical” droplet of spins pointing parallel to the field. This droplet is shaped like a rectangle of $l_{\rm c}$$\times$$(l_{\rm c}$$-$1) overturned spins, with one additional overturned spin attached as a “knob” to one of its long sides. The length $l_{\rm c}$=$ \left\lceil 2J/\|H\| \right\rceil $ is the smallest integer larger than $2J/\|H\|$, where $2J/\|H\| = \lim_{T \rightarrow 0} 2 R_{\rm c}(T,H)$ is the zero-temperature limit of the diameter of the critical droplet. In the zero-temperature limit the average metastable lifetime is found to be a piecewise linear function in $\|H\|$ which diverges asymptotically as $1/\|H\|$ for small $\|H\|$. It is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq-lat2} \lim_{T \rightarrow 0} k_{\rm B} T \ln \left ( L^2 \langle t(\phi_{\rm s} \! = \! 1) \rangle \right) &=& 8Jl_{\rm c} \! - \! \left( l_{\rm c}^2 \! - \! l_{\rm c} \! + \! 1 \right)2\|H\| \nonumber \\ &\sim& 8J^2/\|H\| + 4J -O(\|H\|) \;.\end{aligned}$$ These results are significant for two reasons. First, they provide an explicit dynamical justification for the existence of a critical droplet size in kinetic Ising models. Second, they generalize the standard continuum droplet theory outlined in Sec. \[Sec-SRFn\] to consider the discreteness of the lattice. Using the exact zero-temperature value, $\widehat{\Sigma}(T$=$0) \! = \! 8J$, one sees that Eq. (\[eq-lat2\]) is consistent to leading order in $J/\|H\|$ with the continuum droplet-theory result for $\Gamma$, Eqs. (\[eq4a\]) and (\[eq4b\]). The temperatures at which these discrete-lattice results are expected to be valid are so low as to be inaccessible with standard MC techniques. However, they are readily accessible, both with the MCAMC method \[113–115\] and with the CTM method [@CCAG93; @CCAG94A]. Results obtained with these methods are shown in Fig. \[figE\], together with the derivative of the first line in Eq. (\[eq-lat2\]) with respect to $1/\|H\|$ and the corresponding quantity in continuum droplet theory, $k_{\rm B}T \Lambda _{\rm eff}$ from Eq. (\[eq13\]). The discrete-lattice results are represented by the series of solid, parabolic arcs, and the continuum results for the single-droplet region are represented by the two straight lines. The dashed line corresponds to $b$=1 and $c$=2, which is appropriate for the MC results, whereas the dotted line corresponds to $b$=1 and $c$=0 and is appropriate for the CTM results which do not contain a kinetic prefactor. For relatively strong fields, the MC data agree reasonably well with the discrete-lattice predictions. For weaker fields, where the critical droplets become larger, the oscillations caused by the lattice discreteness become less pronounced, and the MC data points appear to approach the continuum result. The CTM method allows a closer approach to $H$=0 than the MC, but the deviations from the continuum result are larger than for the MC at the same field. A detailed comparison of the manner in which the results obtained by the two methods approach their respective continuum limits, represented by the two straight lines which intersect at the common zero-field limit $\xi$, has yet to be performed. It is likely to involve both the difference between the geometries of the two systems studied (square for MC and infinite strip for CTM) and the fact that the CTM quantities can be evaluated only at particular fields determined by the lobe structure of the metastable $\|{\rm Im}f_\alpha\|$ [@CCAG93; @CCAG94A], which is similar to the one shown for the WLRF Q1DI model in Fig. \[figQ1DIa\]. The theoretical and numerical results discussed in this subsection raise a number of questions that should be answerable using the new MC and TM algorithms. In particular it is important to understand how the lifetimes cross over to the well confirmed results of continuum nucleation theory at higher temperatures and weaker fields, and also how the lifetimes and the crossover to continuum theory are affected by a change from Metropolis to Glauber dynamics. Furthermore, some rather dramatic effects have been predicted for the case of anisotropic interactions as $T$$\rightarrow$0 [@KOTE93]. No sign of these effects were found in a recent study by the CTM method [@CCAG94B], and a further investigation by the MCAMC method is in progress. Summary and Discussion {#Sec-D} ====================== In this review we have presented some aspects of the current knowledge regarding the mechanisms and rates of decay of metastable phases in statistical-mechanical systems. With its record of 270 years of published research in a variety of basic and applied contexts following Fahrenheit’s 1724 paper [@F1724], this is indeed a venerable field of inquiry. Yet we believe it is a sign of continued vigor and relevance that nearly half of the references we cite have appeared within the last decade. It is now well understood that metastable decay is a kinetic phenomenon, whose rate depends on the interplay between the (homogeneous and/or heterogeneous) nucleation of critical droplets of the equilibrium phase and on the subsequent growth of the supercritical droplets. Formally, the nucleation rate is given by the Van’t Hoff-Arrhenius relation of classical nucleation theory, Eq. (\[eqCNT\]), or the field-theoretical relation, Eq. (\[eqLANG\]) \[76–78\], and the simultaneous nucleation and growth give rise to “Avrami’s law”, Eq. (\[eqKJMA\]) \[96–98\]. However, both the free energy $F_{\rm c}$ of the critical droplet and the pre-exponential factor $\cal P$ in Eq. (\[eqCNT\]) (both of which are contained in the imaginary part of the metastable free energy, Im$\widetilde{f}$, in Eq. (\[eqLANG\])) depend crucially on the geometry of the critical droplet. Whereas the shape of the critical droplet determines the exponential factor in Eq. (\[eqCNT\]), the prefactor is determined by the fluctuations around the critical droplet shape. The latter is evaluated in the “post-classical” field-theoretical approach by a steepest-descent calculation around a saddle point representing the critical droplet. If the order parameter is constrained to be uniform over the entire system, so that $F_{\rm c}$ becomes extensive in the system size, one recovers the mean-field picture of van der Waals [@VDW1873], Maxwell [@MAXW1874], and N[é]{}el [@NEEL49]. In this picture the metastable phases are infinitely long-lived in the limit of infinite system size, and the limit of metastability is marked by a sharp spinodal line. A different class of systems are the weak-long-range-force (WLRF) models discussed in Sec. \[Sec-LRF\], which may be useful models for, [e.g.]{}, superconductors, long-chain polymers, and systems with elastic interactions. These models also have infinitely long-lived metastability and a sharp spinodal in the limit of infinite interaction range [@PENR71; @PENR79; @HEMM76]. However, the critical droplet is a ramified object \[92, 93, 153–155\] whose free energy is given in terms of the interaction range and the distance from the spinodal by Eq. (\[eqQ1DIb\]) [@KLEI83; @UNGE84], and the resulting nucleation rate is given by Eq. (\[eqQ1DIe\]). The agreement between these analytical results and the numerical constrained-transfer-matrix (CTM) method is shown in Fig. \[figQ1DIb\] [@GORM94], which illustrates the dramatic increase in metastable lifetime as the distance from the mean-field spinodal increases. For short-range-force (SRF) models, which are useful to represent, [e.g.]{}, anisotropic magnets governed by exchange interactions, and which belong to the same static universality class as the liquid/vapor phase transition, the situation is again different. In this case the critical droplet is a compact object with a radius $R_{\rm c}$ given by Eq. (\[eq2a\]), and $F_{\rm c}$ is given by Eq. (\[eq3\]). The nucleation rate from the field-theoretical saddle-point calculation is given in Eqs. (\[eq4a\])–(\[eq14\]) \[76–78, 90\], and the effects of simultaneous nucleation and growth are reflected in the explicit form of Avrami’s law, Eqs. (\[eqKJMA\]) and (\[eq7a\]) \[96–98\]. In contrast to mean-field and WLRF systems, SRF systems do [not]{} have a sharp spinodal. Finite-size effects represent an aspect of metastable kinetics which has attracted increased attention in recent years [@ORIH92; @DUIK90; @RIKV94A; @TOMI92A]. For SRF systems, these effects give rise to different dependences of the metastable lifetime on applied field (or chemical potential, pressure, or supersaturation) and system size for different values of these parameters. These regions are separated by [size dependent]{} crossover fields: the thermodynamic spinodal field $H_{\rm THSP}$ given in Eq. (\[eq17\]), the dynamic spinodal field $H_{\rm DSP}$ given in Eq. (\[eq15\]), and the size-[in]{}dependent “mean-field” spinodal field $H_{\rm MFSP}$. For $H_{\rm THSP} \! < \! \|H\| \! < \! H_{\rm DSP}$ the decay occurs through a [single]{} droplet, and the mean lifetime is given by the inverse nucleation rate through Eq. (\[eq12\]). In contrast, for $H_{\rm DSP} \! < \! \|H\| \! < \! H_{\rm MFSP}$ the decay involves a [nonzero density]{} of simultaneously nucleating and growing droplets, and the mean lifetime is given by Avrami’s law through Eqs. (\[eq7a\]) and (\[eq9\]). The detailed agreement between these analytical results and Monte Carlo (MC) simulations is illustrated in Fig. \[figA\], which shows the dramatic dependence on 1/$\|H\|^{d-1}$ of the logarithm of the average metastable lifetime for two-dimensional systems of different sizes. Similar agreement has also been demonstrated for three-dimensional systems \[130–132\], and a rigorous justification for the nucleation-theory results has been obtained in two dimensions at very low temperatures \[106, 193, 194, 196–198\]. Further agreement between analytic theory and simulation results is illustrated in Figs. \[figB\], \[figD\], and \[figE\]. A number of questions regarding metastable decay still remain to be answered. Probably some of the most difficult ones are related to fluids, which we discussed briefly in Sec. \[Sec-LV\]. In particular we would like to see developed a droplet definition as unambiguous as the “Fortuin-Kastelyn-Coniglio-Klein-Swendsen-Wang” definition \[104–106, 145–147\] currently used for Ising and lattice-gas systems. Some of the most exciting potential for both fundamental and technological progress may lie in combining modern “atomic engineering” techniques, such as atomic and magnetic force microscopies, with computer simulation. Using these experimental techniques, one could both build and study well-characterized metastable systems. Employing state-of-the-art computer hardware and algorithms, one could simulate these same systems with tens to billions [@ITO93; @STAU92] of particles. This approach should provide the opportunity to study effects of size, boundary conditions, and impurities by a combination of theory, simulation, and experiment in a carefully controlled manner. A step in this direction was recently taken by Richards [et al.]{} [@RICH94], some of whose results are shown together with experimental data from Ref. [@CHAN93] in Fig. \[figH\]. In summary, we think the field of metastability is a healthy 270-year-old with a long, exciting life ahead of it. Acknowledgments P.A.R. dedicates this article to the memory of his father, Per Rikvold (1919–1994). We gratefully acknowledge discussions with M. A. Novotny, C. C. A. G[ü]{}nther, H. L. Richards, and J. Lee, correspondence with J. Lothe, K. Nishioka, H. Reiss, and D. Stauffer, and permission to use published and unpublished data by M. A. Novotny, C. C. A. G[ü]{}nther, H. L. Richards, and S. W. Sides. This work was supported by Florida State University through the Supercomputer Computations Research Institute (U.S. Department of Energy Contract No.DE-FC05-85ER25000) and the Center for Materials Research and Technology, and by the U.S. National Science Foundation Grants No. DMR-9013107 and DMR-9315969. [100]{} D. B. Fahrenheit, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. [33]{}, 78 (1724), in Latin. German translation in [Abhandlungen [ü]{}ber Thermometrie von Fahrenheit, R[é]{}aumur, Celsius]{}, edited by A. J. von Oettingen, Ostwald’s Klassiker der exakten Wissenschaften, No. 57 (Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig, 1894), p. 6. J. D. van der Waals, Ph.D. Dissertation (University of Leiden, Leiden, 1873). J. C. Maxwell (1875), in [The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell]{}, edited by W. D. Niven (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1890), Vol. II, p. 425. Reprinted by Dover, New York, 1965. J. W. Gibbs, Trans. Conn. Acad. Sci. [3]{}, 108 (1876); [3]{} 343 (1878). Reprinted in Ref. [@GIBBR]. J. W. Gibbs, [The Scientific Papers of J. Willard Gibbs]{} (Longmans Green, London, 1906), Vol. I, pp. 252–258. Reprinted by Dover, New York, 1961. J. Rice, in [A Commentary on the Scientific Writings of J. Willard Gibbs]{}, edited by F. G. Donnan and A. Haas (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1936), Vol. I, pp. 625–631. Reprinted by Arno Press, New York, 1980. M. Volmer and A. Weber, Z. Phys. Chem. (Leipzig) [119]{}, 277 (1926). Z. Farkas, Z. Phys. Chem. (Leipzig) [A125]{}, 236 (1927). R. Becker and W. D[ö]{}ring, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) [24]{}, 719 (1935). J. B. Zeldovich, Acta Physicochim (U.R.S.S.) [18]{}, 1 (1943). I. Frenkel, [Kinetic Theory of Liquids]{} (Oxford University Press, London, 1946), Ch. VII. Reprinted by Dover, New York, 1965. A. Bijl, [Discontinuities in the Energy and Specific Heat]{} Ph.D. Dissertation (University of Leiden, Leiden, 1938). J. Frenkel, J. Chem. Phys. [7]{}, 200 (1939). W. Band, J. Chem. Phys. [7]{}, 324; 927 (1939). J. W. Cahn and J. E. Hilliard, J. Chem. Phys. [28]{}, 258 (1958). J. W. Cahn and J. E. Hilliard, J. Chem. Phys. [31]{}, 688 (1959). J. E. McDonald, Am. J. Phys. [30]{}, 870 (1962); [31]{}, 31 (1963). Reprinted in Ref. [@ABRA74]. F. F. Abraham, [Homogeneous Nucleation Theory]{} (Academic, New York, 1974). W. J. Dunning, in [Nucleation]{}, edited by A. C. Zettlemoyer (Marcel Dekker, New York, 1969), p. 1. J. Lothe and G. M. Pound, J. Chem. Phys. [36]{}, 2080 (1962). J. Feder, K. C. Russell, J. Lothe, and G. M. Pound, Adv. Phys., 111 (1966). J. Lothe and G. M. Pound, in [Nucleation]{}, edited by A. C. Zettlemoyer (Marcel Dekker, New York, 1969), p. 109. K. Nishioka, in [Nucleation Phenomena]{}, edited by A. C. Zettlemoyer (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1977), p. 205. K. Nishioka, Phys. Scr. [T44]{}, 23 (1992). V. Talanquer and D. W. Oxtoby, J. Chem. Phys. [100]{}, 5190 (1994). W. C. Swope and H. C. Andersen, Phys. Rev. B [41]{}, 7042 (1990). H. M. Ellerby, C. L. Weakliem, and H. Reiss, J. Chem. Phys. [95]{}, 9209 (1991). H. M. Ellerby and H. Reiss, J. Chem. Phys. [97]{}, 5766 (1992). C. L. Weakliem and H. Reiss, J. Chem. Phys. [99]{}, 5374 (1993). J. S. van Duijneveldt and D. Frenkel, J. Chem. Phys. [96]{}, 4655 (1992). D. W. Oxtoby, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [4]{}, 7627 (1992). W. N. Cottingham, D. Kalafatis, and R. Vinh Mau, Phys. Rev. B [48]{}, 6788 (1993). Y. Ishibashi and Y. Takagi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [31]{}, 506 (1971). P. B. Littlewood and P. Chandra, Phys. Rev. Lett. [57]{}, 2415 (1986). P. Chandra, Phys. Rev. A [39]{}, 3672 (1989). H. Orihara and Y. Ishibashi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [61]{}, 1919 (1992). H. M. Duiker and P. D. Beale, Phys. Rev. B [41]{}, 490 (1990). P. D. Beale, Integrated Ferroelectrics [4]{}, 107 (1994). L. N[é]{}el, Ann. G[é]{}ophys. [5]{}, 99 (1949). E. F. Kneller and F. E. Luborsky, J. Appl. Phys. [34]{}, 656 (1963). E. K[ö]{}ster and T. C. Arnoldussen, in [Magnetic Recording. Volume I: Technology]{}, edited by C. D. Mee and E. D. Daniel (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1987), p. 98. A. Aharoni, in [Magnetic Properties of Fine Particles]{}, edited by J. L. Dormann and D. Fiorani (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1992), p. 3. H.-B. Braun, Phys. Rev. Lett. [71]{}, 3557 (1993). H.-B. Braun, preprint (1994). T. Chang, J.-G. Zhu, and J. H. Judy, J. Appl. Phys. [73]{}, 6716 (1993). M. Lederman, G. A. Gibson, and S. Schultz, J. Appl. Phys. [73]{}, 6961 (1993). M. Lederman, D. R. Fredkin, R. O’Barr, S. Schultz, and M. Ozaki, J. Appl. Phys. [75]{}, 6217 (1994). C. Salling, R. O’Barr, S. Schultz, I. McFadyen, and M. Ozaki, J. Appl. Phys. [75]{}, 7989 (1994). H. L. Richards, S. W. Sides, P. A. Rikvold, and M. A. Novotny, in preparation. Y. N. Ovchinnikov and I. M. Sigal, Phys. Rev. B [48]{}, 1085 (1993). K. Kajantie, in [Dynamics of First Order Phase Transitions]{}, edited by H. J. Herrmann, W. Janke, and F. Karsch (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992), p. 149. M. Hackel, M. Faber, M. Markum, and M. M[ü]{}ller, in [Dynamics of First Order Phase Transitions]{}, edited by H. J. Herrmann, W. Janke, and F. Karsch (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992), p. 189. S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D [15]{}, 2929 (1977). C. G. Callan and S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D [16]{}, 1762 (1977). M. Gleiser and E. Kolb, in [Dynamics of First Order Phase Transitions]{}, edited by H. J. Herrmann, W. Janke, and F. Karsch (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992), p. 1. J. Kripfganz, in [Dynamics of First Order Phase Transitions]{}, edited by H. J. Herrmann, W. Janke, and F. Karsch (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992), p. 11. W. Buchm[ü]{}ller and T. Helbig, in [Dynamics of First Order Phase Transitions]{}, edited by H. J. Herrmann, W. Janke, and F. Karsch (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992), p. 27. O. Penrose and J. L. Lebowitz, J. Stat. Phys. [3]{}, 211 (1971). O. Penrose and J. L. Lebowitz, in [Fluctuation Phenomena]{}, edited by E. W. Montroll and J. L. Lebowitz (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979), Chap. 5, p. 293. G. L. Sewell, Phys. Repts. [57]{}, 308 (1980). P. C. Hohenberg and B. Halperin, Rev. Mod. Phys. [49]{}, 435 (1977). M. Acharyya and B. K. Chakrabarti, in this volume. See, [e.g.]{}, H. E. Stanley, [Introduction to Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena]{} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1971). N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, J. Chem. Phys. [21]{}, 1087 (1953). R. J. Glauber, J. Math. Phys. [4]{}, 294 (1963). Ph. A. Martin, J. Stat. Phys. [16]{}, 149 (1977). V. A. Shneidman and P. H[ä]{}nggi, J. Chem. Phys. (1994), in press. U. R. Evans, Trans. Faraday Soc. [41]{}, 365 (1945). J. E. Mayer, J. Chem. Phys. [5]{}, 67 (1937). J. H. Van’t Hoff, [Etudes de Dynamiques Chimiques]{} (F. Muller and Co., Amsterdam, 1884), p. 114. S. Arrhenius, Z. Phys. Chem. (Leipzig) [4]{}, 226 (1889). J. D. Gunton and M. Droz, [Introduction to the Theory of Metastable and Unstable States]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1983). J. D. Gunton, M. San Miguel, and P. S. Sahni, in [Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena]{}, edited by C. Domb and J. L. Lebowitz (Academic, New York, 1983), Vol. 8. K. Binder, Rep. Prog. Phys. [50]{}, 783 (1987). M. E. Fisher, in [Proceedings of the Gibbs Symposium, Yale University, May 15–17, 1989]{}, edited by G. D. Mostow and D. G. Caldi (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1990). J. S. Langer, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [41]{}, 108 (1967). J. S. Langer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [21]{}, 973 (1968). J. S. Langer, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [54]{}, 258 (1969). A. F. Andreev, Sov. Phys. JETP [18]{}, 1415 (1964). M. E. Fisher, Physics [3]{}, 255 (1967). R. Landauer and J. A. Swanson, Phys. Rev. [121]{}, 1668 (1961). H. A. Kramers, Physica [7]{}, 284 (1940). C. M. Newman and L. S. Schulman, J. Stat. Phys. [23]{}, 131 (1980). G. Roepstorf and L. S. Schulman, J. Stat. Phys. [34]{}, 35 (1984). B. Gaveau and L. S. Schulman, Lett. Math. Phys. [18]{}, 201 (1989). O. Penrose, J. Stat. Phys. (1994), in press. M. B[ü]{}ttiker and R. Landauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [43]{}, 1453 (1979). M. B[ü]{}ttiker and R. Landauer, Phys. Rev. A [23]{}, 1397 (1981). R. J. McCraw, Phys. Lett. A [75]{}, 379 (1980). N. J. G[ü]{}nther, D. A. Nicole, and D. J. Wallace, J. Phys. A [13]{}, 1755 (1980). W. Zwerger, J. Phys. A [18]{}, 2079 (1985). W. Klein and C. Unger, Phys. Rev. B [28]{}, 445 (1983). C. Unger and W. Klein, Phys. Rev. B [29]{}, 2698 (1984). B. M. Gorman, P. A. Rikvold, and M. A. Novotny, Phys. Rev. E [49]{}, 2711 (1994). T. Fiig, B. M. Gorman, P. A. Rikvold, and M. A. Novotny, Phys. Rev. E (1994), in press. A. N. Kolmogorov, Bull. Acad. Sci. USSR, Phys. Ser. [1]{}, 355 (1937). W. A. Johnson and P. A. Mehl, Trans. Am. Inst. Mining and Metallurgical Engineers [135]{}, 416 (1939). M. Avrami, J. Chem. Phys. [7]{}, 1103 (1939); [8]{}, 212 (1940); [9]{}, 177 (1941). H. M[ü]{}ller-Krumbhaar and K. Binder, J. Stat. Phys. [8]{}, 1 (1973). R. Swendsen and J.-S. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [58]{}, 86 (1987). K. Binder, J. Comput. Phys. [59]{}, 1 (1985). K. Binder, in [Monte Carlo Methods in Statistical Physics, Second Edition]{}, edited by K. Binder (Springer, Berlin, 1986). R. M. Neal, University of Toronto Department of Computer Science Technical Report CRG-TR-93-1 (1993). This review with annotated bibliography is available on the Internet from [email protected]. T. S. Ray and P. Tamayo, J. Stat. Phys. [60]{}, 851 (1990). T. S. Ray and J.-S. Wang, Physica [A 167]{}, 580 (1990). F. Martinelli, E. Olivieri, and E. Scoppola, J. Stat. Phys. [62]{}, 135 (1991). K. Kawasaki, in [Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena]{}, edited by C. Domb and M. Green (Academic, London, 1972), Vol. 2. P. A. Rikvold, H. Tomita, S. Miyashita, and S. W. Sides, Phys. Rev. E [49]{}, 5080 (1994). N. Ito, Physica A [192]{}, 604 (1993). H. Tomita and S. Miyashita, Phys. Rev. B [46]{}, 8886 (1992). H. Tomita and S. Miyashita, in [Computational Approaches in Condensed-Matter Physics]{}, edited by S. Miyashita, M. Imada, and H. Takayama (Springer, Berlin, 1992), p. 278. M. Iosifescu, [Finite Markov Processes and their Application]{} (Wiley, New York, 1980), p. 99. M. A. Novotny, in [Computer Simulation Studies in Condensed Matter Physics VII]{}, edited by D. P. Landau, K. K. Mon, and B. Sch[ü]{}ttler (Springer, Berlin, in press). M. A. Novotny, submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett. M. A. Novotny, in preparation. A. B. Bortz, M. H. Kalos, and J. L. Lebowitz, J. Comput. Phys. [17]{}, 10 (1975). J. Lee, M. A. Novotny, and P. A. Rikvold, in preparation. B. A. Berg and T. Celik, Phys. Rev. Lett. [69]{}, 2292 (1992), and references cited therein. K. Binder, Phys. Rev. B [8]{}, 3423 (1973). E. Stoll and T. Schneider, Phys. Rev. A [6]{}, 429 (1972). K. Binder and E. Stoll, Phys. Rev. Lett. [31]{}, 47 (1973). K. Binder and H. M[ü]{}ller-Krumbhaar, Phys. Rev. B [9]{}, 2328 (1974). A review of early MC work on metastable decay is given by K. Binder, in [Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena]{}, edited by C. Domb and M. Green (Academic, London, 1976), Vol. 5B. K. Binder, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [98]{}, 390 (1976). K. Binder and D. Stauffer, Adv. Phys. [25]{}, 343 (1976). E. Stoll and T. Schneider, Physica [86–88B]{}, 1419 (1977). R. J. McCraw and L. S. Schulman, J. Stat. Phys. [18]{}, 293 (1978). K. Binder and M. H. Kalos, J. Stat. Phys. [22]{}, 363 (1980). W. Paul and D. W. Heermann, Europhys. Lett. [6]{}, 701 (1988). D. Stauffer, A. Coniglio, and D. W. Heermann, Phys. Rev. Lett. [49]{}, 1299 (1982). D. W. Heermann, A. Coniglio, W. Klein, and D. Stauffer, J. Stat. Phys. [36]{}, 447 (1984). D. Stauffer, in [Dynamics of First Order Phase Transitions]{}, edited by H. J. Herrmann, W. Janke, and F. Karsch (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992), p. 287. T. S. Ray, J. Stat. Phys. [62]{}, 463 (1991). D. W. Heermann, W. Klein, and D. Stauffer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [49]{}, 1262 (1982). W. Paul, D. W. Heermann, and K. Binder, J. Phys. A [22]{}, 3325 (1989). P. A. Rikvold, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [99]{}, 95 (1989). C. Domb, Adv. Phys. [9]{}, 149 (1960). C. C. A. G[ü]{}nther, P. A. Rikvold, and M. A. Novotny, Phys. Rev. Lett., 3898 (1993). C. C. A. G[ü]{}nther, P. A. Rikvold, and M. A. Novotny, submitted to Physica A. V. Privman and L. S. Schulman, J. Phys. A [15]{}, L231 (1982). V. Privman and L. S. Schulman, J. Stat. Phys. [31]{}, 205 (1982). J. N. Kapur and H. K. Kesavan, [Entropy Optimization Principles with Applications]{} (Academic, Boston, 1992). P. A. Rikvold, B. M. Gorman, and M. A. Novotny, AIP Conf. Proc. Ser. [ 256]{}, 549 (1992). C. C. A. G[ü]{}nther, P. A. Rikvold, and M. A. Novotny, in preparation. H. Gould and W. Klein, Physica D [66]{}, 61 (1993). J.-S. Wang, Physica A [161]{}, 249 (1989). D. Stauffer and A. Aharony, [Introduction to Percolation Theory]{} (Taylor and Francis, London, 1992). C. Borgs, in [Dynamics of First Order Phase Transitions]{}, edited by H. J. Herrmann, W. Janke, and F. Karsch (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992), p. 125, and references cited therein. P. C. Hemmer and J. L. Lebowitz, in [Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena]{}, edited by C. Domb and M. Green (Academic, London, 1976), Vol. 5B. R. B. Griffiths, C.-Y. Wang, and J. S. Langer, Phys. Rev. [149]{}, 301 (1966). J. D. Gunton and M. C. Yalabik, Phys. Rev. B [18]{}, 6199 (1978). P. A. Rikvold, B. M. Gorman, and M. A. Novotny, Phys. Rev. E [47]{}, 1474 (1993). T. S. Ray and W. Klein, J. Stat. Phys. [61]{}, 891 (1990). L. Monette and W. Klein, Phys. Rev. Lett. [68]{}, 2336 (1992). L. Monette, W. Klein, M. Zuckermann, A. Khadir, and R. Harris, Phys. Rev. B [38]{}, 11607 (1988). M. A. Novotny, W. Klein, and P. A. Rikvold, Phys. Rev. B [33]{}, 7729 (1986). W. Ostwald, [Lehrbuch der Allgemeinen Chemie]{} (W. Engelmann, Leipzig, 1896-1902), Vol. II, ii, p. 444. See, [e.g.]{}, N. Goldenfeld, [Lectures on Phase Transitions and the Renormalization Group]{} (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1992). Note that, in contrast to the notation in Ref. [@RIKV94A], in the present work the Hamiltonian is [not]{} divided by $k_{\rm B}T$. As a consequence, the definitions of a number of the quantities discussed in Sec. \[Sec-SRF\] are different from their definitions in Ref. [@RIKV94A]. The notation used in the present work is the same as the one used in Ref. [@CCAG94A]. C. K. Harris, J. Phys. A [17]{}, L143 (1984). C. Rottman and M. Wortis, Phys. Rev. B [24]{}, 6274 (1981). R. K. P. Zia and J. E. Avron, Phys. Rev. B [25]{}, 2042 (1982). J. E. Avron, H. van Beijeren, L. S. Schulman, and R. K. P. Zia, J. Phys. A [15]{}, L81 (1982). Our quantity $\widehat{\Sigma}(T)$ is identical to $dW^{1/d}$ in Eq. (3) of Ref. [@ZIA82]. A. D. Bruce and D. J. Wallace, Phys. Rev. Lett. [47]{}, 1743 (1981). O. Penrose, Commun. Math. Phys. [124]{}, 515 (1989). M. Kreer, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) [2]{}, 398 (1993). M. Kreer, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) [2]{}, 720 (1993). M. J. Lowe and D. J. Wallace, J. Phys. A [13]{}, L381 (1980). D. J. Wallace, in [Phase Transitions, Proceedings of a Summer Institute, Carg[è]{}se, Corsica, 1980]{}, edited by M. Levy, J. C. Le Guillou, and J. Zinn-Justin (Plenum, New York, 1982), p. 423. G. Jacucci, A. Perini, and G. Martin, J. Phys. A [16]{}, 369 (1983). A. Perini, G. Jacucci, and G. Martin, Phys. Rev. B [29]{}, 2689 (1984). A. Perini, G. Jacucci, and G. Martin, Surf. Sci. [144]{}, 53 (1984). C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. [85]{}, 808 (1952). K. Sekimoto, Phys. Lett. A [105]{}, 390 (1984). K. Sekimoto, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [53]{}, 2545 (1984). K. Sekimoto, Physica [135A]{}, 328 (1986). K. Sekimoto, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B [5]{}, 1843 (1991). T. Nakamura, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [15]{}, 1379 (1960). Y. Saito and T. Ueta, Phys. Rev. A [40]{}, 3408 (1989). Y. Saito and T. Ueta, J. Crystal Growth [99]{}, 171 (1990). E. Brener, K. Kassner, H. M[ü]{}ller-Krumbhaar, and D. Temkin, in [ Dynamics of First Order Phase Transitions]{}, edited by H. J. Herrmann, W. Janke, and F. Karsch (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992), p. 53. L. J[ö]{}rgenson, H. Guo, R. Harris, and M. Grant, Phys. Rev. E [48]{}, 4592 (1993). I. M. Lifshitz, Sov. Phys. JETP [15]{}, 939 (1962). S. K. Chan, J. Chem. Phys. [67]{}, 5755 (1977). S. M. Allen and J. W. Cahn, Acta Metall. [27]{}, 1085 (1979). J. D. Axe and Y. Yamada, Phys. Rev. B [34]{}, 1599 (1986). S. Ohta, T. Ohta, and K. Kawasaki, Physica [140A]{}, 478 (1987). R. M. Bradley and P. N. Strenski, Phys. Rev. B [40]{}, 8967 (1989). Y. A. Andrienko, N. V. Brilliantov, and P. L. Krapivsky, Phys. Rev. B [ 45]{}, 2263 (1992). , edited by V. Privman (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990). U.-J. Wiese, Universit[ä]{}t Bern preprint (1993). E. Jord[ã]{}o Neves and R. H. Schonmann, Commun. Math. Phys. [137]{}, 209 (1991). R. H. Schonmann, Commun. Math. Phys. [147]{}, 231 (1992). B. M. Gorman and C. C. A. G[ü]{}nther, in [Computer Simulation Studies in Condensed Matter Physics VII]{}, edited by D. P. Landau, K. K. Mon, and B. Sch[ü]{}ttler (Springer, Berlin, in press). E. Scoppola, J. Stat. Phys. [73]{}, 83 (1993). R. Koteck[ý]{} and E. Olivieri, J. Stat. Phys. [70]{}, 1121 (1993). E. Scoppola, Physica A [194]{}, 271 (1993), and references cited therein.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We present time-resolved spectroscopy of the soft X-ray transient XTE J2123–058 in outburst. Spectral coverage of 3700–6700Å was achieved spanning two orbits of the binary. The strongest emission lines are He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> 4686Å and C<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span> /N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span> 4640Å (Bowen blend). Other weak emission lines of He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> and C<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iv</span> are present and Balmer lines show a complex structure, possibly contaminated by He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>. He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> 4686Å and C<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>/N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span> 4640Å show different orbital light curves indicating an origin in different regions. He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> 4686Å profiles show a complex multiple S-wave structure. Doppler tomography reveals this emission is not associated with the companion star, and occurs at velocities too low for Keplerian disk material. It can possibly be associated with overflowing or splashing stream material. The optical spectrum approximates a steep blue power-law, consistent with emission on the Rayleigh-Jeans tail of a black body spectrum. Orbital modulations show no wavelength dependence; this is as expected if both disk and companion star are hot enough for the peak of their spectral energy distributions to be in the UV. The hot continuum and presence of high-excitation emission lines indicate strong X-ray heating.' address: - \| (1) Astronomy Centre, University of Sussex\ Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QJ, UK - \| (2) Astrophysics, University of Oxford\ Nuclear and Astrophysics Laboratory, Keble Road, Oxford, OX1 3RH, UK - \| (3) Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias,\ 38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain author: - 'Robert I. HYNES$^{1}$[^1], Philip A. CHARLES$^{2}$, Carole A. HASWELL$^{1}\footnotemark$, Jorge CASARES$^{3}$, Cristina ZURITA$^{3}$' title: \| OPTICAL STUDIES OF THE\ X-RAY TRANSIENT XTE J2123–058 – II.\ PHASE RESOLVED SPECTROSCOPY --- [Email: [email protected]]{} Introduction ============ The X-ray transient XTE J2123–058 was discovered by the [RXTE]{} satellite on 1998 June 27 (Levine, Swank and Smith 1998, [@L98]). An optical counterpart was promptly identified by Tomsick et al. (1998a, [@T98a]). The discovery of apparent Type-I X-ray bursts (Takeshima and Strohmayer 1998, [@TS98]) indicated that the compact object was a neutron star. Interest in the object increased dramatically when Casares et al. (1998, [@C98]) reported the presence of a strong optical modulation and attributed this to an eclipse; the orbital period was subsequently determined to be 6.0-hr both photometrically (Tomsick et al. 1998b, [@T98b]; Ilovaisky & Chevalier 1998, [@IC98]) and spectroscopically (Hynes et al. 1998, [@H98]). Tomsick et al. (1998b, [@T98b]) suggested that the 0.9-mag modulation is likely actually due to the changing aspect of the heated companion in a high inclination system, although partial eclipses appear also to be superposed on this (Zurita, Casares & Hynes 1998, [@ZCH98]). In this paper we present the results of our spectrophotometric study of XTE J2123–058 using the William Herschel Telescope (WHT), La Palma. Our photometric observations are described in a companion paper in this proceedings, Zurita et al. (1999, hereafter Paper I, [@Z99]). Our dataset =========== We observed XTE J2123–058 through two 6-hr binary orbits on 1998 July 19–20. We used the blue arm of the ISIS dual-beam spectrograph on the 4.2-m William Herschel Telescope to obtain 28 spectra. The R300B grating combined with an EEV $4096\times2048$ CCD gave an unvignetted coverage of $\sim$4000–6500Å with some useful data outside this range. An 0.7–1.0arcsec slit gave a spectral resolution 2.9–4.1Å. Each spectrum was calibrated relative to a second star on the slit. Absolute calibration was tied to the spectrophotometric standard Feige 110 (Oke 1990, [@O90]). Wavelength calibration was obtained from a copper-argon arc lamp, with spectrograph flexure corrected using sky emission lines. Our average spectrum shown in Fig. \[SpecFig\] is derived from a straight sum of count rates before slit loss and extinction corrections to maximize the signal to noise ratio. The spectral energy distribution was determined from an average of calibrated spectra interpolated onto a uniform phase grid, i.e. it is a uniformly weighted average over all phases. The line spectrum ================= At first glance, XTE J2123–058 presents a nearly featureless blue spectrum, with only the Bowen blend (N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>/C<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span> 4640Å) and He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> 4686Å prominent. In addition, however, a number of weaker emission lines are present, the Balmer lines exhibit complex profiles and weak interstellar absorption features are seen. --------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ------------------------- Identification Wavelength (Å) Comment $\star$ Ca<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>K 3933.7 Interstellar He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> Br$\theta$ 4100.0 Blended with H$\delta$? H$\delta$ 4101.7 He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> Br$\eta$ 4199.8 Ca<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> 4220.1 He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> Br$\zeta$ 4338.7 Blended with H$\gamma$? H$\gamma$ 4340.5 DIB 4428 Interstellar $\star$ He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> Br$\epsilon$ 4541.6 $\star$ N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>/C<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span> 4640 $\star$ He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> P$\alpha$ 4685.7 He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> Br$\delta$ 4859.3 Blended with H$\beta$? H$\beta$ 4861.3 $\star$ He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> Br$\gamma$ 5411.5 C<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iv</span> 5801.5,5812.1 $\star$ Na<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>D 5890.0,5895.9 Interstellar He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> Br$\beta$ 6560.1 Blended with H$\alpha$? H$\alpha$ 6562.5 --------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ------------------------- : Spectral lines detected in XTE J2123–058; $\star$ indicates a definite detection.[]{data-label="EmissionTable"} Balmer lines from H$\beta$ to H$\delta$ appear to show broad absorption and an emission core. The wavelength range marked underneath each Balmer line in Fig. \[LineSpecFig\] corresponds to $\pm1500$kms$^{-1}$; this is intended to be an approximate guide to the width, rather than a fit. The emission core may partly be Balmer emission but at least some is attributable to coincident He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> lines (since we see He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> 4542Å and 5412Å we would expect to also see related lines such as 4859Å). This broad absorption plus narrow emission Balmer line structure is also seen in other systems, for example the neutron star LMXB 4U 2129+47 (Thorstensen & Charles 1982, [@TC82]) and the black hole candidate GRO J0422+32 in outburst (Shrader et al. 1994, [@S94]). Based on the strength of the NaD1 line and the calibration of Munari & Zwitter (1997, [@MZ97]) we estimate $E(B-V) = 0.12 \pm 0.05$. Emission line behavior ====================== Both N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>/C<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span> 4640Å (Bowen blend) and He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> 4686Å emission lines show changes in integrated flux over an orbital cycle and He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> also reveals complex line profile changes, with multiple S-wave components present in the trailed spectrogram shown in Fig. \[SpectrogramFig\]. The light curves of the two lines shown in Fig. \[LineLCFig\] appear somewhat different in structure; the Bowen blend peak is broader and earlier than that of He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>. This suggests an origin from different sites within the system. The Bowen blend light curve in fact appears similar to the continuum light curves shown in Fig.\[LCFig\]; Bowen emission may therefore originate on the heated face of the companion star, with the modulation arising from the varying visibility of the heated region. He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> emission, shows a strong peak near phase 0.75 with a suggestion of a weaker one near 0.25. The modulation probably indicates that the emission region is optically thick. We should be cautious in interpreting the light curve, however, as the complex line behavior indicates multiple emission sites. The integrated light curve is an average of different light curves of several regions. A possible resolution to this problem will be to use Doppler tomography to locate the dominant emission sites (perhaps the two brightest spots). Then we can fit a toy model in which each of these spots (treated as a point source) is allowed to vary smoothly in brightness over an orbital cycle. This procedure may allow us to approximately allow us to deconvolve the light curves of the different regions. Doppler tomography ================== We have used the technique of Doppler Tomography (Marsh & Horne 1988, [@MH88]) to identify emission sites in velocity space. Both the back-projection method implemented in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">molly</span> and maximum-entropy method of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">doppler</span> give similar results, as does the alternative maximum entropy implementation of Spruit [@S98]. Fig. \[TomogramFig\] shows a maximum entropy tomogram generated with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">doppler</span>. Appropriate values were chosen for instrumental resolution ($\sim180$kms$^{-1}$) and phase smearing. We overplot the position of the Roche lobe of the companion, the accretion stream ballistic velocity, the Keplerian velocity along the accretion stream and the Keplerian velocity around the disk edge. These are derived from uncertain system parameters, so they should be viewed cautiously. The parameters are determined from light curve fits (see Paper I). We should also beware that one of the fundamental assumptions of Doppler tomography, that we always see all of the line flux at [some]{} velocity, is clearly violated, as the integrated line flux is not constant. In spite of these cautions, we can learn something from the exercise. The dominant emission site (corresponding to the main S-wave) appears on the opposite side of the neutron star from the companion. It is inconsistent with the heated face of the companion and the stream/disk impact point, although a tail does appear to extend upwards towards the expected stream position. As the emission appears to form an arc roughly centered on the neutron star position, it is tempting to associate it with asymmetric disk emission. Unfortunately the velocity of the strongest emission is too low for disk material. This can be seen from the fact that it lies inside the circle representing the Keplerian velocity at the disk edge; the inner disk will have [higher]{} velocities than this. If the observed bright spot is indeed emission from the disk then it must come from sub-Keplerian material. A more promising explanation is suggested by the similarity to some SW Sex type cataclysmic variables (e.g. V1315 Aql; compare H$\beta$ tomograms in Dhillon, Marsh and Jones 1991, [@DMJ91], and Hellier 1996, [@H96]). This is that the emission is actually associated with an extension of the accretion stream beyond its nominal disk impact point. One possible model involves a disk-anchored magnetic propeller (Horne 1999 [@H99]), suggested for SW Sex systems, which ejects some of the stream material from the system. An alternative is that some material splashes from the stream impact point, rising high above the disk. Such material will follow a trajectory similar to that seen, with the brightest observed spot corresponding to the point where this splashing material reimpacts the disk. The spectral energy distribution ================================ We show in Fig. \[SEDFig\] our average spectrum after dereddening using the extinction curve of Cardelli et al. 1989, [@CCM89]) and our reddening estimate of $\rm E(B-V)=0.12$ derived from the NaD1 line (see above). We also show the photometry of Tomsick et al.(1998a, [@T98a]) from 1998 June 30 and a spectrum of GRO J0422+32 (1992 August 17) provided by C.R. Shrader. This black hole X-ray transient has a 5.1-h orbital period, making it the black hole system most similar to XTE J2123–058. Both the photometry of Tomsick et al. and our spectroscopy appear steeper than the spectrum of GRO J0422+32, taking a steep blue power-law form. In view of the difficulties of accurately calibrating U band data, it is unclear whether the apparent flattening off of the spectrum at high energies is real or an artifact. Continuum behavior ================== We show in Fig. \[LCFig\] light curves for three ‘continuum’ bins at 4500Å, 5300Å and 6100Å. The light curves show very similar shapes, with no significant differences in profile or amplitude within this wavelength range. The apparent differences between them, most noticeable around phase 0.6, are likely due to calibration uncertainties: coverage on each night was approximately from phase 0.6 through 1.6. The light curve morphology is fully discussed in Paper I. We believe it is mainly due to the changing aspect of the heated companion star, which is the dominant light source at maximum light, near phase 0.5. At minimum light (phase 0.0) the heated face is obscured and we see the accretion disk only. At all phases the unilluminated parts of the companion star are expected to contribute negligible flux as the outburst amplitude is $\sim 5$ magnitudes. The lack of strong color dependence then indicates that either the disk and heated companion have similar temperatures, or that both are sufficiently hot that we only see the $F_{\nu} \propto \nu^{2}$ Rayleigh-Jeans part of the spectrum. The very steep spectral energy distribution shown in Fig. \[SEDFig\] suggests that the latter is the case. Conclusion ========== Our main findings are summarized below. Where appropriate, we make comparisons with the black hole X-ray transient, GRO J0422+32. This system has a 5.1-h orbital period and may be the black hole system most similar to XTE J2123–058. We also note some similarities to the neutron star LMXB 4U 2129+47 which has a 5.2-hr orbital period and shows similar large amplitude photometric variations to XTE J2123–058. - High excitation emission lines dominate the spectrum (He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>, N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>/C<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>, C<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iv</span> (see upper left panel). No He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> emission is seen. The blue line spectrum looks rather similar to that of 4U 2129+47 (Thorstensen & Charles 1982, [@TC82]). - He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> emission is dominated by a region that coincides with neither the heated companion star, the ballistic accretion stream nor a Keplerian disk. This is unlike GRO J0422+32 (Casares et al. 1995, [@C95]), the only other transient for which outburst Doppler tomography has been performed. In GRO J0422+32, He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> emission appears to originate from the accretion stream/disk impact point. Our observations may possibly be explained by extension of the stream beyond the initial impact point. This may be similar to the He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> emission in 4U 2129+47 (Thorstensen & Charles 1982, [@TC82]) which has a radial velocity modulation with similar phase and amplitude to that we see. - The continuum spectral energy distribution is very blue, and steeper than in black hole X-ray transients such as GRO J0422+32 (see Fig.\[SEDFig\]). This implies that both the heated face of the companion star, and the disk, are hotter than in similar short-period black hole systems. Such a conclusion is supported by the dominance of high-excitation emission lines. We suggest tentatively that this may indicate more efficient X-ray irradiation in this (neutron star) transient compared to black hole systems. This has previously been suggested by King, Kolb and Szuszkiewicz (1997, [@KKS97]) as an explanation for why most transient LMXBs contain black holes whereas apparently all persistent sources contain neutron stars. Before we can claim this is a firm conclusion we will need to assess the uncertainty in the spectral energy distribution and perform a more systematic comparison with other systems taking into account differences in X-ray luminosity. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== Thanks to Chris Shrader for providing the spectrum of GRO J0422+32 for comparison. Doppler tomography used <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">molly</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">doppler</span> software by Tom Marsh and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">dopmap</span> software by H.C. Spruit ([@S98]). The William Herschel Telescope is operated on the island of La Palma by the Isaac Newton Group in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias. RIH is supported by a PPARC Research Studentship. References {#references .unnumbered} ========== [99]{} Levine A., Swank J., Smith E., 1998, IAU Circ. 6955 Tomsick J. A., Halpern J. P., Leighly K. M., Perlman E., 1998a, IAU Circ. 6957 Takeshima T., Strohmayer T. E., 1998, IAU Circ. 6958 Casares J., Serra-Ricart M., Zurita C., Gomez A., Alcalde D., Charles P., 1998, IAU Circ. 6971 Tomsick J. A., Kemp J., Halpern J. P., Hurley-Keller D., 1998b, IAU Circ. 6972 Ilovaiksy S. A., Chevalier C., 1998, IAU Circ. 6975 Hynes R. I., Charles P. A., Haswell C. A., Casares J., Serra-Ricart M., Zurita C., 1998, IAU Circ. 6976 Zurita C., Casares J., Hynes R. I., 1998, IAU Circ.6993 Zurita C., [et al.]{}, 1999, this proceedings Oke J. B., 1990, AJ, 99, 1621 Thorstensen J. R., Charles P. A., 1982, ApJ, 253, 756 Shrader C. R., Wagner R. M., Hjellming R. M., Han X. H., Starrfield S. G., 1994, ApJ, 434, 698 Munari U., Zwitter T., 1997, A&A, 318, 274 Marsh T. R., Horne K., 1988, MNRAS, 235, 269 Spruit H. C., 1998, astro-ph/9806141 Dhillon V. S., Marsh T. R., Jones D. H. P., 1991, MNRAS, 252, 342 Hellier C., 1996, ApJ, 471, 949 Horne K., 1999, to appear in proc. [Magnetic Cataclysmic Variables]{} eds. K. Mukai, C. Hellier, ASP (astro-ph/9901007) Cardelli J. A., Clayton G. C., Mathis J. S., 1989, ApJ, 345, 245 Casares J., Marsh T. R., Charles P. A., Martin A. C., Martin E. L., Harlaftis E. T., Pavlenko E. P., Wagner R. M., 1995, MNRAS, 274, 565 King A. R., Kolb U., Szuszkiewicz E., 1997, ApJ, 488, 89 [^1]: Present address: Physics department, The Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We consider three two-level atoms inside a one-dimensional cavity, interacting with the electromagnetic field in the rotating wave approximation (RWA), commonly used in the atom-radiation interaction. One of the three atoms is initially excited, and the other two are in their ground state. We numerically calculate the propagation of the field spontaneously emitted by the excited atom and scattered by the second atom, as well as the excitation probability of the second and third atom. The results obtained are analyzed from the point of view of relativistic causality in the atom-field interaction. We show that, when the RWA is used, relativistic causality is obtained only if the integrations over the field frequencies are extended to $-\infty$; on the contrary, noncausal tails remain even if the number of field modes is increased. This clearly shows the limit of the RWA in dealing with subtle problems such as relativistic causality in the atom-field interaction.' address: 'CNISM and Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche ed Astronomiche, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Via Archirafi 36, I-90123 Palermo, Italy' author: - 'I. Dolce,' - 'R. Passante' - 'and F. Persico' title: The limits of the rotating wave approximation in the electromagnetic field propagation in a cavity --- Quantum electrodynamics ,Causality ,Rotating wave approximation 42.50.Ct ,12.20.Ds \[sec:1\]Introduction ===================== The propagation of electromagnetic signals has been a subject of investigation since the beginning of the quantum theory of the electromagnetic field. In the last years this subject has received much attention in the framework of rigorous proofs of relativistic causality in the atom-field interaction [@PT83; @Berman04; @MJF95; @CPPP95], of the recently observed slow light propagation [@HHDB99] and of the possibility of superluminal propagation of light [@Chiao93]. Recently, the propagation and the scattering of a photon spontaneously emitted by an atom in a one-dimensional cavity has been investigated using the rotating wave approximation (RWA) [@PTL03]. This approximation consists in neglecting non-energy conserving terms in the Hamiltoniam, and the potential dangers of this approximation in terms of the causal behaviour of the physical system considered are well known [@BCPPP90; @MJF95]. Quite frequently, the effect of the RWA seems to be [compensated]{} by the extension to $-\infty$ of the integrations in the frequency of the field modes, as in the original Fermi model description of causality in the excitation transfer between two atoms, one of which initially excited [@Fermi32; @UD02; @HU04]. Yet, this is in any case conceptually unsatisfactory for a subtle problem such as relativistic causality, and much effort has been dedicated to the inclusion of the counterrotating terms in order to have a rigorous proof of relativistic causality in quantum electrodynamics [@CPPP95; @PT95]. In this letter we consider the same system considered by Purdy [et al.]{} in [@PTL03]. This system consists of three two-level atoms inside a one-dimensional cavity, interacting with the electromagnetic field in the RWA. We show numerically that the causal behaviour obtained in [@PTL03] (using the RWA) indeed derives from an extension to $-\infty$ of the frequency integrations; this extension, however, has no physical justification since it makes the Hamiltonian unbounded from below, and this is in general a fundamental point for the causality problem, as pointed out by Hegerfeldt [@Hegerfeldt94]. We show that even if the Hamiltonian is bounded from below, noncausal terms in the field propagation are present when the rotating wave approximation is used; these terms do not vanish when the number of field modes is increased. This explicitly shows that the RWA is not an appropriate approximation for dealing with problems of relativistic causality in matter-radiation systems, and that the counterrotating terms should be included. Our system is the same as in [@PTL03]: it consists of three two-level atoms, named 1, 2, 3, in a one-dimensional cavity. The cavity has length $L$, with two parallel plates at $x=0$ and $x=L$, and the positions of the atoms 1, 2, 3 are $L/4$, $L/2$ and $3L/4$, respectively. In the Coulomb gauge and multipolar coupling scheme, within dipole approximation and using the rotating wave approximation, the interaction of the three atoms with the radiation field is described by the following Hamiltonian (with units such that $\hbar = 1$) $$H = \sum_{j=1}^3 \wj S_j^z + \sum_n \wn a_n^\dagger a_n + \sum_n \sum_{j=1}^3 \left( g_{jn} a_n S_j^+ + g_{jn}^\star a_n^\dagger S_j^- \right) \label{eq:1}$$ where index $n=1,2,3, \ldots$ denotes the field modes of the cavity and $j=1,2,3$ denotes the atoms. $a_n, a_n^\dagger$ are the annihilation and creation operators of the n-th mode, $S_j^\pm , S_j^z$ are the pseudospin operators of the atom $j$, and $$g_{jn} = \Omega_j \sin \frac {n\pi x_h}L \hspace{5pt} ; \hspace{15pt} \Omega_j = \mu_j \sqrt{\frac {\wj}{2\epsilon_0 L}} \label{eq:2}$$ where $\wj$ is the transition frequency of atom $j$ and $\mu_j$ is its electric dipole moment. In the expression of the coupling constant the near-resonance approximation $\wn \simeq \wj$ has been used. We wish to stress that, because we are describing our system in the multipolar coupling scheme, the field operator that we calculate, the momentum conjugate to the vector potential, is the transverse displacement field ${\bf D}_\perp ({\bf r})$. This operator, outside the sources, coincides with the total electric field ${\bf E}({\bf r})$. This is an essential point, because ${\bf E}({\bf r})$ satisfies a retarded wave equation, and thus it is expected to manifest causal propagation in space. On the contrary, when the minimal coupling scheme is used, the field operator conjugate to the vector potential is the transverse electric field ${\bf E}_\perp ({\bf r})$, which is not a retarded operator; in fact, the source term in the corresponding Maxwell equation is the transverse current density, which is not localized in space for atomic systems [@CPP95]. Our initial state is the state with atom 1 excited, atoms 2 and 3 in their ground states and the field in the vacuum state, that is $\mid e, g, g, 0_k \rangle$. In the RWA the only states participating to the evolution of the initial state are, with an obvious meaning of the symbols, $\mid g, e, g, 0_n \rangle$, $\mid g, g, e, 0_n \rangle$, $\mid g, g, g, 1_n \rangle$. Thus we can write the general state at time $t$ as the following superposition $$\begin{aligned} \mid \psi (t) \rangle &=& c_1(t) \mid e, g, g, 0_n \rangle + c_2(t) \mid g, e, g, 0_n \rangle \nonumber \\ &+& c_3(t) \mid g, g, e, 0_n \rangle + \sum_n b_n(t) \mid g, g, g, 1_n \rangle \label{eq:3}\end{aligned}$$ The Schrödinger equation gives the following set of coupled differential equations for the coefficients $$\begin{aligned} \dot{c}_j(t) &=& -i \left( \wj c_j(t) + \sum_n g_{jn} b_n(t) \right) \label{eq:4a} \\ \dot{b}_n(t) &=& -i \left( \wn b_n(t) +\sum_j^3 g_{jn}^\star c_j(t) \right) \label{eq:4b}\end{aligned}$$ We assume that the atoms 1 and 3 have the same transition frequency, $\omega_1 = \omega_3$, and we indicate with $\delta = \omega_1 - \omega_2$ the detuning of atom 2 compared with atoms 1 and 3. We also put $L/c = 1$, which means using as the unit time the time taken by the light to cross the cavity. Approximate analytical solutions of these equations have been obtained [@PL03], using a method based on Laplace transforms [@SG72]. We have obtained numerical solutions of these equations. We integrate numerically the set of differentially equations (\[eq:4a\],\[eq:4b\]) with the Adams-Moulton-Bashfort method [@PTVF92; @Wheatley95]. This multistep method is an algorithm more sophisticated than the Runge-Kutta method, typically used for this kind of problems, allowing to obtain more accurate results and to use a much larger number of cavity modes. In order to facilitate comparison of our numerical results with the analytical results obtained in [@PL03], we shall adopt the same numerical values of the detuning $\delta$ and of the atomic decay rates $\gamma_j = \mid \Omega_j \mid^2$. Therefore, we use $\gamma_1 = 1$, $\gamma_2 = 16$, $\gamma_3 = 256$ and $\delta = 4$ (in our units). We calculate the expectation value of the square of the electric field, which is proportional to the electric part of the field energy density, given by (zero-point terms have been neglected) $$\langle E^2(x,t) \rangle = 2\frac {\omega_1}L \left\| \sum_n b_n(t) \sin \left( \frac {\wn x}c \right) \right\|^2 \label{eq:5}$$ Our first numerical calculation involves a set of equally spaced field modes, symmetric with respect to the resonance frequency of the first atom. This simulates an integration extended from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$, therefore a field Hamiltonian not bounded from below (as that used in [@PTL03]). In this paper we report the results of two numerical calculations: the first uses $10^4$ modes, 5000 above and 5000 below the atomic frequency; the second uses $2 \cdot 10^4$ modes, $10^4$ above the atomic frequency and $10^4$ below. We then compare the results obtained with those of an analogous numerical calculation in which the field modes are not symmetric with respect to the atomic frequency, and only the upper cut-off is increased with increasing the number of the field modes; this second case simulates a field Hamiltonian bounded from below. This comparison allows us to understand the role of the RWA in the behaviour of our system, in particular from the point of view of relativistic causality. Fig. \[fig:1\] shows $\langle E^2(x,t) \rangle$ at $t=0.25$ when $10^4$ modes are used with a symmetric distribution around the transition frequency. A front in the propagation of the energy density is evident at $x=0.5$, as expected (the atom that emits the radiation is located at $x=0.25$); however, a zoom of Fig. \[fig:1\] in the neighbourhood of $x=0.5$, given in Fig. \[fig:2\], shows the presence of tails for $x>0.5$, blurring the front. Fig. \[fig:2\] also shows the same expansion around $x=0.5$ when a larger number of modes is used ($2 \cdot 10^4$), again with a symmetric configuration around the atomic frequency. An improvement of the behaviour from the point of view of causality is evident, with a manifest decrease of the tails for $x>0.5$. We have also obtained similar results for different times, showing that the front gets sharper when the number of field modes is increased, if the frequencies of the field modes are symmetric around the transition frequency of the atom. This suggests that the expected causal behaviour is indeed approached in the limit of an infinite number of field modes symmetrically distributed around $\omega_1$. The behaviour is quite different when the number of field modes is increased in such a way that only the upper cut-off frequency increases but the lower cut-off frequency remains fixed (in this case the frequencies of the field modes are not symmetric with respect to the atomic transition frequency); this situation is intended to mimic the case in which the field modes extend from $0$ to $\infty$, and no extension to $-\infty$ is performed. Fig. \[fig:3\] shows a zoom around $x=0.5$ of the square of the electric field at time $t=0.25$ for $10^4$, $2 \cdot 10^4$ and $3 \cdot 10^4$ modes. The figures indicate that, as the number of modes is increased, the envelop of the oscillations does not approximate a sharp front. The remaining tail gives a noncausal behaviour. This makes quite evident that the use of the rotating wave approximation with an Hamiltonian bounded from below does not give causality in the propagation of the electromagnetic fields, because noncausal tails persist, consistently with Hegerfeldt’s theorem. Similar conclusions are reached by calculating $\mid c_3(t) \mid^2$, that is the excitation probability of atom 3. Causality requires that this probability should vanish for $t<0.5$. Fig. \[fig:4\] shows our numerical results, and Fig. \[fig:5\] a zoom around the [causality time]{} $t=0.5$ (with $10^4$ and $2 \cdot 10^4$ modes), both with a symmetric configuration of the mode frequencies. We note that a sharper front is obtained when the number of the modes is increased. However, Fig. \[fig:6\] shows the result for the non-symmetric configuration, in which only the upper cut-off frequency is increased with the field modes. It is evident from Fig. \[fig:6\] that in this case the noncausal tails for $t<0.5$ do not decrease on the average as the number of the modes is increased. We wish to conclude by stressing that our results clearly show the reason why recent results in the literature have obtained a causal behaviour of the atom-field interaction in a cavity within the rotating wave approximation. The point is that at the same time the frequency integration over the field modes was extended to $-\infty$ which permits to escape the conditions set by Hegerfeldt’s theorem by making the Hamiltonian unbounded from below, but which is physically unacceptable. In this paper, we have considered three two-level atoms, one excited and two in the ground state, inside a one-dimensional cavity, interacting with the electromagnetic radiation field in the RWA. We have calculated numerically the energy density of the electric field spontaneously emitted by the excited atom and scattered by the second atom, as well as the probability of excitation of the second and third atom. We have shown that, without the (arbitrary) extension of the field frequencies to $-\infty$ (frequently used in the literature), and which has no physical basis, noncausal tails are present both in the field propagation inside the cavity and in the atomic excitation probabilities, even when the number of the modes is increased. This underlines the potential dangers of the rotating wave approximation. In a forthcoming paper, we will explicitly show that the correct inclusion of the counter-rotating terms of the Hamiltonian, allows to obtain a better causal behaviour without any need of extending the frequency of the modes to $-\infty$. The authors wish to thank P.P. Corso for helpful comments and suggestions on the numerical calculations. This work was in part supported by the bilateral Italian-Belgian project on “Casimir-Polder forces, Casimir effect and their fluctuations" and the bilateral Italian-Japanese project 15C1 on “Quantum Information and Computation" of the Italian Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Partial support by Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica and by Comitato Regionale di Ricerche Nucleari e di Struttura della Materia is also acknowledged. [00]{} E.A. Power, T. Thirunamachandran, Phys. Rev. A [28]{}, 2663 (1983) P.R. Berman, Phys. Rev. A [69]{}, 022101 (2004) P.W. Milonni, D.F.V. James, H. Fearn, Phys. Rev. A [52]{}, 1525 (1995) G. Compagno, G.M. Palma, R. Passante, F. Persico, Chem. Phys. [198]{}, 19 (1995) L.V. Hau, S.E. Harris, Z. Dutton, C.H. Behroozi, Nature [397]{}, 594 (1999) R.Y. Chiao, Phys. Rev. A [48]{} R34 (1993) T. Purdy, D.R. Taylor, M. Ligare, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. [5]{}, 85 (2003) A.K. Biswas, G. Compagno, G.M. Palma, R. Passante, F. Persico, Phys. Rev. A [42]{}, 4291 (1990) E. Fermi, Rev. Mod. Phys. [4]{}, 87 (1932) K. Ujihara, H.T. Dung, Phys. Rev. A [66]{}, 053807 (2002) Z. Haizhen, K. Ujihara, Opt. Comm. [240]{}, 153 (2004) E.A. Power, T. Thirunamachandran, Phys. Rev. A [56]{}, 3395 (1995) G.C. Hegerfeldt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [72]{}, 596 (1994) G. Compagno, R. Passante, F. Persico, [Atom-Field Interactions and Dressed Atoms]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1995 T. Purdy, M. Ligare, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. [5]{}, 289 (2003) G.C. Stey, R.W. Gibberd, Physica [60]{}, 1 (1972) W.H. Press, S.A. Teukolsky, W.T. Vetterling, B.P. Flannery, [Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing]{}m Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1995 G. Wheatley, [Applied Numerical Analysis]{}, Addison-Wesley Publishing, Reading, Ma 1995 ![Average value of the square of the electric field $E^2(x,t)$ in arbitrary units at $t=0.25$, with $10^4$ field modes symmetrically distributed around the atomic transition frequency.[]{data-label="fig:1"}](Fig1.eps){width="15cm"} ![Average value of $E^2(x,t)$ in arbitrary units at $t=0.25$ in the neighbourhood of $x=0.5$. The dashed line is with $10^4$ modes of the field and the continuous line with $2 \cdot 10^4$ modes (both with a symmetric mode distribution around the atomic transition frequency).[]{data-label="fig:2"}](Fig2.eps){width="15cm"} ![Average value of $E^2(x,t)$ in arbitrary units in the neighbourhood of $x=0.5$ at time $t=0.25$, with $10^4$ modes (dashed line), $2 \cdot 10^4$ (dotted line) and $3 \cdot 10^4$ (continuous line). The distribution of the field modes used here is not symmetric respect to the atomic transition frequency.[]{data-label="fig:3"}](Fig3.eps){width="15cm"} ![Excitation probability of atom 3, with a configuration of the field modes symmetric around $\omega_1$.[]{data-label="fig:4"}](Fig4.eps){width="15cm"} ![Zoom of Fig. 4: excitation probability of atom 3 with a symmetric configuration of the field modes, around the causality time $t=0.5$.[]{data-label="fig:5"}](Fig5.eps){width="15cm"} ![Zoom of the excitation probability of atom 3 around the causality time $t=0.5$, using a non-symmetric distribution of the field modes.[]{data-label="fig:6"}](Fig6.eps){width="15cm"}	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: '[Recent measurements of top-quark production at hadron colliders are reviewed. The inclusive top-quark pair production is determined at four centre-of-mass energies at Tevatron and LHC with experimental uncertainties that are close to the uncertainties in theoretical calculations at next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD. Several differential measurements are performed and compared to simulation. Production of single top quarks is studied in the three different production channels. Top-quark pair production with neutral and charged vector bosons has been observed by the LHC experiments. Finally, production of additional heavy flavour quark pairs ([[$b\bar{b}$]{}]{}, [[$t\bar{t}$]{}]{}) is studied or searched for. ]{}' author: - \| Markus Cristinziani [^1] [^2]\ Physikalisches Institut, University of Bonn, Germany\ E-mail: [email protected] title: '[Top-quark production measurements]{}' --- Introduction ============ Top quarks are the elementary particles with the largest mass and are therefore subject of intensive study at hadron colliders, the proton–antiproton collider Tevatron, operated until 2011 at up to $1.96 {\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Te\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Te\kern -0.1em V}\fi}$ centre-of-mass energy, and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, operated at energies of $7$, $8$ and, more recently, $13$ [ ]{}. From the large number of available results, I have chosen to illustrate the discussion exclusively with results that have been made public in the last twelve months by the ATLAS, CDF, CMS, D0 and LHCb Collaborations, effectively covering the full spectrum of studies of top-quark pair production, inclusive and differential, single top-quark production as well as associated production with vector bosons and flavoured quarks. For an overview of recent developments in the theory of top quarks see Ref. [@melnikov]. Properties of top quark are presented separately [@properties]. Inclusive [[$t\bar{t}$]{}]{}production cross section ==================================================== Top-quark pair production at Tevatron is dominated by [[$q\bar{q}$]{}]{}annihilation, while it is dominated by gluon–gluon fusion at the LHC and therefore measurements at both colliders are complementary and allow to test different aspects of perturbative QCD calculations, which are now known at full next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) including gluon resummation. Using the full Tevatron Run II dataset, the D0 Collaboration measures the inclusive [[$t\bar{t}$]{}]{}cross section [@d0xs] to be ${\ensuremath{\sigma_{{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}}}}= 7.73 \pm 0.13 {\ensuremath{\:\textrm{(stat.)}}}\pm 0.55 {\ensuremath{\:\textrm{(syst.)}}}{\ensuremath{\:\textrm{pb}}}$ in final states with one or two leptons (electrons or muons), exploiting $b$-tagging information. In the $\ell$+jets channel additional topological variables are employed (Fig. \[tt\_tev\]). \ The inclusive [[$t\bar{t}$]{}]{}cross section has been determined in a variety of channels by ATLAS and CMS at 7 and 8 [ ]{}. The $7 {\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Te\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Te\kern -0.1em V}\fi}$ dataset is used by ATLAS to measure the branching ratios of top-quark decays into leptons and jets [@alt]. Seven mutually exclusive final states are defined and used in the analysis, also including two channels with a lepton and a hadronically decaying $\tau$ lepton (Fig. \[tt\_7\_8\] left). At $8 {\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Te\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Te\kern -0.1em V}\fi}$ a measurement in the single-lepton channel is presented by the ATLAS Collaboration, using events with at least three jets and at least one $b$-tagged jet [@alj]. Systematic uncertainties are smallest, when choosing only two discriminating input variables, the pseudorapidity of the lepton and the modified aplanarity, which are combined in a likelihood discriminant (Fig. \[tt\_7\_8\] right). The best measurements of the inclusive [[$t\bar{t}$]{}]{}cross section are performed in the dilepton $e\mu$ channel, as the background from multijet and vector-boson production can be reduced to a negligible level. Within the TOPLHCWG the best 8 [ ]{} measurements have been combined [@combtt], allowing for a reduction of systematic uncertainties. The combined result is ${\ensuremath{\sigma_{{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}}}}= 241.5 \pm 1.4 {\ensuremath{\:\textrm{(stat.)}}}\pm 5.7 {\ensuremath{\:\textrm{(syst.)}}}\pm 6.2 {\ensuremath{\:\textrm{(lumi.)}}}{\ensuremath{\:\textrm{pb}}}$, assuming a top-quark mass of $172.5 {\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi}$. All measurements are compatible with the theoretical predictions (Fig. \[tt\_summary\]). The LHCb experiment reported observation of top quarks in the forward region [@lhcb]. Albeit with large uncertainties this measurement is interesting in its own, as it probes a complementary region of phase space, possibly with enhanced sensitivity to new physics. The charge asymmetry and the number of events with a high-[$p_{\rm T}$]{}muon and a $b$-tagged jet are compared, as a function of [$p_{\rm T}$]{}, to the hypothesis of $Wb$ production (Fig. \[lhcb\]). The result is obtained in a fiducial region, with ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}\xspace}(\mu) > 25 {\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi}$, $2.0 < \eta(\mu) < 4.5$, ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}\xspace}(b) > 50 {\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi}$ and $2.2 < \eta(b) < 4.2$. The likelihood fit in both variables shows that the background-only hypothesis is excluded at the $5.4\,\sigma$ level. Fiducial [[$t\bar{t}$]{}]{}cross sections are extracted at 7 and 8 [ ]{} with total uncertainties of $20$–$30\%$ and found to be consistent with SM expectations. ATLAS and CMS started analysing proton–proton collision data at 13 [ ]{}, reporting first searches and measurements of Standard Model (SM) processes [@beate; @luca]. Within few weeks of data-taking, events compatible with [[$t\bar{t}$]{}]{}dilepton, single-lepton and single top quark production have been identified. With $\sim 80\;{\ensuremath{\textrm{pb}^{-1}}\xspace}$ ATLAS determines the [[$t\bar{t}$]{}]{}inclusive cross section closely following the Run-1 strategy with $e\mu$ events [@a13]. The number of events with one or two $b$-tagged jets are used to simultaneously extract the cross section and the $b$-tagging efficiency. The CMS analysis employs this same channel, with a smaller dataset of $\sim 40\; {\ensuremath{\textrm{pb}^{-1}}\xspace}$, but without using the information of $b$-tagging and is based on a simple event counting technique [@c13]. Besides the uncertainty on the integrated luminosity, that affects the measurements at the level of $9$–$12\%$, the most important systematic uncertainties are the modelling of the [[$t\bar{t}$]{}]{}hadronisation for ATLAS ($4.5\%$) and the uncertainty deriving from the lepton triggers for CMS ($5\%$). The result of these first two measurements is (Fig. \[thirteen\]): $$\begin{aligned} {\ensuremath{\sigma_{{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}}}}\mathrm{(ATLAS)} &=& 825 \pm 49 {\ensuremath{\:\textrm{(stat.)}}}\pm 60 {\ensuremath{\:\textrm{(syst.)}}}\pm 83 {\ensuremath{\:\textrm{(lumi.)}}}\; \mathrm{pb},\\ {\ensuremath{\sigma_{{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}}}}\mathrm{(CMS)} &=& 772 \pm 60 {\ensuremath{\:\textrm{(stat.)}}}\pm 62 {\ensuremath{\:\textrm{(syst.)}}}\pm 93 {\ensuremath{\:\textrm{(lumi.)}}}\; \mathrm{pb}.\\\end{aligned}$$ Differential [[$t\bar{t}$]{}]{}cross sections ============================================= With the large top-quark sample available at the LHC it is now possible to study differential distributions. On one hand this allows for more detailed tests of perturbative QCD, to constrain the parton distribution functions (PDF) and the parameters of the Monte-Carlo simulation programs, on the other hand it allows for a better understanding of one of the major backgrounds in Higgs physics, rare processes or search for beyond SM (BSM) effects. The strategy for differential measurements is to start with a tight event selection to obtain a pure sample, enhanced with event reconstruction techniques. After the estimated background is subtracted, the effects of detector acceptance and resolution are removed by means of unfolding. Distributions are then presented at parton or particle level, as a function of kinematic quantities like [$p_{\rm T}$]{}and $y$ of the [[$t\bar{t}$]{}]{}system or of the top quarks, or of invariant masses. A comprehensive set of top-quark differential measurements at $8 {\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Te\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Te\kern -0.1em V}\fi}$ has been performed by CMS using final states with leptons [@cdiff8]. The comparison to different matrix-element and parton-shower programs is provided for the top-quark decay products, as well as for reconstructed objects at parton level. This analysis confirms the trend observed at $7 {\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Te\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Te\kern -0.1em V}\fi}$ that the NLO simulation does not fully describe the [$p_{\rm T}$]{}distribution of the top quark (Fig. \[differential\]). Differential measurements presented at parton level are model dependent. In an effort to reduce theoretical uncertainties ATLAS made use of the concept of the so-called pseudo-top quark, a proxy object directly constructed from detector-level observables: charged leptons, jets and missing transverse momentum. The analysis of $7 {\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Te\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Te\kern -0.1em V}\fi}$ data [@pseudo] reveals a good description of the data in general, with some discrepancies at low $m_{{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}}$ values. Within uncertainties the top-[$p_{\rm T}$]{}distribution is sufficiently well described by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg+Pythia</span> (Fig. \[pseudo\]). The high top-quark [$p_{\rm T}$]{}region has been the target of further detailed studies, since a possible discrepancy could hint to physics effects beyond the Standard Model and studies allow for an improved understanding of the proton PDF. When top quarks are produced with large Lorentz boost their decay products tend to be more collimated and might escape standard reconstruction techniques, which exploit isolation. In particular, the hadronically decaying top quark is reconstructed as a single large-radius ($R$) jet. Jet substructure techniques are employed to identify such large-$R$ jets and tested for compatibility with top-quark decays. Measurements are performed with the full $8 {\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Te\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Te\kern -0.1em V}\fi}$ dataset. ATLAS selects jets with $R=1$ and measures differential [[$t\bar{t}$]{}]{}cross sections as a function of the top-quark [$p_{\rm T}$]{}both, at particle level in a fiducial region closely following the event selection and at parton level [@aboo]. The measurements have a threshold of $300 {\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi}$ and extend beyond $1 {\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Te\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Te\kern -0.1em V}\fi}$. Experimental uncertainties are of the order of $10$–$30\%$ and are dominated by the jet energy scale uncertainty of large-$R$ jets. Discrepancies between data and simulations observed at low-${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}\xspace}$ are in general confirmed in the boosted regime, although not statistically significant. Different PDF and parton-shower parameter settings can improve the agreement between data and simulation considerably (Fig. \[boosted\]). CMS performs a similar analysis with $R=0.8$ jets to extract normalised differential distributions starting from $400 {\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi}$ [@cboo]. Single-top quark production =========================== Besides the dominating pair-production of top quarks through the strong interaction, top quarks can also be produced singly via the weak vertex $Wtb$. There are three possible single top-quark production modes at leading order in perturbation theory: an exchange of a virtual $W$ boson either in the $t$-channel or in the $s$-channel, or the associated production of a top-quark and a $W$ boson. Much progress has been reported in the studies of single-top quark production in the three channels at Tevatron and LHC. In a final combination of the Tevatron datasets [@tevst] the inclusive single-top $t$-channel cross section is measured with a relative uncertainty of $13\%$. At the same time the $s$- and $t$-channel production cross sections are simultaneously extracted in a two-dimensional measurement. A likelihood fit is performed to the binned distribution of a discriminant, optimised to separate signal events from large background contributions and to separate $s$-channel and $t$-channel events. The two channels are sensitive to different new physics effects, as can be seen in Fig. \[tev-st\] and it is thus important to measure them separately. The $Wt$ channel remains unaccessible at the Tevatron. The large LHC dataset not only allows for precise measurements of the inclusive single top $t$-channel cross section at 7 and 8 [ ]{}, but also for the measurement of properties and differential distributions. The most recent measurement is performed by the CMS Collaboration, employing a neural network (NN) discriminator with variables like the pseudorapidity of the light quark jet or the invariant mass of the reconstructed top-quark candidate $m_{\ell\nu b}$ [@ctchan]. After a stringent requirement on the NN discriminator output, a good ratio $S/\sqrt{S+B}$ is achieved and normalised background-subtracted and unfolded distributions as a function of the top-quark [$p_{\rm T}$]{}and $\|y\|$ are shown to be in good agreement with NLO generators (Fig. \[t-channel8\]), using four- or five-flavour schemes (a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MC@NLO</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg</span>), as well as [$p_{\rm T}$]{}-matched samples, that simulate $2{\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace}2$ and $2{\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace}3$ processes (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">CompHEP</span>). At the LHC a measurement of the production in the $s$-channel is much more challenging, as it is suppressed by the requirement of a quark-antiquark pair in the colliding protons with sufficiently large $x$. Thus, while at Tevatron the expected ratio of $t$-to-$s$ production is 2, at LHC at $8 {\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Te\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Te\kern -0.1em V}\fi}$ this ratio is 15. Consequently the signal-to-background ratio in this channel is quite prohibitive at LHC. With the full dataset ATLAS performed a search for production in this channel [@aschan]. After event selection with one lepton and exactly two jets, both of which are $b$-tagged, the signal-to-background ratio is $3\%$. A boosted decision tree (BDT) classifier is trained with kinematic and topological variables. The most discriminating variables are the differences in azimuthal angle $\|\Delta \phi\|$ between the $b$-jet and the top-quark candidate. The BDT output distribution is used to extract the signal contribution using a maximum likelihood fit (Fig. \[s-channel\]). The observed significance of the measurement is found to be $1.3\,\sigma$ and the cross section is measured to be $\sigma_s = 5.0 \pm 4.3$ pb. Measurements of single top production in the $Wt$ channel at the LHC have been combined within the . In both cases the dilepton signature with one or two jets is exploited as it offers a good signal-to-background ratio. The final discrimination is obtained with BDTs. The CMS measurement uses all dilepton channels and a partial dataset, while the ATLAS measurement employs only the $e\mu$ channel and the full dataset. The total uncertainty of $23\%$ in each of the input measurements is reduced to $19\%$ in the combination, with small statistical uncertainties (Fig. \[st-combi\]). The uncertainty due to the matching of matrix element and parton shower and the choice of scales dominate the systematic uncertainty. Each measurement of single top production is in good agreement with the Standard Model expectation (Fig. \[st-combi\]) and can be separately interpreted in terms of a determination of the CKM matrix element [$\vert V_{tb} \vert$]{}. The Tevatron combination extracts a value of $1.02^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$, while at the LHC the measurements with the smallest uncertainties are derived from the CMS 7 and 8 [ ]{}combination for the $t$-channel ($1.00 \pm 0.04$) and the LHC combination for the $Wt$ channel ($1.06 \pm 0.11$). Associated production ===================== Several measurements of top-quark production in association with further particles have been performed. Recent observation, evidence or search for production of top quark pairs in association with photons, electroweak bosons, as well as heavy quarks have been reported and are discussed in the following. The production of [${{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}H$]{}is presented elsewhere [@sinead]. The production cross section of top-quark pairs with additional photons is sensitive to the [${{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}\gamma$]{} coupling and a measurement can be used to constrain new physics, for instance with composite or excited top quarks. With the full 7 [ ]{} dataset the ATLAS Collaboration reports observation of this process with a significance of $5.3\,\sigma$ [@attgam]. The measurement is performed in the single-lepton channel in a fiducial region, requiring an identified photon with $E_T > 20 {\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}\fi}$, isolated from jets and from leptons, in order to suppress the contribution of photons not radiated from top quarks. The cross section is extracted from a template fit to a variable that measures the track activity near the photon candidate (${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}\xspace}^{\mathrm{iso}}$) and discriminates between signal photons and neutral hadron decays or misidentified photons (Fig. \[ttgamma\]). With 362 selected events the fiducial cross section is measured with an uncertainty of $\sim 30\%$, dominated by uncertainties on the jet energy scale and $b$-tagging efficiency. At energies and luminosities available at the LHC the associated production of top-quark pairs with heavy vector bosons ($W$ or $Z$) become accessible. The production cross sections $\sigma_{{\ensuremath{{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}W}\xspace}}$ and $\sigma_{{\ensuremath{{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}Z}\xspace}}$ are simultaneously extracted in channels with two or more leptons, since the two processes are experimentally intertwined. The interest in the measurement of the [${{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}Z$]{} process lies in the determination of the top-quark coupling to the $Z$ boson. The [${{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}W$]{} process probes the proton structure and is a source of same-sign dilepton events, which is an important background in many searches. A variety of new physics models can alter the prediction of $\sigma_{{\ensuremath{{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}W}\xspace}}$ and $\sigma_{{\ensuremath{{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}Z}\xspace}}$ and their effects are typically parameterised by dimension-six operators in an effective field theory. Using four signatures (opposite-sign dilepton, same-sign dilepton, trilepton, and tetralepton) and performing a simultaneous maximum likelihood fit, ATLAS extracts both cross sections with a significance of $5.0\,\sigma$ and $4.2\,\sigma$, respectively, over the background-only hypothesis [@attv]. In the opposite-sign dilepton channel the signal-to-background ratio is particularly challenging and therefore control regions to determine the most important backgrounds from data are included in the fit and a neural network is employed in the signal regions. In the same-sign dilepton channel the contribution of fake leptons and charge misidentification is carefully studied. The tri- and tetralepton channels effectively measure the [${{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}Z$]{} contribution. Important irreducible Standard Model backgrounds that produce three or four leptons are diboson ($WZ$, $ZZ$) events, determined through fits in control regions, and associated single top quark production ($tZ$, $WtZ$). The measured cross sections are $\sigma_{{\ensuremath{{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}W}\xspace}} = 369^{+100}_{-91}$ fb and $\sigma_{{\ensuremath{{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}Z}\xspace}} = 176^{+58}_{-52}$ fb, with uncertainties dominated by the statistical component (Fig. \[ttV1\] top). CMS determines the cross sections of these processes, as well, with significances of $4.8\,\sigma$ and $6.4\,\sigma$, respectively [@cttv], using the same final states. The analysis strategy aims at reducing the statistical uncertainty by lowering the requirements on the reconstructed objects quality, at the expense of larger systematic uncertainties. A full reconstruction of pre-selected events is attempted, by matching the reconstructed objects in the detector to the decaying $W$ and $Z$ bosons, and to the top quark. A linear discriminant helps to determine the best permutation in matching jets and leptons. Signal is separated from background by means of several BDTs, one in each channel and jet multiplicity, which are trained with this discriminant and other kinematic quantities (Fig. \[ttV1\] bottom). The measured cross sections are $\sigma_{{\ensuremath{{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}W}\xspace}} = 382^{+117}_{-102}$ fb and $\sigma_{{\ensuremath{{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}Z}\xspace}} = 242^{+65}_{-55}$ fb. The result is then used to place constraints on the axial and vector components of the [${{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}Z$]{} coupling and on dimension-six operators in an effective field theory framework. Top-quark pairs are often produced with additional energetic jets. The measurement of such jet multiplicities provides an important test of the QCD predictions at NLO. Recently, the production of additional $b$-quarks has been studied. The ${{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}{{\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}}$ final state is an irreducible non-resonant background to the [${{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}H$]{}process and difficult to model in simulation because of ambiguities in the matching to the parton shower. CMS measures the total cross section $\sigma_{{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}{{\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}}}$ and the quantity ${\ensuremath{R_{\mathrm{HF}}}\xspace}= \frac{\sigma_{{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}{{\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}}}}{\sigma_{{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}\!j\!j}}$ in the dilepton [@ctthf] and single-lepton channels [@ctthf2]. In the first case, events with two well identified $b$-jets and at least two additional jets are required. The $b$-tagging algorithm discriminator of the third and fourth jet are used to separate ${{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}{{\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}}$ events from the background, including ${{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}\!j\!j$, with a template fit (Fig. \[ttbb\]). For the measurement in the single-lepton channel the jets from the top-quark decay are identified using a constrained kinematic fit and multivariate classifiers in different categories split by the jet multiplicity. Results range in ${\ensuremath{R_{\mathrm{HF}}}\xspace}= 0.012 - 0.022$, depending on the phase space and definition considered (particle or parton level) with uncertainties of $0.004 - 0.006$, and are in general in good agreement with predictions. ATLAS performs four measurements of heavy flavour production in top-quark pair events [@atthf] in a fiducial volume: a fit-based and a cut-based measurement of $\sigma_{{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}{{\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}}}$ in the dilepton channel, and cut-based measurements of $\sigma_{{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}b}$ in the dilepton and in the single-lepton channels. The ratio [$R_{\mathrm{HF}}$]{}is determined to be $0.013 \pm 0.004$ with comparable systematic and statistical uncertainties. The cut-based analysis uses very tight selection criteria, including the requirement of four $b$-tagged jets, relies on simulation for the background determination and features a high signal-to-background ratio. A looser selection is applied in the second analysis where the signal is extracted from a fit to the multivariate $b$-jet identification discriminant. More events are produced in the single-lepton channel, however this channel is affected by additional backgrounds, where a $W$ boson can produce a $c$ quark. The measurements are also presented after subtracting the expected contributions from electroweak processes ([${{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}W$]{}, [${{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}Z$]{}and [${{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}H$]{}) in order to allow for comparison with NLO QCD theory predictions. They are then compared to predictions using different $g{\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace}{{\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}}$ splitting in the parton shower. The most extreme <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pythia 8</span> model is disfavoured by the measurements (Fig. \[ttbb\]). The production of four top quarks is a rare process in the Standard Model, proceeding via gluon-gluon fusion or quark-antiquark annihilation and is predicted to have a total cross section of $\sim 1$ fb at $8 {\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Te\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Te\kern -0.1em V}\fi}$. The production can be significantly enhanced in BSM physics models and therefore ATLAS and CMS searched for evidence of production of this process. In a dedicated search [@ctttt] CMS selects events with one lepton, at least six jets and two $b$-tagged jets with large $H_{\mathrm{T}}$. Kinematic reconstruction techniques and multivariate discriminants are employed to place an upper limit on the production cross section. ATLAS analyses events with a pair of leptons with the same charge with at least one $b$-tagged jet and large $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ [@atttt] to search for enhancements in the four-top production or evidence of new physics. A search for vector-like quarks in the single-lepton channel by ATLAS [@atttt2] is reinterpreted and used to set the best limit, $\sigma_{{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}} < 23$ fb. Summary and conclusion ====================== Top-quark production measurements provide stringent tests of perturbative QCD and have reached a good level of maturity with the large data samples available. The inclusive top-quark pair production is measured at centre-of-mass energies of $1.96$, $7$ and $8$ [ ]{}, with an uncertainty of 4–5%, a better accuracy than the calculations at NNLO+NNLL. First measurements of the inclusive cross section are also available in the forward region and at $13$ [ ]{}, albeit with larger uncertainties. Differential measurements allow to test in more depth the validity of the calculations and the simulation programs that are used at hadron colliders. Results are reported after unfolding for detector effects, extrapolating to either the parton or particle level. The high-${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}\xspace}$ region is also explored, where top-quark decay products start to merge and so-called boosted techniques improve the reconstruction efficiency. In general, data and prediction match well, with some discrepancies that might arise from the limited accuracy in the calculations used in the simulation (NLO). Single-top quark production has now been observed in the $t$- and $s$-channels separately at Tevatron, while at the LHC the $Wt$ channel has been observed in a combination and the abundant $t$-channel allows for differential measurements. The CKM matrix element [$\vert V_{tb} \vert$]{}is determined with an uncertainty of $4\%$ and is compatible with unity. Associated production of top-quark pairs with additional bosons or quarks have smaller production cross sections and start to become accessible with the Run-1 dataset of LHC. Production of [${{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}\gamma$]{}, [${{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}W$]{}and [${{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}Z$]{}have all been observed, while upper limits are placed on ${{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}$. Understanding additional heavy-flavour production is important, for instance as a background to [${{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}H$]{}, and is therefore matter of detailed study. With the upcoming Run-2 dataset, to be collected at $13 {\ifmmode {\mathrm{\ Te\kern -0.1em V}}\else \textrm{Te\kern -0.1em V}\fi}$ in the next few years, it will be possible to challenge current calculations and simulations at a next level of precision. Acknowledgements ================ The work of the author is currently funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme ERC Grant Agreement n. 617185. [99]{} K. Melnikov, Theoretical Results on Top Quark Physics, talk at this conference, https://indico.cern.ch/event/325831/session/10/contribution/30. A. Meyer, Determination of Top Quark Properties, talk at this conference, https://indico.cern.ch/event/325831/session/10/contribution/32. T. Aaltonen [et al.]{} ([CDF and D0 Collaboration]{}s), Combination of measurements of the top-quark pair production cross section from the Tevatron Collider, [Phys. Rev. D]{} 89 (2014) 072001. [D0 Collaboration]{}, Measurement of the inclusive [[$t\bar{t}$]{}]{}production cross section in [[$p\bar{p}$]{}]{}collisions at $\sqrt{s}=1.96$ [ ]{}, D0 Note 6453-CONF, www-d0.fnal.gov/Run2Physics/WWW/results/prelim/TOP/T106. [ATLAS Collaboration]{}, Measurements of the top quark branching ratios into channels with leptons and quarks with the ATLAS detector, [Phys. Rev. D]{} 92 (2015) 072005. [ATLAS Collaboration]{}, Measurement of the top pair production cross section in 8 [ ]{} proton-proton collisions using kinematic information in the lepton+jets final state with ATLAS, [Phys. Rev. D]{} 91 (2015) 112013. [ATLAS and CMS Collaboration]{}s, Combination of ATLAS and CMS top quark pair cross section measurements in the $e\mu$ final state using proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ [ ]{}, [ATLAS-CONF-2014-054, http://inspirehep.net/record/1319552]{}, [CMS PAS TOP-14-016, http://inspirehep.net/record/1319376]{}. [ATLAS and CMS Collaboration]{}s, TOPLHCWG summary plots, twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCPhysics/TopLHCWGSummaryPlots. [LHCb Collaboration]{}, R. Aaij [et al.]{}, First observation of top quark production in the forward region, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} 115 (2015) 112001. B. Heinemann, ATLAS Results from Run2, talk at this conference, https://indico.cern.ch/event/325831/session/0/contribution/8. L. Malgeri, CMS Results from Run2, talk at this conference, . [ATLAS Collaboration]{}, Measurement of the [[$t\bar{t}$]{}]{}production cross-section in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ [ ]{} using $e\mu$ events with $b$-tagged jets, [ATLAS-CONF-2015-033, http://inspirehep.net/record/1385192]{}. [CMS Collaboration]{}, Measurement of the top quark pair production cross section in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ [ ]{}, [CMS PAS TOP-15-003, http://inspirehep.net/record/1388254]{}. [CMS Collaboration]{}, Measurement of the differential cross section for top quark pair production in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ [ ]{}, [submitted to [Eur. Phys. J. C]{}]{}, [arXiv:1505.04480 \[hep-ex\]]{}. [ATLAS Collaboration]{}, Differential top-antitop cross-section measurements as a function of observables constructed from final-state particles using pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ [ ]{} in the ATLAS detector, JHEP 06 (2015) 100. [ATLAS Collaboration]{}, Measurement of the differential cross-section of highly boosted top quarks as a function of their transverse momentum in $\sqrt{s} = 8$ [ ]{} proton-proton collisions using the ATLAS detector, [submitted to PRD]{}, [arXiv:1510.03818 \[hep-ex\]]{}. [CMS Collaboration]{}, Measurement of the differential [[$t\bar{t}$]{}]{}production cross section for high-[$p_{\rm T}$]{} top quarks in $e/\mu$+jets final states at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ [ ]{}, [CMS PAS TOP-14-012, http://inspirehep.net/record/1388555]{}. T. Aaltonen [et al.]{} ([CDF and D0 Collaboration]{}s), Tevatron combination of single-top-quark cross sections and determination of the magnitude of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element $V_{tb}$, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} 115 (2015) 152003. [CMS Collaboration]{}, Measurements of the differential cross section of single top-quark production in the $t$ channel in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ [ ]{}, [CMS PAS TOP-14-004, http://inspirehep.net/record/1323200]{}. [ATLAS Collaboration]{}, Search for $s$-channel single top-quark production in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ [ ]{} with the ATLAS detector, [Phys. Lett. B]{} 740 (2015) 118. [ATLAS and CMS Collaboration]{}s, Combination of cross-section measurements for associated production of a single top-quark and a $W$ boson at $\sqrt{s}=8$ [ ]{} with the ATLAS and CMS experiments, [ATLAS-CONF-2014-052, http://inspirehep.net/record/1319379]{} and [CMS PAS TOP-14-009, http://inspirehep.net/record/1319686]{}. S. Farrington, Results on the Standard Model Higgs boson, talk at this conference, https://indico.cern.ch/event/325831/contribution/11. [ATLAS Collaboration]{}, Observation of top-quark pair production in association with a photon and measurement of the [${{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}\gamma$]{}production cross section in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ [ ]{}using the ATLAS detector, [Phys. Rev. D]{} 91 (2015) 072007. [ATLAS Collaboration]{}, Measurement of the [${{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}W$]{}and [${{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}Z$]{}production cross sections in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ [ ]{} with the ATLAS detector, [accepted by JHEP]{}, [arXiv:1509.05276 \[hep-ex\]]{}. [CMS Collaboration]{}, Observation of top quark pairs produced in association with a vector boson in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ [ ]{}, [submitted to JHEP]{}, [arXiv:1510.01131 \[hep-ex\]]{}. [CMS Collaboration]{}, Measurement of the cross section ratio $\sigma_{{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}{{\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}}}/\sigma_{{{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}\!j\!j}$ in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ [ ]{}, [Phys. Lett. B]{} 746 (2015) 132. [CMS Collaboration]{}, Measurement of the ${{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}{{\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}}$ cross section and the ratio $\sigma({{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}{{\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}})/\sigma({{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}}\!j\!j)$ in the lepton+jets final state at 8 [ ]{} with the CMS detector, [CMS PAS TOP-13-016, http://inspirehep.net/record/1385669]{}. [ATLAS Collaboration]{}, Measurements of fiducial cross-sections for [[$t\bar{t}$]{}]{}production with one or two additional $b$-jets in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ [ ]{} using the ATLAS detector, [submitted to [Eur. Phys. J. C]{}]{}, [arXiv:1508.06868 \[hep-ex\]]{}. [CMS Collaboration]{}, Search for standard model production of four top quarks in the lepton + jets channel in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ [ ]{}, JHEP 11 (2014) 154. [ATLAS Collaboration]{}, Analysis of events with $b$-jets and a pair of leptons of the same charge in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ [ ]{} with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 10 (2015) 150. [ATLAS Collaboration]{}, Search for production of vector-like quark pairs and of four top quarks in the lepton-plus-jets final state in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ [ ]{} with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 08 (2015) 105. [^1]: on behalf of the ATLAS, CDF, CMS, D0 and LHCb Collaborations [^2]: Supported by European Research Council grant ERC–CoG–617185	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Free-running Fabry-Perot lasers normally operate in a single-mode regime until the pumping current is increased beyond the single-mode instability threshold, above which they evolve into a multimode state. As a result of this instability, the single-mode operation of these lasers is typically constrained to few percents of their output power range, this being an undesired limitation in spectroscopy applications. In order to expand the span of single-mode operation, we use an optical injection seed generated by an external-cavity single-mode laser source to force the Fabry-Perot quantum cascade laser into a single-mode state in the high current range, where it would otherwise operate in a multimode regime. Utilizing this approach we achieve single-mode emission at room temperature with a tuning range of $36 {\, \mathrm{cm}^{-1}}$ and stable continuous-wave output power exceeding 1 W at $4.5 {\, \upmu \mathrm{m}}$. Far-field measurements show that a single transverse mode is emitted up to the highest optical power indicating that the beam properties of the seeded Fabry-Perot laser remain unchanged as compared to free-running operation.' author: - Paul Chevalier - Marco Piccardo - Sajant Anand - 'Enrique A. Mejia' - Yongrui Wang - 'Tobias S. Mansuripur' - Feng Xie - Kevin Lascola - Alexey Belyanin - Federico Capasso title: 'Watt-level widely tunable single-mode emission by injection-locking of a multimode Fabry-Perot quantum cascade laser' --- Several spectroscopy applications, such as remote chemical sensing of atmospheric gases [@xie2012room], photoacoustic spectroscopy [@ma2013qepas] and real-time infrared imaging of living micro-organisms [@haase2016real], require short acquisition times or long-distance propagation, setting a demand for continuous wave (CW), high-power, single-mode lasers. Quantum cascade lasers [@faist1994quantum] (QCLs) have reached in the past years record CW power output[@figueiredo2017progress] with Fabry-Perot (FP) devices [@yao2010high; @lyakh2012tapered; @razeghi2014recent] emitting more than 5 W, and distributed-feedback (DFB) devices [@lu20112] emitting up to 2.4 W. FP lasers have the simplest cavity geometry consisting of only a waveguide and two reflective interfaces; however, since the cavity supports multimode operation, a FP-QCL does not remain single-mode over more than typically a few percent of its power output range [@mansuripur2016single]. On the other hand DFB lasers include gratings in their waveguide in order to support only single-mode operation; however, this comes at the cost of a more complex fabrication process, and their power output is usually lower than their FP counterparts. Careful engineering of the DFB grating also has to be done to ensure a proper single-lobe beam [@lu20112]. More recently, double-section devices consisting of a DFB QCL section coupled to an amplifier section [@rauter2015multi; @bismuto2016high] have been shown to emit up to 1 W single-mode under the appropriate driving conditions. However, tuning of the emission wavelength of DFB-based devices relies on controlling their temperature and results in a strong variation of the output power as a function of the tuned wavelength. In laser diodes, injection-locking has been used to control the spectral properties[@kobayashi1980injection; @goldberg1987injection; @kim2000low] of the device. This technique consists of injecting light from a master source into a slave laser to lock the spectral emission of the latter. Injection-locking has also been demonstrated in QCLs with mutually coupled Fabry-Perot and DFB lasers, allowing to achieve a total output power of the order of $40 {\, \mathrm{mW}}$ [@bogris2017mid], or to improve the stability of a QCL [@juretzka2015intensity; @taubman2004stabilization]. In this letter, we propose a different approach than DFB lasers, and obtain high-power single-mode emission from a FP-QCL by injecting an optical seed. We first discuss the limits of the single-mode regime of free-running FP-QCLs in relation to their facet coatings. Then by using an external cavity QCL, we demonstrate injection-locked single-mode operation of a FP laser, resulting in up to 1 W of optical power emitted by the laser at $4.5 {\, \upmu \mathrm{m}}$, with a tuning range of $36 {\, \mathrm{cm}^{-1}}$. The power of the optical seed coupled into the waveguide of the FP laser does not exceed few mW. An insight into the evolution from multimode emission to single-mode operation is provided by time-resolved space-time domain QCL simulations [@Wang:15]. Finally, far-field measurements are presented showing that the injected laser exhibits a single-lobe beam, indicating that the beam quality is not modified by this injection scheme. The typical spectral evolution observed in CW FP lasers is the following: just above threshold, the laser operates in single-mode; as the pumping current is further increased, the emission spectrum evolves into a multimode state (either a dense state with adjacent cavity modes populated or a harmonic state with modes separated by several cavity free spectral ranges). The evolution into a multimode state results from the single-mode instability and is explained by a combined effect of spatial hole burning and population pulsation nonlinearity [@mansuripur2016single]. ![\[fig:fig1\] Laser output power as a function of the driving current showing the range of each emission state of the laser (single-mode or multimode). The plot compares the power curves of an uncoated laser and a HR/AR-coated laser, with identical active regions and ridge geometries. Inset: Output spectrum for the HR/AR laser plotted at two driving currents corresponding to the single-mode and multimode dense regime ($850 {\, \mathrm{mA}}$ and $1200 {\, \mathrm{mA}}$, respectively). ](figure1){width="37.00000%"} In Fig. 1 we plot the total output power curve of two FP lasers (cavity length: $6 \, \mathrm{mm}$, width: $5 {\, \upmu \mathrm{m}}$) fabricated from the same process and which differ only in the facet coatings. One laser has uncoated facets while the other has anti-reflective (AR, $R \approx 1\%$) and highly-reflective (HR, $R \approx 99\%$) coatings on each respective facet. In this figure we emphasize the dynamic range of the single-mode regime (red part of the curve) and that of the multimode regime (gray part of the curve). In the inset of Fig. 1, the spectra of the HR/AR coated laser in single-mode (pumping current: $850 {\, \mathrm{mA}}$) and multimode (pumping current: $ 1200 {\, \mathrm{mA}}$) regime are shown. The power-current curves also show that the laser with HR/AR coatings remains single-mode over a broader range of emitted power (up to $450 {\, \mathrm{mW}}$) than the uncoated laser (up to approximately $100 {\, \mathrm{mW}}$ per facet). This behavior was explained in the theoretical study reported in Ref. : the HR/AR coatings transform the standing-wave cavity into more of a traveling-wave cavity, thus the single-mode instability occurs at a higher current. ![image](figure2){width="80.00000%"} The previous characterization shows that the free-running FP laser does not remain single-mode for the complete extent of its power range due to the occurrence of the single-mode instability. In order to broaden the power range of single-mode operation, our approach consists of injecting a light seed generated by a tunable single-mode laser into the cavity of the FP-QCL to prevent its operation in a multimode regime. The schematic of the experimental setup is shown in Fig. 2(a). The FP device is the HR/AR laser presented in Fig. 1. Its emitted light is collimated using an off-axis parabolic mirror (diameter $12.7 {\, \mathrm{mm}}$, focal length $15 {\, \mathrm{mm}}$) and sent into a Fourier transform infrared spectrometer (FTIR, Bruker 70). Light from a tunable external cavity (EC) QCL is coupled into the FP-QCL at a $34^{\circ}$ angle by another off-axis parabolic mirror (diameter $50 {\, \mathrm{mm}}$, focal length $50 {\, \mathrm{mm}}$). The EC-QCL is a commercial laser (41045-HHG, Daylight Solutions) whose single-mode output can be tuned between $2170 {\, \mathrm{cm}^{-1}}$ and $2320 {\, \mathrm{cm}^{-1}}$ with a maximum output power of $350 {\, \mathrm{mW}}$. The coupling efficiency of the injection setup was estimated using the FP-QCL as a mid-infrared detector and comparing the voltage across it resulting from the injection of EC-QCL light at normal and oblique incidence. Assuming that the relative change in QCL responsivity among the two configurations is equal to the relative change in coupling efficiency, and assuming a unity coupling efficiency at normal incidence (a generous estimate considering that the focusing is not diffraction-limited, giving a focal spot larger than the waveguide size), we deduce an upper bound for the coupling efficiency at a $34^{\circ}$ angle of $1.25 \%$, resulting in at most $4.4 {\, \mathrm{mW}}$ of optical power coupled into the FP device. This experimental arrangement, in which light is injected at an angle, despite its low coupling efficiency, was chosen to reduce the amount of light sent into EC-QCL by the FP-QCL, thus providing an effective optical isolation scheme. Additionally a beam stopper mounted on a computer-controlled stage was added on the beam path of the EC-QCL to allow or block injection of light into the FP-QCL. The injected beam was blocked every time the emission wavelength and power of the EC QCL was tuned or when the current of the FP laser was changed. The EC-QCL was tuned to $2235 {\, \mathrm{cm}^{-1}}$ and the pump current of the FP laser was progressively increased above $1 \, \mathrm{A}$. At each current step the light from the EC-QCL was unblocked, then the emission spectrum of the FP-QCL was measured and finally the light was blocked again. When the FP-QCL current reached $1050 {\, \mathrm{mA}}$ we measured a single-mode spectrum as shown in the inset of Fig. 2(a). The output power of the FP-QCL at this pumping current was slightly above 1 W. To assess the stability of such a single-mode state, the beam from the EC-QCL was successively blocked and unblocked multiple times while the emission spectrum of the FP-QCL was measured. The FP-QCL always returned to a multimode state (spectrum shown in the inset of Fig. 2(a)) after the seed was blocked. The emission spectrum of the FP-QCL became single-mode again after the beam was unblocked, thus showing the repeatability and reversibility of the process. We also studied the influence of the injected power on single-mode operation while maintaining the FP-QCL current at $1050 {\, \mathrm{mA}}$. The injected power was adjusted between $0.36 {\, \mathrm{mW}}$ and $3.4 {\, \mathrm{mW}}$: below $0.46 {\, \mathrm{mW}}$ only multimode operation of the FP-QCL was observed. Above this critical power we were able to lock the laser into a single-mode, and as the injected power was increased up to $3.4 {\, \mathrm{mW}}$, the measured output intensity did not increase. In order to understand the underlying physics of the observed single-mode behavior, the transition from multimode to single-mode in the FP-QCL upon optical injection should be analyzed. While such measurement is experimentally challenging, the transient regime can be studied by space- and time-domain simulations of the FP-QCL in presence of an optical seed. The model used is described in Ref. and the characteristic parameters are: the coupling energy between the injector state and the upper laser state: $\mathrm{\Omega=2.25\,meV}$, the lifetime from the upper laser state to the lower laser state: $\mathrm{T_{ul}=1\,ps}$, the lifetime from the upper laser state to the ground state: $\mathrm{T_{ug}=3\,ps}$, the lifetime from the lower laser state to the ground state: $\mathrm{T_{lg}=0.1\,ps}$, the dephasing time for the polarization between upper and lower laser states: $\mathrm{T_2=0.05\,ps}$, the diffusion coefficient for electrons in each state $\mathrm{D}=46 \, \mathrm{cm^2/s}$, the cavity losses: $\mathrm{l_w=5\,cm^{-1}}$, the mode overlap: $\mathrm{\Gamma=0.5}$, the facet reflection coefficients: $\mathrm{R_l=1}$ and $\mathrm{R_r=0.1}$. The other parameters of the model are the same as in Ref. and a schematic of the energy levels of the active region can be seen in Fig. 1(a) therein. The seed has an amplitude of 1.0 kV/cm, a frequency detuning of 0.32THz, and is turned on at $\mathrm{t}=0$. Before that, the laser operates in a dense multimode state (see Fig. 2(b)). The laser evolves into single-mode state in about 200 roundtrips, as shown in Fig. 2(b) (Multimedia view). Based on the simulation, we explain the dynamics of the optically-injected FP-QCL as follows. As the power of the seed is chosen to be slightly larger than that of the lasing modes reflected from the AR facet, the seed, which propagates as a running wave, competes with other longitudinal modes. This leads to the depletion of the gain of other longitudinal modes (see, for instance, Fig. 2(b), $t=120\tau_{\mathrm{RT}}$) and suppresses them, so that a single-mode regime may be established after many round-trips. The scheme presented here is similar to injection-locking as described in Ref., however, when compared to the text-book case of injection-locking, our FP-QCL emits a multimode state when it is not optically injected. ![\[fig:fig3\] Measured single-mode emission spectra from the FP-laser for different tuning ranges of the EC-QCL: (a) Bottom: Tuning the emission of the FP laser over a range $36 {\, \mathrm{cm}^{-1}}$. Top: Intensity of the single-mode emission plotted on a linear scale as a function of the emission wavenumber showing a variation of less than 20% over $36 {\, \mathrm{cm}^{-1}}$. (b) Tuning the emission of the FP laser by steps of $0.5 {\, \mathrm{cm}^{-1}}$. (c) Tuning the emission of the FP laser by $0.15 {\, \mathrm{cm}^{-1}}$. ](figure3){width="38.00000%"} The emission of the FP-QCL can be experimentally tuned over a range of $36{\, \mathrm{cm}^{-1}}$ using the following protocol. First the EC-QCL has to be set to the desired emission frequency. Then the pumping current of the FP-QCL is adjusted in order to thermally-tune the position of the cavity modes, so that the injected seed corresponds to one of them. By applying this tuning protocol, we demonstrate in Fig. 3(a-c) the tuning range of the injection-locked single-mode operation. Even if the injection-locked scheme allows to tune the emission of the FP-laser close to one of its mode frequencies, the latter can be tuned by adjusting the pumping current, thus allowing any arbitrary single-mode frequency to be emitted without significant variation of the output power. In Fig. 3(a) the output spectra of the FP-QCL are shown for various emission wavenumbers of the EC-QCL: this plot shows that upon injection of the single-mode from the EC-QCL, the output spectrum of the FP-QCL can be tuned over $36 {\, \mathrm{cm}^{-1}}$ while remaining single-mode. The top part of Fig. 3(a) shows the intensity single-mode emission on a linear scale as a function of the emitted wavenumber. We show in Fig. 3(b) (respectively in Fig. 3(c)) that the emission wavelength of the FP-QCL can be tuned with smaller steps: five different modes separated by $0.5 {\, \mathrm{cm}^{-1}}$ (respectively two modes separated by $0.15 {\, \mathrm{cm}^{-1}}$) were produced using different driving conditions of the lasers. For all the tuning experiments, the value of the FP-QCL current was set between $1050 {\, \mathrm{mA}}$ and $1100 {\, \mathrm{mA}}$ in order to safely operate the laser well below its roll-over, still these values were sufficient to demonstrate a single-mode operation with a 1 W output power. ![\[fig:fig4\] Measurement of the far-field radiation of the laser in the single-mode state, and in free-running mode at the same driving current ($1050 {\, \mathrm{mA}}$): (a) far field measured in the transverse plane; (b) far field measured in the longitudinal plane. The arrow indicates the peak of intensity due to the reflected seed on the facet of the FP-QCL. ](figure4){width="37.00000%"} Since the EC-QCL light is injected at an angle by the off-axis parabolic mirror, we wanted to determine whether this scheme causes the FP-laser to emit light into higher-order transverse modes, thus degrading the beam quality. To characterize the beam, we then measured the far-field emission of the FP-QCL in both free-running and injection-locked single-mode regime. The FP-QCL was driven by a current of $1085 {\, \mathrm{mA}}$ and injection-locked at $2235 {\, \mathrm{cm}^{-1}}$. The collimating parabolic mirror (see Fig. 2(a)) was removed and the far-field radiation was measured in the transverse plane (blue curve in Fig. 4(a)) and in the longitudinal plane (blue curve in Fig. 4(b)) by using a thermoelectrically-cooled HgCdTe photodetector (Vigo PVI-4TE). The same measurements were repeated with the EC-QCL turned-off to measure the far-field of the FP-QCL without injection (red curves in Fig. 4). The two far-field profiles do not show significant changes except for a peak (see arrow in Fig. 4(b)) in the longitudinal plane around $34 {^\circ}$ corresponding to the light from the EC-QCL reflected by FP-QCL facet. This measurement shows that even if the injection is at oblique incidence, the single-mode operation induced by the technique reported here corresponds to the fundamental transverse mode (TM$_{00}$) of the FP-QCL waveguide. Compared to other integrated systems using a DFB master oscillator and generating similar or higher power[@lu20112; @bismuto2016high], our technique ensures that the maximum power of the FP laser is extracted over the whole emission range ($36 {\, \mathrm{cm}^{-1}}$) into single-mode emission, whereas the tuning of a DFB master oscillator only achieves a narrower tuning thanks to a significant variation of the temperature and thus results in uneven power over the emission range. To conclude, we demonstrated here a method to achieve, through optical injection, powerful and widely-tunable single-mode operation of a FP-QCL, a system that would otherwise emit a multimode spectrum. The single-mode operation was achieved with a total output power of 1 W by injecting less than 1 mW of light into the slave laser and was demonstrated over a range of $36 {\, \mathrm{cm}^{-1}}$ (between $2206 {\, \mathrm{cm}^{-1}}$ and $2242 {\, \mathrm{cm}^{-1}}$). Insight into the evolution of the laser upon optical injection was provided by time-resolved space-time domain QCL simulations. The proposed scheme is not necessarily limited to a tabletop setup: one may envision realizing a compact source by using an array of DFB lasers all injected into a single FP-QCL, where the emission wavelength of the DFBs can be adapted to the targeted spectral range. In such configuration the master and the slave lasers will work in tandem, since the FP-QCL would provide high optical power and coupling through a single device and the DFB array the necessary wavelengths. This work was supported by the DARPA SCOUT program through Grant No. W31P4Q-16-1-0002. We acknowledge support from the National Science Foundation under Award No. ECCS-1614631. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering or of the National Science Foundation. We thank D. Kazakov for a careful reading of this manuscript. [20]{}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 [**, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} in @noop []{} (, ) pp. @noop [**, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} [, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OE.23.004173) @noop []{} (, , )	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Improved knowledge of the nucleon structure is a crucial pathway toward a deeper understanding of the fundamental nature of the QCD interaction, and will enable important future discoveries. The experimental facilities proposed for the next decade offer a tremendous opportunity to advance the precision of our theoretical predictions to unprecedented levels. In this report we briefly highlight some of the recently developed tools and techniques which, together with data from these new colliders, have the potential to revolutionize our understanding of the QCD theory in the next decade.' address: - \| ${}^{a}$Department of Physics, Southern Methodist University,\ Dallas, TX 75275-0175, U.S.A. - '${}^{b}$Jefferson Lab, EIC Center, Newport News, VA 23606, U.S.A.' author: - 'T. J. Hobbs,${}^{a,b}$ Pavel M. Nadolsky,${}^{a}$ Fredrick I. Olness,${}^{a}$[^1] Bo-Ting Wang${}^{a}$' bibliography: - './Biblio/main.bib' - './Biblio/extra.bib' title: 'Probing Nuclear Structure with Future Colliders[^2]' --- We are grateful to our colleagues of the CTEQ-TEA, nCTEQ, and xFitter collaborations. We also thank the Institute for Nuclear Theory at the University of Washington for its kind hospitality and stimulating research environment. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. [D]{}[E]{}-SC0010129 and DE-FG02-00ER41132. The research of TJH is supported by an EIC Center@JLab Fellowship. [^1]: Presenter. [^2]: Contribution to The Institute for Nuclear Theory Program INT-18-3: “Probing Nucleons and Nuclei in High Energy Collisions." October 1 - November 16, 2018	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.